Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > CBS obtains photos showing alleged abuse

CBS obtains photos showing alleged abuse (Page 6)
Thread Tools
kvm_mkdb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Caracas, Bolivarian Republic Of Venezuela
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 01:23 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This thread has had far more frothing from the left than the right. For example, posting pictures from this charming source. But outliers are outliers. Most of us are remarkably agreed that the actions of the few in Iraq are unacceptable, but not imputable to the vast majority of soldiers.
Bah. That source was the only one I knew carried those pictures. It's clear (to me and most) - as I said earlier in this thread - that those actions are perpetrated by few, but by far many more than you and others here want to believe.

Just look at the reactions in this thread to see that so many people here need to be confronted with harsh arguments before they acknowledge there are unintended consequences even for the most righteous actions.

But I really have to wonder at your argument of 'siding with the enemy' -- many many people don't consider Iraqis to be the enemy, and many among those that think overthrowing Saddam was a good thing even trough war still find the current occupation of Iraq a neo-colonialist enterprise that doesn't deserve support.

If that is for you 'siding with the enemy', 'evil rather than good', so be it - but let me warn you: on the long run, it will do us more harm then good.

Contra a barbárie, o estudo; Contra o individualismo, a solidariedade!
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 01:23 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Troll: There are roughly 1.4 million men and women in the US military. Of course there are occasional incidents. But yours is a pretty silly comment. You picked a handful of incidents spread out over almost a decade. That's neither realistic nor fair.
Okay, point taken, but there are lots of handful arguments going around.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 01:26 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Okay, point taken, but there are lots of handful arguments going around.
The US military is very high profile. There are US troops stationed all over the world. You confuse visibility with incidents. Notice that none of the indicents you refer to happened inside the US. Do you think that they don't happen when troops are stationed in the US? Or do you think it could be simply a function of reporting.

1.4 million mostly young people are going to commit occasional crimes. That's just reality.
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 01:35 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
1.4 million mostly young people are going to commit occasional crimes. That's just reality.
Yet some people think it's a good idea to arm these young people and put them into dangerous and delicate situations.
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 01:39 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
Yet some people think it's a good idea to arm these young people and put them into dangerous and delicate situations.
Who said it was?
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 01:44 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
Yet some people think it's a good idea to arm these young people and put them into dangerous and delicate situations.
Of course. That's what they are there for. And the overwhelming majority of them do a superb job and we are proud of them. Aren't you?
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 02:00 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course. That's what they are there for. And the overwhelming majority of them do a superb job and we are proud of them. Aren't you?
I respect anyone who is willing to fight/die for a cause they believe in - that doesn't mean I respect their cause.

My problem is with people indoctrinating impressionable and inexperienced youngsters into risking their lives for unjust causes - then giving these kids deadly weapons and depositing them in extremely delicate scenarios in unfamiliar countries with unfamiliar cultures.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 02:12 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
I respect anyone who is willing to fight/die for a cause they believe in - that doesn't mean I respect their cause.

My problem is with people indoctrinating impressionable and inexperienced youngsters into risking their lives for unjust causes - then giving these kids deadly weapons and depositing them in extremely delicate scenarios in unfamiliar countries with unfamiliar cultures.
I realize that your opinion about the justification of the war colors your opinions utterly. But try to distinguish a bit between the troops themselves, and their mission. No matter what you think of their mission, these "indoctrinated and inexperienced youngsters" (to use your patronizing terms) are generally handling difficult tasks admirably. They handle their deadly weapons properly, and according to their training as the professionals that they are. Frankly, they seem to me to handle delicate scenarios and unfamiliar cultures with more intelligence than most of the anti-war crowd seem capable of. They aren't the ones unable to make elementary distinctions.

