Why does the comparison civilian rate have anything to do with this article? Why does it matter what these men were doing prior to service, or the extenuating circumstances, surrounding their alleged crimes?
You’re reading in the tone that “All vets are killers.”
No, but “The article points out an 89% increase in these type of incidents over the years prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Increased violence amongst veterans after war is acknowledged by the military and all of the major veterans groups that I am aware of.”
You can spin all you like, but these facts remain true, unless somebody wants to claim these men were not veterans. What they might have done as civilians who never served, comparing them to civilian murder rates, or downplaying the alleged murders doesn’t change the fact.
It’s the critics jumping to conclusions here…
