More Whacky US Soldier Antics

[Mr Manifesto]

I just bet the Iraqis are glad they've been liberated by those we're-here-to-give-y'all-freedom Yankees.

With friends like these

Quote:

An hour later, family members recalled, the soldiers led a hooded man from the house and told the family they were arresting Bawi. Only after the soldiers left with what appeared to be a prisoner did Bawi's brother find his bloodied body, shot five times and stuffed behind a refrigerator underneath a pile of mattresses.

So, what do you have to do, exactly, to get into the US army? Figure out which end you have to wipe one time out of three?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Well, it beats the Iraqi military entrance exam of knowing how to turn on the prison wood chipper.

[chrisberez]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Well, it beats the Iraqi military entrance exam of knowing how to turn on the prison wood chipper.

Oh, so two wrongs make a right now?

When did this happen? Did I miss a meeting?

[LTC8K6]

Well, the soldiers claim that he tried to grab one of their weapons.

That would explain shooting him, but not the rest.

The OP is a bit misleading, imo.

I wonder why there is an automatic belief of either side of the story?

[crimresearch]

Hey, the massacre of thousands of innocents at Jenin turned out to be true and unimpeacheble, the British soldier's torture photos turned out to be authenticated beyond refutation, the US soldier raping children and killing parents, then making the Iraqi child hold up a sign saying so turned out to be unassailable fact, and the Palestinian child strapped to the Iraeli force's vehicle as a shield agaiinst bullets was proven to be a case of rock solid reporting.

After so many years of journalistic infallibility and integrity, there just isn't any room for skepticism in regards to media reports such as this current one.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisberez


Oh, so two wrongs make a right now?

When did this happen? Did I miss a meeting?

You may not have missed a meeting, but I think you missed the call for brains when they were handing them out. There is a big difference between what is policy of the government, and the act of an undisciplined individual.

I'm tired of the inequity in the media coverage. Where is the outrage of years of institutionalized torture and abuse their government inflicted on them?

I hope we pull completely out of Iraq at the changeover and see what happens then. Maybe the actions of the occasional idiot soldier who squeeked past the evals and can't apply simple common sense won't seem to be all that bad against what will take our place.

If you had to make a choice, which system would you rather live under?

>>"While I was a prisoner of war, US soldiers made me wear womens' undergarments."

>>"While I was at work, my younger brother was taken out of school by police because a neighbor reported I was against Sadamm. I never saw him again."

We should go after Osama and anyone else that supports him like we should of in the first place.

[chrisberez]

So our government is sanctioning it officially, but they don't appear to be doing much about it either. Obviously we'll see more from whatever reports the pentagon allows to be released, but what was said to be the actions of only a 'few idiot soldiers' continues to grow. War crimes are war crimes. Just because Sadam's government opening sanctioned torture, that excuses the actions of these soldiers? The difference is that the U.S. holds itself up as the moral example, the country that doesn't let this stuff happen. And the actions of a 'few soldiers', which the red cross and Amnesty International have been investigating and for two years were activly supressed by the military until footage was leaked to the media. Further, now we have news that Rumsfeld ordered this particular prisoner to be kept secret from the red cross- another violation of the geneva convention.

Quote:

I hope we pull completely out of Iraq at the changeover and see what happens then. Maybe the actions of the occasional idiot soldier who squeeked past the evals and can't apply simple common sense won't seem to be all that bad against what will take our place.

Maybe, or maybe not. The question still remains whether it was ever our war to fight in the first place. If the Iraqis want us out, then they want us out. But adapting a "boys will be boys" attitude and saying that "oh, well, what they did was worse" doesn't excuse anything our soldiers do. Nor should just a 'few soldiers' who did these things be made to take the fall if it turns out their actions were sanctioned by their superiors.

Quote:

There is a big difference between what is policy of the government, and the act of an undisciplined individual.

This is true, but it also matters how our government responds. Bush may not have approved these actions himself, but he is the commander-in-cheif, and as such, it falls on him to see how far up the chain of command this goes and to undertake disiplinary actions.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Yes, war crime is war crime. I'm not condoning or advocating it, it just seems blown out of proportion. I think our percentage of misconduct is very, very far below that of the Iraqi forces. And again, it is not US policy. One of the most disturbing things I heard in the last few days was the news saying some memo floated around saying it was 'legal' to violate the Geneva Convention. I'm not happy that some in the US services are violating it.