Cross reference here to the discussion about Nightline and their reading of the names of the war dead. The contemptuous attitude toward the troops which you display so eloquently is exactly why the left has so little credibility when you piously claim to support them. What you say looks like going through the motions when the rest of your comments show you have no respect for them at all.
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 03:01 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
I respect anyone who is willing to fight/die for a cause they believe in - that doesn't mean I respect their cause.

My problem is with people indoctrinating impressionable and inexperienced youngsters into risking their lives for unjust causes - then giving these kids deadly weapons and depositing them in extremely delicate scenarios in unfamiliar countries with unfamiliar cultures.
When you join the military it isn't to go fight some cause. You join and you are told what to do and where to do it and with what weapons. The only cause you are expected to support is that document called the Constitution.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 03:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Krusty:
On a slightly happier note This article from this morning at least seems to be showing that the investigation of these events was carried out primarily by the Army itself and was apparently well under way before the pictures surfaced and the story broke (the initial Army report was filed by General Antonio Taguba back in February)
Off course, the army has investigated into this, but that was just proforma, like they always did and do. When they hear of torture and other abusings done by US-soldiers, the army does its investigation in order to be on the right side, when it finally comes out.

Obviously these incidents aren't just isolated crimes done by some rednecks, it's widespread and a common practice to make the iraqis talk. The only thing is this is the first time photographs of it came out, and that shows that the soldiers doing these photographs didn't see their acting as criminal, and that means it's widespread and with the approval and probable instruction of superiors.

Perhaps you have forgotten it, but the US-army has an invisible enemy in Iraq, resistance-fighters that can blend into civilians and come out of them to attack...
The army wants to find them, so they emprison arbritraly some young Iraqis and try to get information from them about armed resistance-fighters, and for that purpose they have special intelligence agents in that prison, they torture the prisoners with loud music 24hrs/day, strong lights on 24hrs/day, what amounts to sleep deprivation...
Whose will is still not broken gets special treatment, like electroshocking, or sexual abusings...

I bet some of these soldiers doing their service there, were either witnesses of these special treatments, or assisted the special agents.

When the special agents aren't there some of the soldiers copy these special treatments with other prisoners, as a joke, for making fun, to kill time. And because it's all just fun, and all are having a good time, all but the prisoners, they make photographs of it.

So, torturing is official politics for the USA, espescially outside of the USA, not by the army, but by intelligence agents with the assistance and tolerance of the army.

Now the attack upon the prison a few weeks ago makes sense, as it obvioulsy wasn't intended to free the prisoners, but to kill as many of the prisoners as possible, basically as a grace-act to save them from the sexual abusings, that the insurgents obviously have heard of. Remember, a muslim would prefer to die than to be sexual abused.

What did George W. Bush say? "That is not the way we do things in America." The afterthought probably was: "That's the way we do things in... Iraq."

Taliesin
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 03:21 PM
 
     
Joshua
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Now the attack upon the prison a few weeks ago makes sense, as it obvioulsy wasn't intended to free the prisoners, but to kill as many of the prisoners as possible, basically as a grace-act to save them from the sexual abusings, that the insurgents obviously have heard of. Remember, a muslim would prefer to die than to be sexual abused.
Oh, please.

US Soldiers are worse than Saddam, and Iraqi "resistance" fighters blow up civilians out of mercy. Yeah, this thread is a winner.
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 04:25 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I realize that your opinion about the justification of the war colors your opinions utterly. But try to distinguish a bit between the troops themselves, and their mission. No matter what you think of their mission, these "indoctrinated and inexperienced youngsters" (to use your patronizing terms) are generally handling difficult tasks admirably. They handle their deadly weapons properly, and according to their training as the professionals that they are. Frankly, they seem to me to handle delicate scenarios and unfamiliar cultures with more intelligence than most of the anti-war crowd seem capable of. They aren't the ones unable to make elementary distinctions.
With all due respect, you are not exempt of colouring your opinions yourself. Actually, we are all likely to colour our opinions over what is going on over there, because:

1) not one of us is there as a witness
2) even if we were there, we would hardly be able to make an objective judgement because a) it is a traumatic experience for any human beings, including the soldiers of the Coalition and b) nobody could gather a global opinion because of the intensity of the events over there.

