# Sentenced to life in prison ....



## Fern (Aug 23, 2013)

A US army staff sergeant sentenced to life imprisonment for the killing of innocent Afghans. I have some empathy for the guy being in a war zone for 10years, after all that time surely there would be times when it would be hard to not lose sight of reality. Joining the forces and going into a war zone for any length of time must have an adverse affect on quite a few. Sure they are trained to 'cope', but just how much can the human mind take before it 'snaps' even if only momentarily.
While I can understand the wrath of the families left behind a certain amount of empathy is required from them, he was afterall, along with thousands of other military personnel, fighting their war for them.



> The  US soldier who massacred 16 Afghan civilians last year in one  of the  worst atrocities of the Iraq and Afghanistan has been sentenced   to life in prison with no chance of parole.
> Staff  Sgt. Robert Bales, 40, who pleaded guilty in June in a deal  to avoid  the death penalty, showed no emotion as the verdict was  announced at  Joint Base Lewis-McChord south of Seattle.
> Bales'  mother, sitting in the front row of the court, bowed her  head, rocked  in her seat, and wept. An interpreter flashed a thumbs-up  sign to a row  of Afghan villagers who were either wounded or lost  family members in  the March 11, 2012 attacks.
> Bales  never offered an explanation for why he armed himself with a 9  mm  pistol and an M-4 rifle and left his post on the killing mission,  but he  apologized on the witness stand Thursday and described the  slaughter as  an "act of cowardice, behind a mask of fear, bulls--- and  bravado."
> ...


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 23, 2013)

I think it's a shame that he received such a severe sentencing really.  I'm surprised anyone wants to be in the military, one mistake and they're treated like the scum of the earth.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 23, 2013)

> Prosecutors  laying out the case for a life term, argued that Bales'   own  "stomach-churning" words demonstrated that he knew exactly what he   was  doing when he walked to the two nearby villages, shooting 22   people in  all - *17 of them women and children,* some of them as they   screamed for  help, others as they slept.



Sorry but that's cold blooded murder regardless of who did it or the state of his mind.  I'm a bit 'old testament' I guess but to me someone prone to 'snap' like that is best kept out of everyday society.  It's sad for sure, all round, but I have to extend most of my sympathy to the women and kids who suffered for his inability to cope with, or request removal from the situation. 

Even had it been men only he killed I could move a little on it, but women and kids??  What kind of soldier thinks that way?  Safer locked up, treated, and kept out of harm's way.

Ask yourself this:  had it been a Taliban 'soldier' who murdered "22   people in  all - *17 of them women and children," *in an American, NZ,  Australian, or UK,  town would you extend the same understanding forgiveness?  They must be all pretty 'shell shocked' by now too. Just sayin'.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 23, 2013)

What Di said. Homicide can be lawful depending on the circumstances but this was murder, and mass murder in cold blood at that.
The US army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan, who shot dead 13 people at a Texas army base in 2009 will probably be executed. Staff  Sgt. Robert Bales pleaded guilty to multiple counts of murder to avoid the death penalty. I'm wondering what sort of lesser penalty people think he should get for his crimes?


----------



## That Guy (Aug 24, 2013)

Just one small example of what goes on in war . . .    Send in the politicians to do their own dirty work.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 24, 2013)

I'm of a split mind on this. A soldier is trained to kill, they're expected to kill and they're ordered to kill. Then when they do they're sentenced to life in prison.

Yes, I realize the majority of them were women and children, but there's always a story within the story. Maybe he DID just snap, but as any vet could tell you the enemy doesn't always wear a uniform.

If he did indeed snap then I'm not surprised. All due respect to the vets here and everywhere else, when you join the service you should know what you're ultimately going to be ordered to do. If he joined the service thinking it was going to be quick and easy service, put in his time and then collect a nice benefits package after his discharge then he joined for the wrong reasons.

Yet what are the recruiters offering? Education, jobs, pensions, medical, dental ... especially in this economy it appears as a life-line for any kid without prospects. I'm not up on the admissions testing for the services but I somehow don't think they'll turn down too many for psychological reasons.

One alternate is that he _wanted_ to do this, for whatever messed-up reasons he had in his mind. In that case he deserves the sentence. But if it was a case of becoming overwhelmed by the horror of war then no, he shouldn't serve life.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 24, 2013)

I stand to be corrected but  ....  