One of the things I always believed in and treated as inviolate while I was in the service was the Rules of Engagement and the Geneva Convention. The conduct it required servicemembers to follow separated us (and made us better than) from the regimes that would beat you and your family to death for 'speaking like a traitor'.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Well, it beats the Iraqi military entrance exam of knowing how to turn on the prison wood chipper.

You know, they never did find a single bloody wood chipper.

We have photographs of our attrocities.

And it looks like they're continuing.

Good job with that training and discipline, folks!

[Bjorn]

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave
You know, they never did find a single bloody wood chipper.

I've been wondering about that one. Is it true that they never found it? Was it 'pulling babies out of incubators' once again? Anyone?

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave


You know, they never did find a single bloody wood chipper.

We have photographs of our attrocities.

And it looks like they're continuing.

Good job with that training and discipline, folks!

Ignorance is bliss.

From History Channel to A&E there have been more than plenty videos and photos of torture and genocide.

If you ever need to see it you can always buy this episode.

http://www.aetv.com/global/listings/...es&Id=10635969

[chrisberez]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Yes, war crime is war crime. I'm not condoning or advocating it, it just seems blown out of proportion. I think our percentage of misconduct is very, very far below that of the Iraqi forces. And again, it is not US policy. One of the most disturbing things I heard in the last few days was the news saying some memo floated around saying it was 'legal' to violate the Geneva Convention. I'm not happy that some in the US services are violating it.

One of the things I always believed in and treated as inviolate while I was in the service was the Rules of Engagement and the Geneva Convention. The conduct it required servicemembers to follow separated us (and made us better than) from the regimes that would beat you and your family to death for 'speaking like a traitor'.

OK, fair enough. In this case then I agree with you. I'm still not sure that this has been blown out of proportion. I think the reason it continues to be such a big deal is that the majority of Americans, and the rest of the world as well, were truly surprised. One hears of such things in China and doesn't bat in eye, but America holds itself to different standards. Most people really didn't expect this.

And yes you are right that compared to what Saddam did, this really isn't that bad. But these actions are still very wrong and need to be punished, that's all I'm saying.

Something I forgot to mention last time- the worst thing about this is how badly it undermines our position and endangers the 95% of our troops out there who ARE doing the right thing. It's the good American/allied soldiers/civillian contractors who will bear the brunt of this anger. The perpetrators will be in jail, yes, but in an American jail- which is better then having you head sawed off by terrorists.

Yes, I remember the Iraqi gas attacks.

Does that mean that it's OK for US troops to round people up and torture them? To (as in this case) torture, kill them and try to conceal what they have done?

What else have they successfully concealed?

What we're doing is on a par with the gas attacks, especially as long as the people who have encouraged this behavior are getting away with it.


No wood chippers, though. You'd think that they'd find at least one of the things and parade it across the media, with even more colorful stories of people being fed in alive, begging for mercy than when they spread this rumor.

I think that they needed something "fresh" to outrage people, so they wouldn't *think*. The gassings were old history by then. Everyone had seen the dead babies and bloated carcasses. Of course, the propaganda and lying doesn't help the government's case. It basically makes it less likely that what truth they tell would not be believed.

[gnome]

Which outrages me more, a serial killer in my county knocking off dozens of people, or someone in my own family unfairly pounding someone?

Just because they're not as bad as the serial killer doesn't change the fact that I feel intense outrage that evil came from my own house...

[Mr Manifesto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Yes, war crime is war crime. I'm not condoning or advocating it, it just seems blown out of proportion. I think our percentage of misconduct is very, very far below that of the Iraqi forces. And again, it is not US policy. One of the most disturbing things I heard in the last few days was the news saying some memo floated around saying it was 'legal' to violate the Geneva Convention. I'm not happy that some in the US services are violating it.

One of the things I always believed in and treated as inviolate while I was in the service was the Rules of Engagement and the Geneva Convention. The conduct it required servicemembers to follow separated us (and made us better than) from the regimes that would beat you and your family to death for 'speaking like a traitor'.