We are all stuck with field observations coloured by the local observers, those who report their reports, and our own political opinions in interpreting these informations.

We are all equal in this. We can be victims of our prejudice and extrapolate to the point of generalizing the behaviors of a few to the rest of the group. Yet common sense is a difficult tool to apply when we are confronted to partial information.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 04:28 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
When you join the military it isn't to go fight some cause. You join and you are told what to do and where to do it and with what weapons. The only cause you are expected to support is that document called the Constitution.
And it seems that some soldiers have not respected that Constitution. But then, is the U.S. Constitution to be applied wherever American troops set foot?
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 04:51 PM
 
U.S. soldiers are only under the jurisdiction of the United States no matter where they go.
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 05:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
So, torturing is official politics for the USA, espescially outside of the USA, not by the army, but by intelligence agents with the assistance and tolerance of the army.

Now the attack upon the prison a few weeks ago makes sense, as it obvioulsy wasn't intended to free the prisoners, but to kill as many of the prisoners as possible, basically as a grace-act to save them from the sexual abusings, that the insurgents obviously have heard of. Remember, a muslim would prefer to die than to be sexual abused.

What did George W. Bush say? "That is not the way we do things in America." The afterthought probably was: "That's the way we do things in... Iraq."

Taliesin
Taliesin, with all due respect, I don't believe torture is official U.S. policy. You need to provide the document to prove that, and since it would be official policy, my belief is that it would have to be public.

I think it is more likely that just like in many armies, there are a couple of hot heads that can do a lot of harm when left on their own. The phenomenon of torture in situations of war may be explainable by the need to get information at all cost, with the idea of getting away with it in the end. When individuals are strongly empowered to do what they feel is good without supervision, the likelihood of mishaps can increase. I believe racism is also a factor, since reducing a human being to the color of his skin or religious belief (like, for example, christians making the difference between good Muslim and bad Muslim, and vice-versa) dehumanizes him. I also think that the belief of democratizing a society that never knew democracy falls into a form of patronizing that is bound to splash back at the face of the democratizers...

Also, sometimes, I think some individuals (and potentially everyone) individuals need the feeling that they are capable of applying power on others, because their self-esteem is fed by that type of actions. These people are found pretty much anywhere in society, imho, and not only the Army (this might controlled in that environment pretty well, but human nature can only be controlled so much).

My belief is that this phenomenon is not general to the whole Coalition, but some individuals are more likely to oppress others if the conditions are presented. Someone presented an experiment by Milgram on the capacity for people to apply pain under orders, while not provided much in terms of explanations as to why there should be pain applied.

In Qu�bec, at the times of the Front de Lib�ration du Qu�bec (FLQ, in the '70s) more than 450 people were arrested in the hope of finding the kidnappers of 2 Canadian personalities. The police basically arrested people for no reasons, on unfounded suspicions. The investigation that happened afterwards concluded that basically, the police followed orders. Yet, there was no reasons to arrest these people (I don't remember any issues of torture then).

All people need is the belief that they are on the "right side" of the fence. And that justifies behaviors that we would find totally irrational, yet they would make sense for the people applying it. A bit like someone imposing himself to help someone who does not want help, and fights backs to not be helped...

Well, that is my position on this.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 05:13 PM
 
Really no different than a prison or jail facility where one or two guards get carried away and abuse their power. It's just human nature to have a few rotten apples in the bunch. It doesn't mean that the whoe bunch is bad, does it?
     
yakkiebah
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dar al-Harb
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:12 PM
 
Doubt cast on Iraq torture photos

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3677311.stm

BBC reporting is more balanced, ha!
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:37 PM
 
Originally posted by yakkiebah:
Doubt cast on Iraq torture photos

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3677311.stm

BBC reporting is more balanced, ha!


