Uncomfortable with the war comparisons?

Remove this Banner Ad

Pat Tillman (US Football) is revered by the US military, he was a footballer who became a soldier; and was killed in Afghanistan. They have a beautiful drop in centre at Bagram Airfield that is there for anyone to come into.

Revered so much by the US military they shot him to death, reported he was killed by Afghan insurgents, burned his body armour and personal effects to prevent any investigation into the shooting and never identified the parties responsible for his death.


A report described in The Washington Post on May 4, 2005, prepared at the request of Tillman's family by Brigadier General Gary M. Jones, revealed that in the days immediately following Tillman's death, Army investigators were aware that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire, shot three times in the head.

On July 26, 2007, Chris Matthews reported on Hardball that Tillman's death may have been a case of deliberate murder by Tillman's fellow soldiers – specifically that the bullet holes were tight and neat, suggesting a shot at close range. Matthews based his speculation on a report from the doctors who examined Tillman's body. The following day the Associated Press reported that a doctor who examined Tillman's body after his death wrote, "The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described", also noting that the wound entrances appeared as though he had been shot with an M16 rifle from fewer than 10 yards (9.1 m) away.

Jones reported that members of Tillman's unit burned his body armor and uniform in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that he was killed by friendly fire. His notebook, in which – according to author Jon Krakauer – Tillman had recorded some of his thoughts on Afghanistan, was also burned; "a blatant violation of protocol"

Despite his fame, Tillman did not want to be used for propaganda purposes. He spoke to friends about his opposition to President Bush and the Iraq war, and he had made an appointment with notable government critic Noam Chomsky for after his return from the military. The destruction of evidence linked to Tillman's death, including his personal journal, led his mother to speculate that he was murdered.



 
We're uncomfortable relating athletes to soldiers but it's OK for actors?

Using an actor to tell a story of war is hardly the same thing.

These days though, is pressing a button and killing a bunch of innocent people amongst some potential bad people, really that heroic?

Sorry, but I'm not one who thinks war should be remembered at all. If most knew the ins and outs of the wars we remember, more may agree. It's all patriotic BS, and is getting more Americanised by the year.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Using an actor to tell a story of war is hardly the same thing.
If you're looking at an honest and accurate account of war sure. But that's only a tiny fraction of movies.

Meanwhile, we have actors portraying soldiers who are fighting dinosaurs, evil masterminds, or aliens. Yet it's a contextual analogy of footballers with soldiers that offends people...
 
If you're looking at an honest and accurate account of war sure. But that's only a tiny fraction of movies.

Meanwhile, we have actors portraying soldiers who are fighting dinosaurs, evil masterminds, or aliens. Yet it's a contextual analogy of footballers with soldiers that offends people...

The actors themselves are not pretending to be soldiers though, they fully acknowledge they are acting and what they are doing isn't warrior like.
 
Revered so much by the US military they shot him to death, reported he was killed by Afghan insurgents, burned his body armour and personal effects to prevent any investigation into the shooting and never identified the parties responsible for his death.

If mainstream media wasn't contrived, this would have been headline news worldwide. Along with the Gulf Of Tonkin incident / lie and all the other important events conveniently hidden from the masses. But no, it's important that war is seen in a good light, unfortunately... hence the comparisons with athletes.
 
Have to agree with op. Unfortunately, the game has for a long time been linked to the military/ Anzacs and wars. It's one aspect of the game that turns me off. I would never go to an Anzac Day game if it were a seasonal Hawthorn event.
 
It only happens because our community reveres footballers so much.

Yes war analogies are ridiculous as a statement, but the place football holds in society is ridiculous as a whole when you think about it that way.

It’s grown adults going to a stadium and screaming their lungs out for one bunch of men, and abusing another bunch of men – neither of which they’ve ever known or ever will know – because they wear the colours of one company instead of another.

It’s entertainment, the emotion it generates is moronic if you want to think about it totally objectively.

The odd war reference is a tiny part of it. It’s people trying to communicate their passion. As it’s the only thing many supporters are passionate about in their whole life, it’s not surprising it goes overboard. It’s an outlet.
 
If mainstream media wasn't contrived, this would have been headline news worldwide. Along with the Gulf Of Tonkin incident / lie and all the other important events conveniently hidden from the masses. But no, it's important that war is seen in a good light, unfortunately... hence the comparisons with athletes.
You are spot on the money.

Wouldn't you just love to see laws enacted that saw any politician, sitting in his or her ivory tower, who legislates for war and sends people to their deaths actually have to front up to the war and fight it thermselves. On the front line. The incidence of wars would drop by 95%...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It’s grown adults going to a stadium and screaming their lungs out for one bunch of men, and abusing another bunch of men – neither of which they’ve ever known or ever will know – because they wear the colours of one company instead of another.

Summed it up perfectly. End thread!
 
You are spot on the money.

Wouldn't you just love to see laws enacted that saw any politician, sitting in his or her ivory tower, who legislates for war and sends people to their deaths actually have to front up to the war and fight it thermselves. On the front line. The incidence of wars would drop by 95%...

They'd be peeing their little pantsies...
 
This is directed at no one in particular but more and more in recent years I have been getting uncomfortable with the war comparisons in the AFL, describing AFL players as soldiers or warriors for instance makes me not only cringe but also just generally makes me feel uncomfortable as while I admire AFL players a lot, they are not soldiers, they are not going off to fight in a war, they are not doing anything that will sacrifice their lives for our country.

There is a massive difference between putting your head over the ball and potentially being knocked out and running into a hail of bullets to try and stop the enemy. One will likely end your life, the other will not and there is no comparison with the level of bravery.

When a player is injured players say "one soldier out, one soldier in" and I am thinking, no they aren't. That "soldier" is not dead, he is injured, he is actually fine, and will be back in a few weeks.

I sometimes feel that the commentators and even the players are trying to elevate themselves to something above elite sportsmen, something beyond that. They want to be seen as the bravest in society, or almost like an army, and want their accomplishments elevated beyond just being entertainers for the masses. Now I am definitely apart of that entertainment, I love AFL, but I am always aware that AFL players are entertainers first and foremost. They are there to entertain people, not to fight for the freedom or the lives of people and in no way can an act on the football field ever be compared to an actual war.

Does anyone else agree or are the war analogies less annoying to other people?
Sorry mate I cant run with you on this....just relax and enjoy the game for what it is..
 
These analogies are used in so many sports around the world by media and supporters alike. I have no issues if it stays along the lines of "it was a real battle", "these clubs have been at war today", "this match has been a war of attrition", etc. etc.
If it starts getting to the point of "that hit was comparable to world war 2!", then we have problem.
 
When a player is injured players say "one soldier out, one soldier in" and I am thinking, no they aren't. That "soldier" is not dead, he is injured, he is actually fine, and will be back in a few weeks.
A soldier might also be just injured as well.
and I don't think there is anything wrong with this analogy.

Let's be honest. If there was no football on a weekend because of Anzac Day, people would complain that there wasn't football on the day.

And likewise, when a brawl happens on the annual Good Friday match, someone's gonna get up in arms about the children...
 
War is always about power, money and resource acquisition...so is elite sport in some ways. But the players of sport tend to actually have fun doing so, while only a minority of soldiers enjoy war (the twisted, psychopathic types).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Uncomfortable with the war comparisons?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top