And that's my point. We are increasingly seeing an incompetant military. Someone should be taken to task for turning the US military into the embarassment it is at the moment. There are too many 'undisciplined individuals' for my liking.

Quote:

Which outrages me more, a serial killer in my county knocking off dozens of people, or someone in my own family unfairly pounding someone?

Just because they're not as bad as the serial killer doesn't change the fact that I feel intense outrage that evil came from my own house...

That's eloquently put, and matches my feelings precisely. Thank you, gnome!

Frankly, I have higher expectations for my own government and its military than I have for terrorists and thugs.

Unfortunately, my own government's own military are behaving like a bunch of terrorists and thugs.

[zakur]

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...cle_9069.shtml

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave

What we're doing is on a par with the gas attacks, especially as long as the people who have encouraged this behavior are getting away with it.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Kurds Saddam killed.

Quote:

No wood chippers, though. You'd think that they'd find at least one of the things and parade it across the media, with even more colorful stories of people being fed in alive, begging for mercy than when they spread this rumor.

I frankly never heard this "rumor". I have no idea if it happened, I have no idea if anyone actually claimed it happened (using it as a metaphor doesn't count), and I frankly don't care. Because we KNOW he had the ears cut off of hundreds of soldiers for deserting. We KNOW he had people's limbs amputated as punishment (recall the recent case of seven Iraqi businessmen who were given prosthetic limbs in the US recently - Saddam had their amputations videotaped, and they are far from extraordinary in that regard). And perhaps most importantly, we KNOW Saddam created mass graves and filled them with victims. That's enough, and I will never regret the US bringing his reign of terror to an end. I know who the true villains in all this are (hint: it's not Bush), and I'm not going to take my eye off the ball to satisfy anyone else's self-indulgent sense of moral outrage.

Hundreds of thousands? Boy, talk about exaggerating....

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm

Quote:

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

So, *MAYBE* a hundred thousand. Though one would be too many.

Quote:

The Baath regime launched 39 separate gas attacks against the Kurds, many of them targeting villages far from the Iran-Iraq border. Beginning at night on Thursday, March 16, and extending into Friday, March 17, 1988, the city of Halabja (population 70,000), was bombarded with twenty chemical and cluster bombs. Photographs show dead children in the street with lunch pails. An estimated 5,000 persons died. Although some analysts say the gas used was hydrogen cyanide (not in Iraq's arsenal), others have suggested it might have been sarin, VX, and tabun. Iraq is known to have these agents. (Iran is not known to have hydrogen cyanide, in any case).

http://hnn.us/articles/862.html

Quote:

Over the past six months President Bush has repeatedly reminded the public that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people. What he has neglected to mention is that at the time Saddam did so the United States did nothing to stop him. Indeed, as Samantha Power makes clear in an account in her new book, A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, the United States refused even to condemn the killing of civilians.

(Side note: I found this interesting...)
Turkey's killed 23,000 Kurds since 1987, according to Turkey.

BTW, Turkey has a history of incursions into Iraq to chase these so-called terrorists. 23,400 and all 'terrorists'? Hmm. Who'd have thought that everyone they killed would be a 'terrorist'. A bit telling when you consider the U.S. government *claims* all the thousands of people the U.S. has imprisoned NOW (and are busy torturing) are 'terrorists'.

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave
Hundreds of thousands? Boy, talk about exaggerating....

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm


So, *MAYBE* a hundred thousand. Though one would be too many.

Ah yes, I didn't recall the figures correctly. But seeing as how Saddam didn't restrict his killing to those years alone, I'd venture that 100,000 is not a bad estimate. And 7yes, I was a little too flippant: I did not mean to say that this figure was all (or even mostly) due to chemical weapons, rather that arguing that what we did is as bad as what Saddam did has no basis in any rational moral analysis. The fact that these Kurds died by conventional weapons does not somehow absolve Saddam of any guilt.

Quote:

(Side note: I found this interesting...)
Turkey's killed 23,000 Kurds since 1987, according to Turkey.