> Bales  never offered an explanation for* why he armed himself with a 9   mm  pistol and an M-4 rifle and left his post on the killing mission,*   but he  apologized on the witness stand Thursday and described the   slaughter as  an "act of cowardice, behind a mask of fear, bulls--- and   bravado."


 ... indicates to me that it wasn't done in the 'heat of battle'. 

 It wasn't a matter of 'mistaking them for the enemy'.  It appears a premeditated act. It was murder.   That it was insanity, momentary or long term is irrelevant. Murder is always an indication of mental derangement to some degree. Mass murderers indicate a higher degree.   He is a danger to more than his own society. As I said, I'm 'old testament', safer to swallow emotional considerations and put this man away than to risk more innocent lives at a later date, not only to society at large but to other troops.  

This has the propensity to cause the deaths of many more soldiers out of sheer revenge in Afghanistan.   Civilians who may have stood and cheered them off may instead be motivated to 'murder' them with a sniper rifle in revenge. They are already fighting the Taliban, it is not a good idea to also antagonize the very people the troops are there to 'protect' from them.  

 They are very big on revenge over there, to indicate that their civilians murdered by this man are of no importance, and that no justice is done for them puts a further undue risk on his fellow soldiers still over there.  Wasn't this whole 'War on Terror', and all it's costs in lives to free the women from subjugation and drag the culture into our perception of enlightened Justice and Democracy?  

So is his mental well being and our sympathy for him more important than any of those considerations?  He's not worth that.

Serial killers get little slack cut for them.  Mass murderers who 'go postal' are locked away because they're psychos, not because they're 'evil'.    The temptation to extend special mitigating excuses to this man because he is a soldier is understandable, but emotionally and tactically mistaken. 

  Think for a moment of the riots that ensure when a cop  'snaps' and blows some underaged hoodlum away for probably far better reason than this soldier had for offing children. 

  The cop doesn't load up in his lounge room and coldly go hunting the young hoodlum, he shoots him in a heated situation, but is still pilloried in the media and by the part of society the hoodlum springs from.  The cops then have a whole neighbourhood to cope with instead of just a single hoodlum.  Familiar scenario?

It's hard to stretch that notion that 'the enemy doesn't always wear uniform' when it's a little kid.  Yes, I heard the stories too of kids being used by the Viet Cong,  but these kids weren't infiltrating the base, or threatening a patrol.  He went out looking for them, in their own homes, and he did it alone!   He wasn't by any stretch of mitigation under attack from them and their mothers. 
 Let's get a little 'real' about this.


----------



## Jillaroo (Aug 24, 2013)

_Well written Diwundrin_  :iagree:


----------



## That Guy (Aug 24, 2013)

Getting real about it means realizing what war does to people.  I'm not excusing him but, unfortunately, understand all to well what goes on.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 24, 2013)

We understand that too TG,  but there is sometimes more at stake than merits allowing our pity to overcome our logic. 
'For the greater good' in this instance I believe.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 25, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> I stand to be corrected but  ....   ... indicates to me that it wasn't done in the 'heat of battle'.



The heat of battle often lasts long after the fighting stops. In fact, it's often hotter afterwards.



> It wasn't a matter of 'mistaking them for the enemy'.  It appears a premeditated act. It was murder.   That it was insanity, momentary or long term is irrelevant. Murder is always an indication of mental derangement to some degree. Mass murderers indicate a higher degree.   He is a danger to more than his own society. As I said, I'm 'old testament', safer to swallow emotional considerations and put this man away than to risk more innocent lives at a later date, not only to society at large but to other troops.



And whom do we have to thank for his training? For his weapons? For sending him over there in the first place and putting him in that situation?

How about spreading the blame a little, especially since it's so justified in a case like this?




> This has the propensity to cause the deaths of many more soldiers out of sheer revenge in Afghanistan.   Civilians who may have stood and cheered them off may instead be motivated to 'murder' them with a sniper rifle in revenge. They are already fighting the Taliban, it is not a good idea to also antagonize the very people the troops are there to 'protect' from them.



You know, I don't really care if this sounds racist or whatever the current term is, but put a member of the Taliban next to your "average" Afghani and the average American is going to be hard-put to tell them apart. It's like being able to differentiate between a Protestant and a Catholic just by looking at them. 

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but in war some of _theirs_ dies and some of _ours_ dies. Women and children? It was their bad luck to be born in that place, and to be present when this guy went crazy. If that region's religious mores are truly held they shouldn't repay death with more death, but I wouldn't make any bets on their pacifistic tendencies..



