[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by f1000

What the soldier "obviously" thought is your opinion. The point is that you stated your opinion, but then provided a link as if to make your opinion look like a quote. That's dishonest.

No, what is dishonest here is your refusal to recognize that the article suggests a link between the kidnapping/torturing/killing of two US-soldiers and the rape/killing of the iraqi woman/girl and her family, as well as suggesting a link between the fate of the kidnapped soldiers and the confessions.

Just as a sidenote, if I want to quote a text from an article I always use the

quote-mechanism.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by f1000

What the soldier "obviously" thought is your opinion. The point is that you stated your opinion, but then provided a link as if to make your opinion look like a quote. That's dishonest.

Indeed. Lots of projection in this thread.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

No, what is dishonest here is your refusal to recognize that the article suggests a link between the kidnapping/torturing/killing of two US-soldiers and the rape/killing of the iraqi woman/girl and her family, as well as suggesting a link between the fate of the kidnapped soldiers and the confessions.

I never "refused" to admit that there wasn't any link. Anyone who can read the news articles for himself sees what the purported link is. What I refused to acknowledge was the specific causal relationship suggested by you, which was a thinly-veiled attempt to justify the insurgents' war crimes against two US GIs.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Monique

You can't even recognize sarcasm when it came to the second question.

No abuse should not be tolerated, but it is always time afterward to take care of justice.

Sarcasm isn't something that came to mind in reading your post. And this is obviously a set of very touchy subjects for me. I have spent my life defending my country and upholding the ideals it stands for; a statement that goes against most of those ideals is certainly not going to flip my "read this as sarcasm" switches.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by f1000

I never "refused" to admit that there wasn't any link. Anyone who can read the news articles for himself sees what the purported link is. What I refused to acknowledge was the specific causal relationship suggested by you, which was a thinly-veiled attempt to justify the insurgents' war crimes against two US GIs.

You are projecting here, I'm not justifying anything. I was only voicing what the article suggested, namely that it's possible that the kidnapping of US-Soldiers in the same town and from the same unit as the suspected rapers and murderers of an iraqi family, was a direct revenge-act and that that act might have spurred one of the US-soldier involved in the rape and murder to come forward with the information.

Maybe you should try next time not to knee-jerk in that way.

By the way, just in: the accused US-soldier pleaded not guilty on all accounts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5156652.stm


Taliesin

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

You are projecting here, I'm not justifying anything. I was only voicing what the article suggested, namely that it's possible that the kidnapping of US-Soldiers in the same town and from the same unit as the suspected rapers and murderers of an iraqi family, was a direct revenge-act and that that act might have spurred one of the US-soldier involved in the rape and murder to come forward with the information.

The article didn't suggest that, period. As for your not justifying anything, all one has to do is look at your post history to come to a different conclusion.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by f1000

The article didn't suggest that, period. As for your not justifying anything, all one has to do is look at your post history to come to a different conclusion.

The article did indeed suggest that, period. I'm astonished at your deliberate blindness to that aspect of the article. But just for entertainment-purposes: Why do you think did the article mention the kidnapping, torture and murdering of the US-soldiers in that article?

Oh, and you are completely wrong on your other idea.

Maybe you should just swallow your pride and accept that you knee-jerked unjustifiedly against me. I don't even want an apology from you, just your insight.

Taliesin

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The article did indeed suggest that, period. I'm astonished at your deliberate blindness to that aspect of the article. But just for entertainment-purposes: Why do you think did the article mention the kidnapping, torture and murdering of the US-soldiers in that article.

Here is the actual quote from the BBC article that you linked to:

Some of the suspects belong to the Division's 502nd Infantry Regiment, the same unit as two soldiers kidnapped, tortured and killed by insurgents south of Baghdad last month.

Some reports suggested that this event may have spurred soldiers to come forward with information about the killings.

Nowhere does the quote explictly state that the insurgents killed the two soldiers in retaliation for the rape/murders. If you continue to insist that this is what the quote says, then you need to practice your critical reading skills.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by f1000

Here is the actual quote from the BBC article that you linked to:

Some of the suspects belong to the Division's 502nd Infantry Regiment, the same unit as two soldiers kidnapped, tortured and killed by insurgents south of Baghdad last month.

Some reports suggested that this event may have spurred soldiers to come forward with information about the killings.

Nowhere does the quote explictly state that the insurgents killed the two soldiers in retaliation for the rape/murders. If you continue to insist that this is what the quote says, then you need to practice your critical reading skills.

Now you finally get to understand the fine difference between explicitly stating something, and merely suggesting and hinting. The article indeed didn't explicitly state a link, that would be only possible, if the insurgent-group responsible for the kidnapping, torture and killing of the US-soldiers came forward with a press-release that explicitly stated that it acted so in revenge for the raping and killing that happened in the same town.

As that hasn't happened, or at least the BBC hasn't any written record of it, it chose merely to hint and suggest such a link by mentioning the fact that the US-soldiers that were kidnapped and killed were from the same regiment-unit as some of the rape-accused soldiers.