I hear this kind of argument a lot (the idea that we're so hypocritical because some other country besides Iraq did something bad and we didn't invade them). But it's only used as some sort of vague implier that since we did something wrong in the past (though it's never specified exactly what we should have done), invading Iraq was therefore wrong. But of course, there's no real line of logic to connect these things, either given or even implied. It's an intellectual ruse, a slight-of-mind, nothing more. I've seen it time and again, with countless other examples of how bad we supposedly are, but I remain unimpressed by the lack of any coherent argument about what we should be dong now.

Quote:

A bit telling when you consider the U.S. government *claims* all the thousands of people the U.S. has imprisoned NOW (and are busy torturing) are 'terrorists'.

Actually, that's not at all what the US gov't is claiming. They're mostly classified as enemy combatants, a term which includes terrorists but also Taliban soldiers. And back to the whole slight-of-mind thing you're playing, you say that this is "telling", but you don't say WHAT it's telling. That implies something nefarious or corrupt, but of course what exactly this tells us is left unsaid, so that it does not need to be defended.

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by zakur
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...cle_9069.shtml

Funny, but I don't believe that site for a second. So I'll match you:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

which gives a rather different picture of improving life in Iraq.

We've seen plenty of cases of supposed massacres that simply didn't happen (Jenin, anyone?). I simply do not believe the claim of the 800 dead being mostly women and children, though I won't guess who's doing the lying.

Other claims just don't stand up to basic scrutiny.

"People dying from bad water and starving to death because there aren’t enough jobs just don’t grab the attention that bombs demand from the media."

People die from bad water mostly from Cholera. And there was no cholera epidemic, though plenty predicted it. Are a few people dying of cholera? Maybe, but it was bad under Saddam as well. And the economy was much worse as well, with rampant unemployment.

Here's a basic reality check: which way are the refugees flowing? What is the currency doing?

Well, refugees are returning to Iraq, not leaving, and the currency is quite stable. In other words, the opposite of how things were under Saddam. Your article simply does not square with these obvious, and pretty damned objective, indicators of the general welfare of the country.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by crimresearch
Hey, the massacre of thousands of innocents at Jenin turned out to be true and unimpeacheble

That's right, it was so few people who died, it doesn't really matter at all. Not that we really know what happened, because the UN was not allowed to look. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

[gnome]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I'm not going to take my eye off the ball to satisfy anyone else's self-indulgent sense of moral outrage.

Isn't this a false dichotomy?

Why does paying attention to our own misconduct require us to ignore the real danger?

[crimresearch]

And of course, the fact that the forensic medical teams who went in ***independent*** of the UN reported that not only was there no evidence of thousands of people being killed in that small area, but that there was no ***possible***way for such an event to have occured and been covered up without leaving much more trace evidence, doesn't matter does it?
(Even though the story suddenly and conveniently changed from 'Thousands of innocents massacred', to ['Dozens with guns massacred').

The fact that observers who went to Jenin after the fact and discovered that not the entire city, but only a small area of a few blocks had been razed, is also is a poor fit with the original story. (And again the story was conveniently changed after the fact to 'Other media got it wrong').

Or are Doctor's Without Borders another part of the evil Jooz/Aliens conspiracy to cover up the truth by beaming up the body parts and making phony reports?

End result for those who have to stick to reality, is non-massacre, non-story, cold hearted hype from hate mongers.

[Mr Manifesto]

HEY! KEEP YOUR ISRAEL/PALESTINE BULLSH!T OUT OF MY F***ING THREAD!

[Bjorn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I frankly never heard this "rumor". I have no idea if it happened, I have no idea if anyone actually claimed it happened (using it as a metaphor doesn't count), and I frankly don't care.

The story came up just before the war, and lasted for quite a while. I guess it stopped at about the time we had control of the Abu Ghraib prison and never found any shredders there or elsewhere.

Times started(?) the story of the human shredder in the Abu Ghraib prison with this headline March 18:

Quote:

"See men shredded, then say you don't back war".

Australian PM, John Howard explained his reasons for joining the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq March 20. His speech included this:

Quote:

"This week, the Times of London detailed the use of a human shredding machine as a vehicle for putting to death critics of Saddam Hussein. This is the man, this is the apparatus of terror we are dealing with."