> Wasn't this whole 'War on Terror', and all it's costs in lives to free the women from subjugation and drag the culture into our perception of enlightened Justice and Democracy?



No. It was about what ALL wars are about - power, money and politics. Nothing more.



> So is his mental well being and our sympathy for him more important than any of those considerations?  He's not worth that.



Sure. Throw him away and then tomorrow we can protest over the harsh treatment of vets. Sorry, that doesn't sit right with me.



> Serial killers get little slack cut for them.  Mass murderers who 'go postal' are locked away because they're psychos, not because they're 'evil'.    The temptation to extend special mitigating excuses to this man because he is a soldier is understandable, but emotionally and tactically mistaken.



TOTALLY different set of circumstances. Different pressures. Different motivations.



> Think for a moment of the riots that ensure when a cop  'snaps' and blows some underaged hoodlum away for probably far better reason than this soldier had for offing children.
> 
> The cop doesn't load up in his lounge room and coldly go hunting the young hoodlum, he shoots him in a heated situation, but is still pilloried in the media and by the part of society the hoodlum springs from.  The cops then have a whole neighbourhood to cope with instead of just a single hoodlum.  Familiar scenario?



A somewhat familiar scenario, granted. But once again, very different. Police are only supposed to use lethal force as a last resort. Soldiers use it as their everyday go-to solution.

And in that situation, who does the rioting? Mainly others who would themselves have blown the cop away for far less. Who did most of the screaming and threatening during the Zimmerman case? The same people that ALWAYS do it - the trouble-makers and rabble-rousers. The malcontents. The ones who wouldn't know justice or equal rights if it was served them on a silver platter.  



> It's hard to stretch that notion that 'the enemy doesn't always wear uniform' when it's a little kid.  Yes, I heard the stories too of kids being used by the Viet Cong,  but these kids weren't infiltrating the base, or threatening a patrol.  He went out looking for them, in their own homes, and he did it alone!   He wasn't by any stretch of mitigation under attack from them and their mothers.
> Let's get a little 'real' about this.



He wasn't physically under attack, but in stressful times even friends can become enemies in your eyes. I was once involved in a heated tussle when I was a bouncer in NYC; several guys were coming at me and I had to move instinctively, without thought. I had taken out most of them and was facing two more when a hand grabbed my shoulder from behind. Without thought I broke the elbow with a captured-joint strike and kept on with the other two.

It was only 5 minutes after the scramble had ended did it sink in that the elbow I broke belonged to a friend of mine who was trying to pull me away from the last two guys. 

The point is, under "combat conditions" (which, once again, do not neatly end when the last bullet is fired) a trained fighter is going to respond in a manner that is understood by few and approved of by less, but it's what keeps them alive. 

I'm not saying what he did was right; I'm saying what he did was what he was _trained_ to do. There's an old and well-used saying in the martial arts world - _You fight like you train_. At a certain level you no longer voluntarily control certain responses, because control means hesitation and that's a deadly failing in combat. I've always told my partners never to wake me up suddenly by shaking my shoulder or poking me in the ribs, because my reactions have been trained all my life to respond to just such stimuli, usually in a very nasty way. It's the replacement of social conditioning with instinctive movement, and not everyone can handle the consequences once they achieve it.


----------



## Katybug (Aug 25, 2013)

My Lai massacre = 350 - 500 (approx) and Lt. Calley ended up with a life in prison sentence, later reduced to house arrest.  I'm sure all of us remember that tragedy.  I always thought he was following orders and took the blame.  In spite of his actions, I strongly defended him, but perhaps I was wrong.   War is pure hell for everyone involved, so many innocent lives lost all the time, and this happening again makes me sick to my stomach.


----------



## That Guy (Aug 25, 2013)




----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 25, 2013)

You are looking at the situation on an emotional level and that's understandable and it's indisputably the trauma that triggered his actions... but...  we have to think beyond the rights and wrongs of it sometimes.  It's fine to stand on your principles when it only affects you, but to stand on them at the risk of other people is a whole different thing.  There's a big difference between doing the right thing on a local level, and being able to do it in the filthy business of War and Diplomacy.  It just can't operate like that.   Justice must be seen to be done.  