And if you go back to my postings, you will read that I wrote about that link with careful qualifiers, like "suggesting" and "possible"... and not as explicit statements.

I guess you are the one who needs to practice his critical reading skills.

Taliesin

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

As that hasn't happened, or at least the BBC hasn't any written record of it, it chose merely to hint and suggest such a link by mentioning the fact that the US-soldiers that were kidnapped and killed were from the same regiment-unit as some of the rape-accused soldiers.

The BBC didn't choose to hint anything. What you think the BBC meant to say is your opinion.

No legitimate news organization at the time of your initial post claimed that the two GIs were executed in retaliation for the rape/murders. This is what I said in my first reply to you and this is what I'll say in my last reply to you, as this is getting repetitive.

[SimeyTheLimey]

By the way, same regiment does not necessarily mean same unit. It could be, but the odds are that they were not part of the same unit in any meaningful sense. There are three whole batallions in the 101st Airborne that are designated the 502d Infantry, each with five companies (six if you count the batallion HHC). That is close to an entire brigade, or to put it another way, somewhere around 2500 soldiers.

Most soldiers would not regard someone in a completely different batallion as being in the same unit, even if they belong to the same brigade. Your company and batallion commanders are operationally the most important to a line soldier. Your company is what soldiers would call your "unit" or perhaps your batallion. Beyond that it becomes very remote. If you are in a different company, or batallion, you don't interact very much with the soldiers in other batallions, or even with soldiers in other companies of the same batallion. More to the point, brigades cover very large territorial areas and batallions within those brigades could be many, many, miles apart.

Really, the only relevance here is that two soldiers would have worn the same unit patch. But everyone in the entire 101st Airborne wears that same patch. There is no way to tell by looking at a combat soldier in his combat uniform which brigade he is in. It's not like the British Army where regiments are distinctive and wear uniforms that set them apart from one another.

In general, it makes little sense in the US Army to refer to a regiment as a unit. That makes sense for the British Army (even after Blair's gutting of the regiments) but not to the US Army. Regiments aren't considered operational units. The names are maintained only on paper for historical reasons. What matters are divisions, brigades, batallions, and companies. But I suppose we can't expect the BBC to understand this.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Read the article. He's in US federal court.

Yeah. so maybe all those dudes we arrested in Afghanistan & Iraq should be tried in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever they came from. dont you reckon they'd get a fair trial ? Exactly.

This is an isolated case....and im sure there have been a fair few abuses (and cover ups) by the US during their iniated invasion. they should join the ICC to help put a stop to this crap buy that would be a PR nightmare nad they know it, which is why i suspect they havent joined. for shame.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

This is an isolated case....and im sure there have been a fair few abuses (and cover ups) by the US during their iniated invasion. they should join the ICC to help put a stop to this crap buy that would be a PR nightmare nad they know it, which is why i suspect they havent joined. for shame.

"they should join the ICC to help put a stop to this crap buy that would be a PR nightmare nad they know it" Maybe there is an international organization you can join that would make your post coherent?

Anyway, this former soldier has been indicted and is facing trial in US federal court. Even if the Clinton or Bush Administrations didn't both agree that the ICC was a bad idea, it would have made no difference to the case. Under the ICC treaty, the ICC has no jurisdiction where, as here, a country tries its own soldier.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

he raped the still living woman/girl and then killed her

At least he didn't do it in the opposite order. Though would having sex with a dead person technically be rape? Hmm, now that's a discussion for another time...

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

"they should join the ICC to help put a stop to this crap buy that would be a PR nightmare nad they know it" Maybe there is an international organization you can join that would make your post coherent?

Anyway, this former soldier has been indicted and is facing trial in US federal court. Even if the Clinton or Bush Administrations didn't both agree that the ICC was a bad idea, it would have made no difference to the case. Under the ICC treaty, the ICC has no jurisdiction where, as here, a country tries its own soldier.

Well... apart from the personal attack woven into your post.....

If citizens of the US could be ried under the ICC, i suspect a lot more cases would be brought forward against the U.S. military.... thus making it harder to carry out coverups the way the U.S. military and U.S. media control that information. And while that is happening non-U.S. citizens would feel safer when they have an invading army on their soil.

Since more cases would be brought to light...it would be a PR nightmare for the U.S. government. do you understand that ? put yourself in the shoes on a non-U.S. citizen and see how you'd expect due justice if the U.S. army on your soil is the only thing policing itself.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Well... apart from the personal attack woven into your post.....

If citizens of the US could be ried under the ICC, i suspect a lot more cases would be brought forward against the U.S. military.... thus making it harder to carry out coverups the way the U.S. military and U.S. media control that information. And while that is happening non-U.S. citizens would feel safer when they have an invading army on their soil.

Since more cases would be brought to light...it would be a PR nightmare for the U.S. government. do you understand that ? put yourself in the shoes on a non-U.S. citizen and see how you'd expect due justice if the U.S. army on your soil is the only thing policing itself.

You need to do some research on what the ICC does and does not do. It doesn't do what you think it does.