Fox News, July 23 2003:

Quote:

Prisoners were often eliminated with a bullet to the head, but one witness told the London-based human rights group Indict that inmates were sometimes murdered by being dropped into shredding machines. Some prisoners went in head first and died quickly, while others were put in feet first and died screaming. The witness said that on at least one occasion, Qusay supervised shredding-machine murders.

FrontPage magazine December 22, 2003:

Quote:

Tales of Saddam’s torture chambers are enough to make Quentin Tarantino gag – men eaten alive by half-starved dogs, others put through plastic-shredding machines feet first, to prolong their agony.

Senator John McCain, December 21, 2003:

Quote:

... political opponents, real or imagined, had their eyes gouged out, their tongues cut off, were forced to watch their loved ones being raped or shot, or were fed alive into a human shredding machine.

Someone claimed it happened, indeed. Since Saddam and sons were cruel enough even witout the shredder, I guess it was just too good a story to try verifying it, much like the incubators.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Ah yes, I didn't recall the figures correctly. But seeing as how Saddam didn't restrict his killing to those years alone, I'd venture that 100,000 is not a bad estimate. And 7yes, I was a little too flippant: I did not mean to say that this figure was all (or even mostly) due to chemical weapons, rather that arguing that what we did is as bad as what Saddam did has no basis in any rational moral analysis. The fact that these Kurds died by conventional weapons does not somehow absolve Saddam of any guilt.



I hear this kind of argument a lot (the idea that we're so hypocritical because some other country besides Iraq did something bad and we didn't invade them). But it's only used as some sort of vague implier that since we did something wrong in the past (though it's never specified exactly what we should have done), invading Iraq was therefore wrong. But of course, there's no real line of logic to connect these things, either given or even implied. It's an intellectual ruse, a slight-of-mind, nothing more. I've seen it time and again, with countless other examples of how bad we supposedly are, but I remain unimpressed by the lack of any coherent argument about what we should be dong now.



Actually, that's not at all what the US gov't is claiming. They're mostly classified as enemy combatants, a term which includes terrorists but also Taliban soldiers. And back to the whole slight-of-mind thing you're playing, you say that this is "telling", but you don't say WHAT it's telling. That implies something nefarious or corrupt, but of course what exactly this tells us is left unsaid, so that it does not need to be defended.

OK, let me connect the dots for you.

Iraq killed lots of Kurds. Turkey killed almost between 25% and 50% as many Kurds, according to which number between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraq killed. Either way, Turkey is up to genocide every bit just as much as Iraq, especially considering how far out of their way Turkey occasionally had to go to kill them. The U.S. is still "good friends" with Turkey, BTW, just as it was "good friends" with Iraq throughout their campaign of killing.

Both Iraq and Turkey would claim they have good reason to kill kurds. Either 'terrorists' or 'combatants'. Doesn't matter.

The U.S. is imprisoning, torturing and killing peoiple for what it considers 'good reasons'. The U.S. is imprisoning people by the thousands. Calling them 'illegal combatants', which is what they call terrorists.

Just because you arbitrarily label people something like "terrorist" or "illegal combatant" doesn't mean you automatically get to throw away all of their human rights. Whether you plan to kill them, or "only" torture them indefinitely. If the U.S. government labeled your mom a 'terrorist' (or 'illegal combatant'; the terms are interchangeable), would it be OK to torture her indefinitely?

I cite Turkey because that number of 23,400 'terrorists' seems like a very, very high number within any population group. An unsupportably high number of 'terrorists' to be killing, really. Of course, if the number's quite padded up with women, children, bystanders, etc. then that would seem like a more realistic number. Or maybe all the Kurds really are 'terrorists'? On another side note, if these Kurds all really are 'terrorists', remember back in the first Gulf War when the U.S. supported the Kurds? Wouldn't that be supporting 'terrorists'?

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
HEY!

I know how you feel, man...

[Bottle or the Gun]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


And that's my point. We are increasingly seeing an incompetant military. Someone should be taken to task for turning the US military into the embarassment it is at the moment. There are too many 'undisciplined individuals' for my liking.

It is no one administrations' fault.