We probably should still wait a bit to see what the final word is on the puported British pictures. But thanks for posting that. It looks like my suspicions on the Mirror ones might be right. Way to go Daily Mirror -- living up to their tabloid reputation. They probably should have talked to Stern. Remember the Hitler Diaries?

Of course, this doesn't have any direct bearing on the US pictures, which the Pentagon seems to be confirming are genuine. (Or at least, there is no suggestion that they are not). However, I would be very skeptical in the next few weeks of any "new revelations." The temptation for forgery is going to be very high because these kinds of images would be so easy to fake. All you need is a naked Arab, a little S&M, and a digital camera and you have an instant Mai Lai.
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:39 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I realize that your opinion about the justification of the war colors your opinions utterly. But try to distinguish a bit between the troops themselves, and their mission. No matter what you think of their mission, these "indoctrinated and inexperienced youngsters" (to use your patronizing terms) are generally handling difficult tasks admirably. They handle their deadly weapons properly, and according to their training as the professionals that they are. Frankly, they seem to me to handle delicate scenarios and unfamiliar cultures with more intelligence than most of the anti-war crowd seem capable of. They aren't the ones unable to make elementary distinctions.

Cross reference here to the discussion about Nightline and their reading of the names of the war dead. The contemptuous attitude toward the troops which you display so eloquently is exactly why the left has so little credibility when you piously claim to support them. What you say looks like going through the motions when the rest of your comments show you have no respect for them at all.
I won't try to make a distinction between the troops and their mission because I don't believe there is a distinction to be made. The mission would not happen without the cooperation of the troops involved - if the mission is unjust, the troops are complicit in an unjust action. I don't like the way in which young persons are indoctrinated into taking part in wars - but, at the end of the day, unless they are conscripted or otherwise forced into service, it's still their choice.

I don't buy into the logic of those who are against a war up until the moment troops are deployed, then suddenly they throw their support behind the troops - it doesn't make any sense to me. If troops are fighting a war that I don't believe is just, those troops do not have my support, particularly if I am more inclined to support the other side.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:40 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
I won't try to make a distinction between the troops and their mission because I don't believe there is a distinction to be made. The mission would not happen without the cooperation of the troops involved - if the mission is unjust, the troops are complicit in an unjust action. I don't like the way in which young persons are indoctrinated into taking part in wars - but, at the end of the day, unless they are conscripted or otherwise forced into service, it's still their choice.

I don't buy into the logic of those who are against a war up until the moment troops are deployed, then suddenly they throw their support behind the troops - it doesn't make any sense to me. If troops are fighting a war that I don't believe is just, those troops do not have my support, particularly if I am more inclined to support the other side.
Well, at least you are honest about it.

Especially the inclined to support the other side part. I suppose I should be shocked. But frankly, I'm not.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; May 1, 2004 at 06:54 PM. )
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:41 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
... if the mission is unjust, the troops are complicit in an unjust action...
No.
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:43 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
When you join the military it isn't to go fight some cause. You join and you are told what to do and where to do it and with what weapons. The only cause you are expected to support is that document called the Constitution.
I don't dispute anything of what you say, however, it is for these reasons that I am against militaries of this form altogether.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:45 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
I don't dispute anything of what you say, however, it is for these reasons that I am against militaries of this form altogether.
Unless they are on the other side, I take it.
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:49 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
I don't dispute anything of what you say, however, it is for these reasons that I am against militaries of this form altogether.
What form? Do you expect conscripted or mandatory service personnel to be of a higher moral calling?
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:50 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Unless they are on the other side, I take it.
No, that's not what I said.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:53 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
No, that's not what I said.
Well, who cares? As long as we know which side you are on.
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:55 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
What form? Do you expect conscripted or mandatory service personnel to be of a higher moral calling?
No, I believe people should fight for causes they believe in personally - not because they are told/ordered to by someone else.
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 06:57 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, who cares? As long as we know which side you are on.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:02 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
Why ""? You are the one who just declared your inclination "to support the other side." That's not some neutral statement you just made. Do you really think I care what you think when you come out and say something like that?