Won't do a fancy quote thing just a list of quasi answer will have to do,

Don't worry about sounding racist, I get accused of that all the time and I feel much the same way about them.  I wouldn't miss the whole of the Middle East if it vanished overnight, but it isn't about feelings, it's about keeping the lid on Afgho until we can get the Hell out of there with some modicum of dignity left and with as many survivors as possible.  There are still a lot of our boys over there too.

Sympathy for one man's brain snap isn't worth the ramifications his freedom could ignite.  At least he's alive, too many aren't and too many more won't be before this is over.
I'm not arguing the right or wrong of it, just the necessity of it.

It's a big difference to being involved in a bar fight and getting carried away,  to deliberately going out armed to teeth in your spare time  to take out a few civilians.
I don't care what his training was supposed to do I hardly think it included that.  

He's damaged, traumatized, but in a very dangerous way.  So are psychos who go postal. They might be damaged for a different reason, but the victims don't care much about that.
I've known enough vets to know that they're all damaged to some extent, that's not at issue.  This is a case under global scrutiny and if the US is to retain any credibility for the position it takes as 'world's policeman' then it can't afford to let this guy off scot free.  That's the reality of global politics. Like it or not.




> Police are only supposed to use lethal force as a last resort. Soldiers use it as their everyday go-to solution.



Well, I sure hope you're wrong about that go-to solution thing if that's all their training equips them for.   
Not all cops or soldiers are saints, nor are they all able to cope with stress at the same levels.  To forgive one for snapping but vilify the other is a bit 'emotional'.

If the pressures of war is an excusable reason to indulge in civilian massacres then I presume you forgive the Taliban types too?  They've been at it for centuries, from the time they can lift a rifle and I think we agree they're all nut jobs over there right?  Pat em all on the head and open up Gitmo?? 

This is just semantics, there's a million little points that could get into it.  We see the same things but from a different viewpoint.  I agree with most of what you say on a personal level but just want to point out that this is a bigger issue than 'personal'.

I'm at odds with what's 'right' and what's 'logical' too.  It's like that bugger Assange, I can't decide whether to pin a medal on him or shoot him.
Too complex, too many ifs and maybes, too many rights and wrongs to it.  ... and I think about things too much and too deep sometimes. It'd be easier to just see the surface and not wonder about the reasons for what's going on below it I guess.

I'm off for a sleep before I get myself into any more trouble.  Night all.


----------



## That Guy (Aug 25, 2013)

Well said.  Thanks for taking the time and effort to put it so eloquently.


----------



## That Guy (Aug 25, 2013)

Please read or see the movie based on the book "A Rumor of War" by Philip Caputo.  Makes a very powerful statement from beginning to end on just this topic.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 25, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> You are looking at the situation on an emotional level...



Not really. I'm one of the least emotional people you'll ever meet. I'm just trying to figure out why one guy is singled out for severe punishment and so many of the other bad-guys walk.




> Don't worry about sounding racist, I get accused of that all the time and I feel much the same way about them.  I wouldn't miss the whole of the Middle East if it vanished overnight, but it isn't about feelings, it's about keeping the lid on Afgho until we can get the Hell out of there with some modicum of dignity left and with as many survivors as possible.  There are still a lot of our boys over there too.



So let me make sure I'm getting this right: we go over and basically invade a country because we're "hunting terrorists" in the name of Mom and apple pie, we kill a bunch of people - innocent AND guilty - and then all of a sudden when the defecation impacts upon the rotary air-moving device we start to talk about "dignity"?

... yeah, that's what I thought. Closing the barn door after the horse gets out. Typical.



> Sympathy for one man's brain snap isn't worth the ramifications his freedom could ignite.  At least he's alive, too many aren't and too many more won't be before this is over.
> I'm not arguing the right or wrong of it, just the necessity of it.



I agree that, with the way the system is presently set up, it IS a necessity. I'm arguing more against the system itself. 



> It's a big difference to being involved in a bar fight and getting carried away,  to deliberately going out armed to teeth in your spare time  to take out a few civilians.
> I don't care what his training was supposed to do I hardly think it included that.



The point I was trying to make is that after a while you can't tell the good guys from the bad. They all look the same. And, if you're already standing on psychologically swampy ground to begin with, it's just a quick step over the line.



> He's damaged, traumatized, but in a very dangerous way.  So are psychos who go postal. They might be damaged for a different reason, but the victims don't care much about that.



Very true.