The current military has no real mission, that's the problem. I was in the service when the russian threat was down-graded. (It was exlained to me like this: Russia was a threat because we had 4 days to respond and make our counter-move if they started moving supplies to Siberia, etc. We were a threat to Russia because we only needed 3 days to get into positionand they stayed tense because we were faster. Once their infrastructure collapsed it would take them 7-10 days to start ramping up, and with them telegraphing their punches so slow, we had all the time in the world to head them off at the pass)

Suddenly, there was no mission, no way to justify a budget or training, no equipment...nothing.

All attempts to create an atmosphere of urgency to keep the big military-industrial economy going have failed, so along comes 9/11 and Homeland Security, the bastard children of years of cut backs, lack of vision and complacency.

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by evildave
OK, let me connect the dots for you.

Iraq killed lots of Kurds. Turkey killed almost between 25% and 50% as many Kurds, according to which number between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraq killed. Either way, Turkey is up to genocide every bit just as much as Iraq, especially considering how far out of their way Turkey occasionally had to go to kill them. The U.S. is still "good friends" with Turkey, BTW, just as it was "good friends" with Iraq throughout their campaign of killing.

You missed my point completely. No surprise. Maybe you actually believe you have a point, but you don't. Because you cannot lay out what you think the US should have done. Does Turkey's crimes mean we cannot do something about Iraq's crimes? Does Turkey's crimes mean we should have invaded Turkey as well? Apparently it would be too much to ask for you to actually have a position on this. But without such a position, the fact that Turkey committed crimes as well cannot be used to conclude anything about whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. Your "position" represents nothing more than a resolve to remain irresolute (to paraphrase someone else). Which is why I frankly don't care what you think. Take a real position and maybe we can have a debate. But what you're throwing out doesn't consititute a position at all, merely an incoherent diatribe.

Quote:

Just because you arbitrarily label people something like "terrorist" or "illegal combatant" doesn't mean you automatically get to throw away all of their human rights. Whether you plan to kill them, or "only" torture them indefinitely.

Vague, unsupported assertions. Nobody is being tortured indefinitely. We don't do that because quite frankly it does no good. Torture produces unreliable information and taints your own soldiers, making them less useful. from a purely cynical viewpoint, there's still no reason to believe systematic torture is happening.

The North Vietnamese, for example, did not use torture for information. They used it for propaganda. But it should be obvious that we can't do the same. That won't shut up the conspiracy theorists. But maybe you consider imprisonment itself torture. If so, well, sorry for not caring.

Quote:

On another side note, if these Kurds all really are 'terrorists', remember back in the first Gulf War when the U.S. supported the Kurds? Wouldn't that be supporting 'terrorists'?

Wow, what a prime example of what I was talking about: this isn't about taking any real position (and in fact taking this position would contradict things you've said elsewhere), it's about trying to poke holes, any holes, no matter how absurd or contradictory, in someone else's position. You seem to have defined yourself as being in opposition - you have no plan of action, you have no real idea of what we should really be doing (now or in the past), you're just merely convinced that everything we're doing now must be wrong. Because, like, it's Bush, and he's like, bad. Torture! Torture!

[Bottle or the Gun]

I don't know what they are whining about. Iraq still has a great percentage going for them!
from: The Onion

[Skeptic]

What we're doing is on a par with the gas attacks,

This deserves some special "most idiotic statement of the month" award.

No wood chippers, though. You'd think that they'd find at least one of the things and parade it across the media, with even more colorful stories of people being fed in alive, begging for mercy than when they spread this rumor.

..not to mention all those tall tale about gas chambers in Auschwitz, with colorful but implausible stories by so-called "survivors", while there isn't a single film of those chambers in action in real time! You'd think they'd have found it by now...

Remember, folks: when you do some atrocious evil, COVER YOUR TRACKS. Don't photograph or film it. That way, in a few years, idiots like "evildave" will tell others how it never happened, that there's no hard evidence, that it's all an invented fantasy designed to unfairly smear the Nazis or Ba'athists or whomever.

You get to BOTH do the crime AND play "innocent victim of vicious propaganda", all for the cheap, cheap price of merely not documenting your deeds!