There is, after all, a difference between opposing a war, and supporting the enemy. Do you understand that?
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; May 1, 2004 at 07:16 PM. )
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:03 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
No, I believe people should fight for causes they believe in personally - not because they are told/ordered to by someone else.
What do you think the military is anyways? A free for all that anyone can do what they please and join for whatever cause they believe in? The last person you want in a uniform is someone joining just to fight for a cause or fight against a certain enemy.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:12 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
What do you think the military is anyways? A free for all that anyone can do what they please and join for whatever cause they believe in? The last person you want in a uniform is someone joining just to fight for a cause or fight against a certain enemy.
I disagree. There isn't anything wrong with someone joining for any particular reason -- as long as it isn't some warped bloodlust or something. Think about all the people who enlisted after Pearl Harbor. However, you are right to the extent that the troops aren't policymakers. They go where they are lawfully told to go by their chain of command. They are our soldiers and we should support them wherever we send them.

Fortunately, most people seem to have gotten past the childish and self righteous 1960s spit-on-the-babykillers thing and understand this. Most people at least try to support the troops even if they oppose the war.

But there are always a few.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:15 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I disagree. There isn't anything wrong with someone joining for any particular reason -- as long as it isn't some warped bloodlust or something. However, you are right to the extent that the troops aren't policymakers. They go where they are lawfully told to go by their chain of command. They are our soldiers and we should support them wherever we send them.
I'd add that the fact is that those in our armed forces are often highly specialized, highly trained professionals. They're mostly not just a bunch of kids with guns.
( Last edited by itai195; May 1, 2004 at 07:30 PM. )
     
Joshua
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:28 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
No, I believe people should fight for causes they believe in personally - not because they are told/ordered to by someone else.
So this is more your speed?

Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:33 PM
 
Originally posted by itai195:
I'd add that the fact is that those in our armed forces are often highly specialized, highly trained professionals. They're mostly not just a bunch of kids with guns.
You are right. Even the kids with guns are much more than just kids with guns. Two of the things that surprised me when I first went in the infantry (I started out in signals, and signallers like to think they are better than mere grunts) were that the infantrymen were far smarter than their stereotype. The job of being an infantryman was also far more intellectually demanding than I ever anticipated. It is certainly not just running around with a rifle. The tactics involved in "moving shooting and communicating" are really quite difficult and it takes a lot of practice. And that's without the difficulties of dealing with civilians and so forth.

The Marines have a phrase for the new realities of leadership. They call it the "strategic corporal." Wars aren't won by generals directing troops like chessmen any more. Unfortunately, we are seeing the downside of this here. A handful of idiots can create a huge amount of damage.
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:39 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Swate: FYI I have a possible answer for you on your question of whether the perpetrators couldn't be brought to justice if they are US civilians, rather than military personnel. Here is at least one statute that that seems to me would be applicable. It specifically applies to US nationals wherever they are in the world.



18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A.

thanks for checking that out Simey,

......*
....N
...O+E
....S
..(

I think militias will be considered as "civilians"


I would like to know for sure.

The thread led me to
wavesevawegassemessage
time/space, long words to unroll
meditate about the bussola, the compass

You are seen as a right way path.
But then you sea^^^^ you say I sway on the left, could be. anyhow
I feel lawyers should weigh both sides with equity. Most people in Europe have similar thoughts as mine, I am �in the trend�, whereas bushads soon may be fighting for data&power