> I've known enough vets to know that they're all damaged to some extent, that's not at issue.  This is a case under global scrutiny and if the US is to retain any credibility for the position it takes as 'world's policeman' then it can't afford to let this guy off scot free.  That's the reality of global politics. Like it or not.



I think the U.S. lost its credibility in MANY areas a long time ago. The politicians just refuse to acknowledge the fact.




> Well, I sure hope you're wrong about that go-to solution thing if that's all their training equips them for.
> Not all cops or soldiers are saints, nor are they all able to cope with stress at the same levels.  To forgive one for snapping but vilify the other is a bit 'emotional'.



I still don't get where emotion is coming into this. 

Police are trained, at least they USED to be trained, to arrest the offenders with as little force as possible. That's why they're taught joint-locks, come-along holds, use handcuffs and plastic ties, rubber bullets, tear gas and mace, etc. They are authorized to use anything up to and including deadly force. It's a wide spectrum of possible responses with emphasis given to the lower end (non-violent).

Soldiers are taught - again, at least they USED to be - to kill. That's it. Now I'll be the first to admit that many parts of the modern service are becoming peace-keepers rather than warriors, but the training - and the potential - is still there. Bare-hand techniques occupy a very low level in the military these days - you rarely even see the guy you're killing. Remote-control death. No more up-close and personal. Empty a clip into him, just to make sure. Overkill is the word.

Two totally different scenarios. In one you are told to resort to lethal force as a last resort. In the other you are trained specifically, and almost exclusively, to use that level of force from the get-go.



> If the pressures of war is an excusable reason to indulge in civilian massacres then I presume you forgive the Taliban types too?  They've been at it for centuries, from the time they can lift a rifle and I think we agree they're all nut jobs over there right?  Pat em all on the head and open up Gitmo??



One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter. 'Twas always thus. 



> This is just semantics, there's a million little points that could get into it.  We see the same things but from a different viewpoint.  I agree with most of what you say on a personal level but just want to point out that this is a bigger issue than 'personal'.



It isn't personal ... it's just business.



But I do understand what you're saying.



> I'm at odds with what's 'right' and what's 'logical' too.  It's like that bugger Assange, I can't decide whether to pin a medal on him or shoot him.
> Too complex, too many ifs and maybes, too many rights and wrongs to it.  ... and I think about things too much and too deep sometimes. It'd be easier to just see the surface and not wonder about the reasons for what's going on below it I guess.



It's always easier to be a sheep, at least from the wolf's viewpoint.



> I'm off for a sleep before I get myself into any more trouble.  Night all.



Thank you for the stimulating social intercourse.


----------



## Fern (Aug 25, 2013)

Sifuphil, So eloquently put, and for myself emotion does not come into it. War is war and yes these things do happen. A shorter sentence would have been adequate.


> If the pressures of war is an excusable reason to indulge in civilian  massacres then I presume you forgive the Taliban types too?


Making excuses doesn't come into it.  As for the Taliban it is *their* war, a different scenario.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 25, 2013)

> A shorter sentence would have been adequate.



 Nup, letting that one go through to the keeper.



Phil and TG, thanks for understanding that my somewhat convoluted views aren't a denial of things as they  should be, but an attempt to try and dig into the reasons behind the way things sometimes have to be.  It's nice not to be instantly burnt at the stake as a heretic.  Thank you.

My hobby in life lately is to try and encourage some people on forums look at things from a wider angle and not take any comment of a different aspect of an issue as an insult to their own views.  It  isn't. I figure if I'm learning from looking at how they see something then it's only fair that they at least look at how I see it.  That it usually ends up in a stoush says way too much about how shallowly many people are thinking.  Too many forums just consist of like minded people bolstering each other's convictions.

I'm as aware as anyone that this M.E. action is based on oil and money, the crack about 'freedom, justice and democracy' was just an attempt at dripping irony.  The comparison of 'their' psychos and ours is not based on anything more than making a point that things need to be looked at more than one way.  Thank you Phil, "_One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter. 'Twas always thus_."  You get my meaning.

By 'emotion' I mean the gut reaction of applying our own personal principles and ethics to situations as the sole basis for decisions. 
 Ethics are a luxury that can't always be afforded.  Taking ethics to the UN these days is like taking a knife to a gunfight.

I appreciate and hold ethics as the basic social structure that allows villages to expand beyond relatives.But they are 'our' personal ethics and  a poor weapon against those who aren't handicapped by them.  Sometimes we must suspend them to survive.