I think that they needed something "fresh" to outrage people, so they wouldn't *think*. The gassings

... in Auschwitz...

were old history by...

... 1961, so they invented the Eichmann trial! Anything to keep the horror fresh, so the brainwashed masses wouldn't *think* about Nazi Germany in an *objective* way.

Everyone had seen the dead babies and bloated carcasses.

Yes (yawn), it's just a few hundred thousand of (yawn) dead innocents. Why keep mentioning the same old stuff? Maybe Saddam had changed since ordering that massacre? Perhaps he became a nice guy.

Geez, you guys--Saddam kills a few hundred thousands of innocents with nerve gas once and can't get a fair shake from the biased media any more! You keep bringing up this SAME OLD STUFF!

And who was the schmuck who actually PHOTOGRAPHED the corpses, anyway? Didn't he get the "if the photograph doesn't exist, they'll be saying it never happened in a few years" memo?

Saddam really should cut his hand off... or something... which *cough* *cough* he naturally never did, it's all evil propaganda. I mean, all you've got is a few one-handed liars CLAIMING to be tortured by him. Where's the REAL evidence???

Of course, the propaganda and lying doesn't help the government's case.

Yes, they should really back up from that stupid "holocaust" story while they still can.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Wow, what a prime example of what I was talking about: this isn't about taking any real position (and in fact taking this position would contradict things you've said elsewhere), it's about trying to poke holes, any holes, no matter how absurd or contradictory, in someone else's position. You seem to have defined yourself as being in opposition - you have no plan of action, you have no real idea of what we should really be doing (now or in the past), you're just merely convinced that everything we're doing now must be wrong. Because, like, it's Bush, and he's like, bad. Torture! Torture!

What to do?

What is there to do? We're F*CKED, thanks to our retarded president and his despicable love of arbitrary warfare and torture.

We can't stay and occupy Iraq forever. We can't just up and leave. We've got a lot of the Iraqi population hating us now, and we're busy winning more converts to the "hate" side by continuing human rights abuses, such as killing, abducting and torturing people. Whatever government we leave behind there won't last a year, probably to be replaced by something that makes the Iranians look friendly. I'm sure that will all be fine as long as Haliburton collects its cash from the government. Oh, and now there really IS a big, fat terrorist presence in Iraq because we opened the floodgates for it by destabilizing the region.

Iraq won't be 'another Vietnam'. We'll look back on Vietnam as pleasant memories of the good old days.

Amnesty International's Iraq Page
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-110504-action-eng

http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGAMR510772004
USA: Pattern of brutality and cruelty -- war crimes at Abu Ghraib

United States of America
Amnesty International's concerns regarding post September 11 detentions in the USA
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510442002


http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510532002


The Red Cross's Iraq Page
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0...q?OpenDocument

Protecting life and dignity: "No war is above international law"

Iraq: ICRC explains position over detention report and treatment of prisoners
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0...256E8D005D3861

How the ICRC transmitted the report to the detaining authorities:
The report in question was handed to Mr. Paul Bremer and Lt-Gen. Ricardo Sanchez in February 2004; various aspects of its contents had been discussed with the Coalition authorities at different times and at different levels during 2003 and included in documents submitted to them; "I won't go into the details but ... they don't concern only issues of water and food but also clearly of treatment."

On feedback from the authorities and the impact of the ICRC's reporting:
On a number of occasions the ICRC was assured that its findings were being taken very seriously, and that measures would be taken; in later visits there were indications that some of the material problems had been addressed; however, more remained to be done, particularly given that "we were dealing here with a broader pattern and a system, as opposed to individual acts..."

On questions of treatment raised in the leaked report:
Some of the elements the ICRC found "were tantamount to torture.... I think you will have different definitions of what torture amounts to; what we feel, and I think what you see from the photographs...is that there were clearly instances of degrading and inhumane treatment."

On the dilemma of confidentiality and maintaining access to prisoners:
The extracts of the leaked report shows how the ICRC approaches detention problems; "there were situations that remained unacceptable and difficult and there were others that were worked on – and that is the kind of approach that we have.... in terms of reputation it is certainly valued by many people – first and foremost by the people we visit..." The ICRC believed that its visits made a difference – "Had we not [thought so], we would maybe have come to another conclusion and taken other measures..."