�you side with the insurgents too much�

yes, I do, because I feel many are sliding through other waves. Minimizing violence. �War is violence, it�s normal�. That is why in the first place Peace<Mongers, Euro-Wheenies did not want this to happen. Israel/Lebanon lasted ages, and we feel wars more then you on your little continent. <sarcasm>
ant they are still many unsolved situations on �our- bloc�.
BOT
ICY
SEA
WM
HHH
I could post other unbearable-
-----------------------------------�>>>
pics I saw on the net.
Mercenaries are open to any abuse, as long as they are paid for it.
Fundamentalists all sides will use mercenaries, that is why I am not posting them, not to spread maybe false/propaganda. (mise en scenes? this was really horrid/gore and turns the stomach)

In this �isolated incident� you underlay, the government recognized the facts by saying these people would be punished and therefore admit/recognize their existence.*ex-Security Service agent for a prison The Intelligence told him to ignore the Geneva Conventions, is that not what it sums up to? Anyhow that �folder� � file� �case� i.e. isolated incident, has yet to proceed. I just cant believe PMGWWWBush says the situation over there is normal. :O
What does he take? Is he high? Gone with the elephants?
What has to happen before he realizes occupying is abnormal?
When I look at the titles of the last pages of news concerning Iraq,
happenings accelerate and intensify, nothing positive for the pentagon.
Eventually, the fact this story came out will stop it from happening again.


What I was surprised about Simey, as that you as a lawyer and a keeper of justice /n-Ma�t/ did not say out loud that it was wrong to send a �punitive expedition� to Fallujah.

Why, in the Iraqi�s case did the US not consider the 4 on the bridge as an �isolated incident�?

We don�t know exactly how many Iraqis died, nor how they died. 10 000 �isolated cases� ?
Could be, who knows? Out of those 10000, they must be quite a few.
We don�t have cameras filming every individual
You see subjective.
the bussola and compass,



Used a lost
......*
....N
...O+E
....S
...(



USe an astrolabe or a compass they may assist you,
here is the poem, Europe a prophecy, by William Blake:
http://www.bibliomania.com/0/2/81/189/frameset.html

Ok sorry to all for space





.....*
.....N
....O+E
.....S
.....(

Cardinal points,
One close to my heart.....
Ancient, or Europe a Prophecy.
Blake always helps me re-orientate.

I hope you understood some of my swoonings.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:47 PM
 
wow
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:48 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why ""? You are the one who just declared your inclination "to support the other side." That's not some neutral statement you just made. Do you really think I care what you think when you come out and say something like that?
I don't really care whether you care or not!
There is, after all, a difference between opposing a war, and supporting the enemy. Do you understand that?
There is more than one side to every conflict. The decision as to which side is righteous and which isn't, is a personal choice. Do you understand that?

There is also a difference between passive and active support. Do you understand that too?
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:50 PM
 
sorry i can see posting the painting stretched the thread,
will the screen width come back to normal if i delete it?


To come back onto this abuse, I think it is URGENT America gives the Islamic World official excuses for this �isolated incident� and not say it�s normal� and also that the Iraqis judge this �isolated incident� with the


. .****US army****.



I hope no militias will try to get into Najaf or Kerbala, if they do, they better be extremely cautious and respectful, whenever the Shias are touched, (humiliation abuse) the return will be awful. Ebven so, it will be difficult for the Arabic world to see this as an "isolated episode"



I also would like to add I am happy many from the US have different opinions, Lerk, Thunderous, BlackG, kvm, for example, and many, many others. A great continent, far from the turmoil.

And I am reconforted at the thought others replied with a compass orientated like mine. Great posts.
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:50 PM
 
swrate,

Not quite sure what you said but I'm gonna give you a thumbsup anyway,
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:50 PM
 
Originally posted by swrate:
Why, in the Iraqi�s case did the US not consider the 4 on the bridge as an �isolated incident�?
I think we do, as a matter of fact. I don't think most people here believe that the people who butchered those civilians represent most Iraqis, or even most in Fallujah. From the blogs by US soldiers in Iraq, I definately don't think that the troops think it is representative. They are there. They know that it isn't.