We are being, and have been for centuries, sold the pup (con)  of 'fighting for right, justice and freedom' to cover up the real reasons for War.
By looking at each incident in isolation, and getting wound up in the ethics/emotion of each is to totally overlook the bigger picture.

Our better instincts won't stop Wars, we'll never win against City Hall either.  What we need to do is try and understand what they're really up to and not swallow whole the jingoistic righteous messages they sell us.

We still won't stop them but that will allow us to at least better adapt to them, and maybe lower our blood pressure a little in the process. 
 We should stop taking what's happening globally so 'personally'.  It's not about individuals, it's not even about individual Nations any more.  It's a huge game being played by people with big agendas and using politicians who can't scratch their arses and talk at the same time  to manage we 'chess pieces.'

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just a realist.  It's been ever thus, just on a grander scale now. We can't do much about it but at least we can be aware that we're being manipulated by our own personal 'emotions' and sense of 'rightness' into reacting as they want us to. 
 'They're' fighting for Allah, and 'We' go in singing 'Onward Christian Soldiers' while the Oil Sheiks and 'our' Politicians sit sipping coffee together in the UN  watching the 'game.'

'Personally' I don't care enough to charge into the guns to try and stop them, I've just adapted to accepting that life is messy, that baddies and idiots exist in much the same ratio in all cultures, that money will always be king, and somebody will always want something enough to kill you for it.
That's life.  It really doesn't get any prettier by tarting it up in righteous sounding tinsel.  Just sayin'.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 26, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> My hobby in life lately is to try and encourage some people on forums look at things from a wider angle and not take any comment of a different aspect of an issue as an insult to their own views.  It  isn't. I figure if I'm learning from looking at how they see something then it's only fair that they at least look at how I see it.  That it usually ends up in a stoush says way too much about how shallowly many people are thinking.  Too many forums just consist of like minded people bolstering each other's convictions.



Meh, if I took everything ever said to me on forums as insults I'd be in a rubber room. I've had far worse - threats, even - so a little conversation among a few intelligent, mature people isn't going to light my fire. 

... but you're _still_ dead wrong. :rofl:



> By 'emotion' I mean the gut reaction of applying our own personal principles and ethics to situations as the sole basis for decisions.
> Ethics are a luxury that can't always be afforded.  Taking ethics to the UN these days is like taking a knife to a gunfight.
> 
> I appreciate and hold ethics as the basic social structure that allows villages to expand beyond relatives.But they are 'our' personal ethics and  a poor weapon against those who aren't handicapped by them.  Sometimes we must suspend them to survive.



True, true. The thing is, at least for me, I've "altered" many of those socially-instilled ethics and, by extension, my "morals". Since I don't "have" religion I don't derive my morality from what the religious leaders tell me, and since I base my (re)actions in life on my own experiences and interpretations I see life through a very unique and personalized filter.

I also believe strongly in Taoist concepts of the world, such as there being no absolutes in anything - crime, violence, right and wrong - and as a result I tend to fall in the middle ground for most topics. But a few are still hot-button issues for me and I find it quite difficult to achieve any sort of balanced viewpoint. 

Usually those topics are ones that society has taken a diametrically-opposed view from my own. Thus, I'm seen as a freak, weirdo, prejudiced or trouble-maker. All just labels - they don't change my mind one bit, because I've already experienced the truth - MY truth - of the topic. It might be wrong in others eyes but in mine I AM The Law. 



> We should stop taking what's happening globally so 'personally'.  It's not about individuals, it's not even about individual Nations any more.  It's a huge game being played by people with big agendas and using politicians who can't scratch their arses and talk at the same time  to manage we 'chess pieces.'



*"He will give them death, and they will love him for it."*
~Gracchus, _Gladiator_



> I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just a realist...



Yeah, yeah - that's what they ALL say ...





> 'Personally' I don't care enough to charge into the guns to try and stop them, I've just adapted to accepting that life is messy, that baddies and idiots exist in much the same ratio in all cultures, that money will always be king, and somebody will always want something enough to kill you for it.
> That's life.  It really doesn't get any prettier by tarting it up in righteous sounding tinsel.  Just sayin'.



And well-said it was.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 26, 2013)

> ... but you're _still_ dead wrong. :rofl:



Whazza madder, you got a problem with that or sumthin??  I got the right to be just as wrong as I damned well like!!


----------