As a secondary matter, the US has an excellent track record of prosecuting soldiers for crimes they commit against the citizens of other countries. This is just one example of many. That is why all of our allies allow the US to try our own (and equally, we allow their soldiers stationed in the US -- such as Germans -- to be tried by their own authorities). This is quite normal. You have an obsession about the US that is quite divorced from reality and I am quite sure can't be put off by mere facts.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by f1000

The BBC didn't choose to hint anything. What you think the BBC meant to say is your opinion.

No legitimate news organization at the time of your initial post claimed that the two GIs were executed in retaliation for the rape/murders. This is what I said in my first reply to you and this is what I'll say in my last reply to you, as this is getting repetitive.

You are funny, really, to the point of being hilarious. The BBC indeed chose to hint and suggest a link between the rape/murder of the iraqi woman/family and the kidnapping/murder of two US-soldiers from the same unit as some of the accused, otherwise the BBC wouldn't have mentioned the kidnapping and wouldn't have stressed the fact that the kinapped, tortured and murdered US-soldiers were from the same unit as some of the accused soldiers.

And just like it was the BBC's choice to hint and suggest a link, it was obviously your choice to ignore that hint deliberately and try to come off as a smarta**, a course of action and thinking which went badly wrong.

But, ok, maybe you are just too insensitive for hints, suggestions and reading between the lines, and need some direct statements. Just in on BBC-online, an insurgent-group that claims to have kidnapped, tortured and killed the two US-soldiers, have issued a press-release and a gruesome video pointing out that their motive was to revenge the raping and killing of the iraqi woman and her family by US-soldiers of the same unit as the kidnapped ones:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5167524.stm


They could have lied though, taking opportunity of the exposed raping and putting the blame on the US-soldiers..., but that depends on when the video and the statements were produced.

Taliesin

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

They could have lied though, taking opportunity of the exposed raping and putting the blame on the US-soldiers..., but that depends on when the video and the statements were produced.

That Al Qaeda would choose to capitalize on these tragedies was inevitable. Their press release was published yesterday, however, well after you had tried to pass off your opinion as fact.

To reiterate: at the time of your first post, no legitimate news organization had suggested that the two GIs were murdered in retaliation for the rape/murders. In fact, many of the news reports had explicitly stated that the military had denied any knowledge of such a causal relationship. Based on the rest of your idiotic ramblings, you obviously have no idea what causality means.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by f1000

That Al Qaeda would choose to capitalize on these tragedies was inevitable. Their press release was published yesterday, however, well after you had tried to pass off your opinion as fact.

To reiterate: at the time of your first post, no legitimate news organization had suggested that the two GIs were murdered in retaliation for the rape/murders. In fact, many of the news reports had explicitly stated that the military had denied any knowledge of such a causal relationship. Based on the rest of your idiotic ramblings, you obviously have no idea what causality means.

Comeon, now we are getting really repetitive, it seems that your pride is standing in the way, which prevents you from realizing that you unjustifiedly knee-jerked against me:

I never claimed a causal relation between the incidents, I merely stated that there possibly is one, because the BBC hinted and suggested such a link by mentioning and stressing the fact that the two kidnapped, tortured and murdered US-soldiers were from the same unit as some of the rape/murder accused US-soldiers, simple as that.

Your insistence on projecting, as well as your insistence on being unable to see a difference between stating a causal link and hinting/suggesting a link, is growing nearly weary. But at least it has some comedy-value. So, keep it on.

Taliesin

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Well... apart from the personal attack woven into your post.....

If citizens of the US could be ried under the ICC, i suspect a lot more cases would be brought forward against the U.S. military.... thus making it harder to carry out coverups the way the U.S. military and U.S. media control that information. And while that is happening non-U.S. citizens would feel safer when they have an invading army on their soil.

Since more cases would be brought to light...it would be a PR nightmare for the U.S. government. do you understand that ? put yourself in the shoes on a non-U.S. citizen and see how you'd expect due justice if the U.S. army on your soil is the only thing policing itself.

If U.S. citizens could be tried by the ICC, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of "nuisance" prosecutions aimed at punishing the U.S. for political decisions rather than punishing U.S. soldiers for actual crimes. This is the primary reason that the U.S. is not signatory to the ICC. WE, like a few other countries, have a professional military culture that abhors misbehavior by our own. You do NOT want to be a soldier brought up on charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, even if you're innocent. It makes being charge with civilian crimes seem kind and friendly.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Comeon, now we are getting really repetitive, it seems that your pride is standing in the way, which prevents you from realizing that you unjustifiedly knee-jerked against me

And your wounded pride isn't what's causing you to continually respond to my replies?

In any event, I don't wish to respond to your ad hominem anymore. Go ahead and post one last piece of bull to soothe your ego.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by f1000

And your wounded pride isn't what's causing you to continually respond to my replies?

In any event, I don't wish to respond to your ad hominem anymore. Go ahead and post one last piece of bull to soothe your ego.

If I have hurt your feelings, I apologise, that's not my goal. I merely wanted you to realize that you kneejerked, but I guess it's too late for that.

Taliesin