I'm afraid I think it is the anti-war side who is guilty here of painting with broad brushes. Not only this (thankfully, not universal) tendency to see all US soldiers as mindless undifferentiated automata. But also the tendency to think that all Iraqis are of one mind. I certainly think the situation is far more complicated than I understand. But the anti-war side are quite guilty of projecting their interests on to a country of 24 million most of whom are just trying to live their lives.

And for the record, I am not a lawyer. Merely a law student.

Oh yes, and Wow.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:52 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
There is also a difference between passive and active support. Do you understand that too?
Morally there is no difference.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:52 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
I won't try to make a distinction between the troops and their mission because I don't believe there is a distinction to be made.
Then you would be wrong my friend. Do you believe every poor bugger in Iraq WANTS to be there?

Chances are there's a few thousand pricks over there, but that's even more reason to empathize with the good guys. Would you want to be over there with snickerdoodle next to you?

Originally posted by eklipse:
If troops are fighting a war that I don't believe is just, those troops do not have my support, particularly if I am more inclined to support the other side.
Support is the wrong word, being used as a propaganda tool. If you support them you obviously support the war.

How about "respect"? Or "begrudging respect"?
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:55 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think we do, as a matter of fact. I don't think most people here believe that the people who butchered those civilians represent most Iraqis, or even most in Fallujah. From the blogs by US soldiers in Iraq, I definately don't think that the troops think it is representative. They are there. They know that it isn't.

I'm afraid I think it is the anti-war side who is guilty here of painting with broad brushes. Not only this (thankfully, not universal) tendency to see all US soldiers as mindless undifferentiated automata. But also the tendency to think that all Iraqis are of one mind. I certainly think the situation is far more complicated than I understand. But the anti-war side are quite guilty of projecting their interests on to a country of 24 million most of whom are just trying to live their lives.

And for the record, I am not a lawyer. Merely a law student.

Oh yes, and Wow.
you say you do not view this as an "isolated episode" Simey, but Bremer did not say that, nor did the General in care of Fallujah
The revenge for that was to go after the "terrorists" and kill iI dont know how many INNOCENTS


and now, I think your compass is really gone wild


its the fact that you (bushads) dont even recognize mistakes.


explain me then the death of the children of Fallujah.
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 07:56 PM
 
Originally posted by swrate:
explain me then the death of the children of Fallujah.
Oh that? That was all just "unfortunate", "collateral damage" etc etc

     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 08:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
Then you would be wrong my friend. Do you believe every poor bugger in Iraq WANTS to be there?
They are doing what they potentially signed up for.
Support is the wrong word, being used as a propaganda tool. If you support them you obviously support the war.

How about "respect"? Or "begrudging respect"?
Perhaps you are correct. But I think it depends a lot on perspective - the way I see it, the resistance in Iraq is attempting to repel an invading/occupying army in a war they never asked for, in that, they have my support.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 08:03 PM
 
Experiment: Watch the Reuters war footage feeds for a week. No commentary. Enlightening.

http://www.reuters.com/news.jhtml

Background on CBS breaking the story...

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/di...alert189.shtml

And here's the Hersh article they mention...

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 08:03 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Morally there is no difference.
I agree.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 08:05 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
Perhaps you are correct. But I think it depends a lot on perspective - the way I see it, the resistance in Iraq is attempting to repel an invading/occupying army in a war they never asked for, in that, they have my support.
And you think there aren't sadistic bastards on their side?

This is human nature, not Good/Evil. You're starting to sound like GWB.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 08:07 PM
 
Originally posted by swrate:
you say you do not view this as an "isolated episode" Simey, but Bremer did not say that, nor did the General in care of Fallujah
Please find the quote where they said the entire town -- every individual -- was to blame.

I don't think you will find it. You realize we could eradicate the whole place and just vaporize it. But we haven't. And won't, because we aren't the monsters you'd like to think we are.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,