3 ms·

Your deflection of Peck's comments is verbose but insubstantial, you basically say he's being too charitable or losing perspective. Bad form. And as for the su

Your deflection of Peck's comments is verbose but insubstantial, you basically say he's being too charitable or losing perspective. Bad form. And as for the suicide point, I'm not challenging the idea that US forces are depressed or suicidal. I'm challenging the idea that they're depressed and suicidal because they're such compassionate warriors that they feel their victims' pain and suffer for the deaths that they cause or some such nonsense. I think these are much more related to the drudgery and boredom of this new form of warfare. I'd address the definition point or the Canadian sniper point, but I'm busy. I will check back later and see if I can complete this.

throwanem 9y ago
No, I'm saying he is deliberately quoting only part of the US Code definition of the term "international terrorism", with the clear intent that it be taken for the whole. It would not be too strong a statement to say that I regard this as a lie of omission. On his motives for so doing I can only speculate, and indeed I have done so above, but the nature of his statement in its own right seems only too clear to me. I've had the opportunity to get to know a few veterans. To the extent they've opened up to me on such a sensitive subject, I have never developed the impression that it was drudgery and boredom that tended to inspire soldiers and veterans to consider suicide. This strikes me as quite a remarkable statement on your part, and I would very much like to know more about how you have reached this conclusion. Perhaps you will convince me.