[Skeptic]

You know, evildave, it's really surreal, the difference in your position between the good guy (Hussein) and the bad guy (Bush).

When it comes out that the US tortured prisoners, you rant (in effect): "it is FAR MORE HORRIBLE than you imagine! It wasn't 17 tortured prisoners, there might have been 86 of them!"

But when discussing Hussein, you warn us "not to exagerrate": "hundreds of thousands of civilians? Oh, c'mon, Hussein only killed 100,000 AT MOST that year. What's the big deal?"

Yes, the two are absolutely equivalent, no doubt about it. If the US keeps its horrific torture statistics up, it should catch up with Saddam's not-a-big-deal yearly number in, oh, only 4000 years or so.

Yet for you, the US is JUST AS BAD--if not worse--than Saddam.

You realize you're insane, don't you?

Detailed bullet points of abusers
http://www.nbc4.com/news/3446575/detail.html

U.S. no longer seeking War Crimes Immunity
http://www.napanews.com/templates/in...B-ED50087E894F
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...how/753005.cms

Soldiers to be charged:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...231069,00.html
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-3039562.php

A hearing today
http://www.wvec.com/sharedcontent/AP...D83DKS8O0.html

Rumsfeld ‘Okayed’ Prisoners Torture, Show Documents
http://www.indolink.com/displayArtic...d=062204112428

Quote:

Washington, June 23 (NNN): American Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally okayed the use of aggressive methods to frighten Guantanamo Bay detainees, according to newly-released documents to Tuesday.

The methods approved included stripping prisoners, forcing them into stress positions and harassing them with dogs, the documents satated.

However, the methods, approved in December 2002, were rescinded weeks later.

The Bush administration has released hundreds of secret documents which it said show interrogation methods in Cuba fell well short of torture.

The released documents show that in December 2002, Rumsfeld approved harsh interrogation techniques for Taleban and al-Qaeda terror network suspects at Guantanamo, only to rescind many of those weeks later and approve less aggressive techniques in April 2003, reportedly after military lawyers claimed they went too far.

The methods he originally approved included forcing a prisoner to stand for up to four hours, light deprivation, isolation from others for up to 30 days and interrogations lasting as long as 20 hours.

Prisoner abuse sets new stage for memo
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...on/8998766.htm

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
You know, evildave, it's really surreal, the difference in your position between the good guy (Hussein) and the bad guy (Bush).

When it comes out that the US tortured prisoners, you rant (in effect): "it is FAR MORE HORRIBLE than you imagine! It wasn't 17 tortured prisoners, there might have been 86 of them!"

But when discussing Hussein, you warn us "not to exagerrate": "hundreds of thousands of civilians? Oh, c'mon, Hussein only killed 100,000 AT MOST that year. What's the big deal?"

Yes, the two are absolutely equivalent, no doubt about it. If the US keeps its horrific torture statistics up, it should catch up with Saddam's not-a-big-deal yearly number in, oh, only 4000 years or so.

Yet for you, the US is JUST AS BAD--if not worse--than Saddam.

You realize you're insane, don't you?

Alas, Saddam Hussein isn't the one being tortured, is he? I don't care what happens to Saddam (Though if he's still alive when they topple the U.S. installed government, guess who has an even chance of being nominated?)

Nope. Just plain Iraqi citizens. Grabbed off the street for being nearby when U.S. troops raided households.

Of course, being the sort of patriot you are, I'm sure that random arrests and torture fit with your image of what America should support.

[Luceiia]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
You know, evildave, ...

You realize you're insane, don't you?

Read Cujo by S. King. King's depiction of a rabid dog is interesting...and quite similar to what I see many of the "Torture! Torture!" psychos spewing forth.


Luceiia

[Mr Manifesto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luceiia


Read Cujo by S. King. King's depiction of a rabid dog is interesting...and quite similar to what I see many of the "Torture! Torture!" psychos spewing forth.


Luceiia

Yeah, little ol' rabid us.

[crackmonkey]

I think we need to view Dave's posts for what they are - desperate pleas for help.