Does this piss you off? Fictional depictions of American war atrocities.

I will state up front the American military has had is share of deadly incidents and embarrasments, such as Haditha, Abu Ghraib, and the Apache gunship massacre. I don’t want a debate on the conditions surrounding an actual atrocity.

I was watching True Blood last night, and part of the storyline is a character with PTSD. To tie the present with the past, it showed a flashback scene in which a group of civilian Iraquis was slaughtered then thrown in to a pile, soaked with fuel, and set alight.

It just struck me as holy shit over the top and unnecessary. There are plenty of actual incidents to pick on the military about, without creating what would be, were it true, the most grotesque in the current group of conflicts.

I don’t know, were they vampires?

I don’t believe so…someone who knows the story better than I can correct me, but I think this was before the vampires ‘came out’.

U.S. Soldier slaughters 16 civilians, burns bodies.

I’ll be damned. I forgot about that, and it was just a couple months ago…

Well, that’s why we’re lucky to have shows like True Blood. It helps keep the public informed.

I know, right? I usually watch news programming like ‘Ancient Aliens’, but sometimes I like a good documentary.

I’m just angry Obama hasn’t done more to capture Russell Eddington.

It should be a big deal, but I don’t think I’ve even heard him mention it in his recent speeches.

Okay so this thread is truly ignorance fought but I thought the writers went deliberately over the top in order to make it both a)traumatic enough to compete with living with vampires and shapeshifters and b)unrealistic. Thanks Terraplane for destroying my delusions :wink:

Wait does this mean the Authority is real too?

I don’t mind if its simply somewhat fictionalized version of an actual war crime but if its totally outlandish and utterly unrelated to any real events than yes certainly.

The actual incident may actually have taken place after the writers of True Blood finished their script; they could have, very specifically, been avoiding the use of any actual incidents. I’ve seen both that kind of avoidance and reality kicking fiction’s ass before, in other contexts.

It had to be a fairly traumatic scenario to be consistent with Terry’s long established PTSD and to unleash a supernatural being of True Blood’s caliber.

And whenever you throw guns, drugs, and the inability to speak the same language into a pot, it’s liable to cook up something nasty.

Naah. There’s pretty much nothing a show could depict that some side in a conflict hasn’t done, in the recent past.

So the only reason to get pissed off would be that it was Americans depicted as doing it, which would get a big, fat :rolleyes: from me,.

I particularly enjoy that whenever a character is shown to be a veteran it is of course to establish how screwed up they are.

This is what I object to the most. In my era, not all Vietnam veterans wore olive drab for 40 years, became homeless druggies, and/or overcame great ordeals to return to normal society. Some just came back, went to work a/o school, and led unremarkable dull lives.

I fear we are getting close to the time where we will be seeing Middle-East-Conflict veterans portrayed as wackos by the storytellers–just to enrich the storytellers own pockets.

But, to the OP’s original post, yes–I took this as a defamation of character against those that serve as there is no counter balancing viewpoint.

The reality is that the American nation, its will expressed in the actions of its armed forces, has been the most benevolent fighter, conqueror, and occupier of any nation in the history of the planet.

The few and isolated instances of atrocities committed by American troops serve only to underscore this point. The mass slaughter of unarmed civilians by occupying armies has been a commonplace throughout history, including the 20th century. We are almost unique in our disinclination to indulge in an orgy of looting, rape and murder once we occupy a land–the British probably being similar in this regard, at least in the 20th century. The French would probably be OK as conquerors as well, but we’ll never know :stuck_out_tongue:

I know it’s de rigeur to bash America at every opportunity, but the urge is misplaced. We really are the good guys. Yeah, maybe the only reason we keep 'em alive is so that we call sell them stuff–but, whatever. A dead customer is a bad customer.

Bullshit. Just…bullshit. From Wounded Knee to My Lai, just…bullshit.

Yes, we did plenty of raping, pillaging and butchering. No disagreement there. His point still stands, especially the conqueror part. Looking at WWII specifically, imagine if the USA occupied Japan, Germany, Italy, even France in the same fashion as the Soviets. Look at the differences between East and West German occupations, the effects of which are still present.

We could have kept Japan a third world province of our war spoils. We didn’t. We also did not do that to Germany. Or Italy. Imagine if we did.

Then you’re not “the most benevolent fighter, conqueror, and occupier of any nation in the history of the planet.”

And even if we were, that’s rather like saying someone is the nicest Mob enforcer they’ve ever met.