Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Unfortunately, the way I feel right now, and I don't really care what anyone says, is nuke that entire worthless, crappy area of the world, and move on.

rage is understandable. but of course you realize you are completely playing right into those terrorists hands when you suggest this right? why do you think they carefully taped this? and put it on the internet for the world to see? To show that they can defeat America in a war? of course not. they did this to enrage us so much that we come down on them so hard that ALL the middle east would unite against us. then the al qaeda dream scenario of a global religious war and a good excuse for all the countries of the middle east to flood down on Israel would come true. Now ask yourself do you want to give them this? Kill those five men if you like. But dont let those five men use you as a pawn to their ultimate ends. Nows the time to truly show we are better then them. And nows the time to turn the tables on them and reach out to the thousands of Iraqis who have expressed horror and sympathy over this act. They aren’t all terrorist and killers.

EDIT: By the way, what in the world possesed you to want to watch something like that? Not giggly grusome teenage voyeur lust in your case Im assuming. I just have to say I dont understand why anyone would actively respond to what is essentially the terrorist saying "hey come look at this video of us sawing the head off an american" with "ok". They WANTED you to see that. Why did you oblige? Just curious.

[Sister Golden Hair]

By the way, what in the world possesed you to want to watch something like that? Not giggly grusome teenage voyeur lust in your case Im assuming. I just have to say I dont understand why anyone would actively respond to what is essentially the terrorist saying "hey come look at this video of us sawing the head off an american" with "ok". They WANTED you to see that. Why did you oblige? Just curious.

I watched out of a need to know. A need to compare what and how the atrocities that were committed by the American's that they were using as a BS lame excuse to do what they did.

Ultimatejoe- I think I made it pretty clear that I was outraged and know that what I at that point would like to do as far as nuking the area was an anger reflex. I would love to see this mission succeed in its intended purpose. I am so sick of the U.S. being looked at as barbarians, and outrage being shown worldwide because of a few screw ups, and then when horrific things happen to Americans, it is treated as though it is deserved. I realize there are innocent and sympathetic middle easterners that are appauled by what has happened. I also realize that many of them think it is deserved. Let's face it, most have grown up having their minds poisened by a one sided media and governments that dictate their way of thinking.

[Sister Golden Hair]

However, the War on Terrorism was deployed as a vehicle for the U.S. to invade Iraq, creating the instability that fosters the sorts of attrocities we are discussing.

Are you saying that that makes it acceptable? I can maybe see saying "expected." I believe this: everyone wants to complain about the U.S.' motive to invade this country, but I believe that had it not happened when it did, it would only have been a matter of time. It was inevitable. Nomatter when though, and perhaps at some later point, someone else would have wanted to take the inititaitive, the U.S would have the messy job and would have been bitched at in one way or another. (wrong time-wrong reason) Yet the world would have complained. Doesn't matter if or when it happened, it would not be right.

[Ultimatejoe]

Of course the actions of Al-Queda and the various other criminals involved are unacceptable. I take ANY violent action against an innocent person with regret and frustration. That man no more deserved his fate than the prisoners of the Abu-Ghraib, who are largely innocent. The Red Cross and Amnesty International have both documented cases where prisoners have died under suspicious circumstances in that locale, and others. The U.S. government also admits that many (if not most) of the people who have been detained have been innocent of any crimes.

The reason why you are seeing outrage here about the actions undertaken by Americans is quite simply because that's who reads these forums. There are very few Iraqi members in this community, or most of the others of this sort online.

That being said, I don't attack the U.S. government in the way you seem to think I do. Here are the facts: 3,000 civilians people were killed during the invasion, over 500 Americans have perished, the Sovereign rights of one nation have been trampled, innocent people are being persecuted, and the world is less safe than it was 14 months ago. As far as hypotheticals are concerned, perhaps you're right. All I know is that right now things are bad, and the obfuscation and blame-casting of people like Rumsfeld, Bush, and (more immediately) JerseyDevil only serves to stifle the discourse that could lead a course to improvement and stability.

Yes, the people involved in the beheading are monsters and should be brought to justice. However, this is a discussion of Iraqi civilian prisoners being abused. Simply saying "they do much worse" accomplishes nothing but fogging over the truth.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Ultimatejoe
... the Sovereign rights of one nation have been trampled,...

What sovereign rights? They were a dictatorship... the people had no say in their own government or laws. There is a sovereign government that is trying to succeed. This government is supposed to be representative of the people, as opposed to one ruthless, murdering man and his sadistic family.

Yes, the people involved in the beheading are monsters and should be brought to justice.

I agree... will it happen? Probably not.

However, this is a discussion of Iraqi civilian prisoners being abused. Simply saying "they do much worse" accomplishes nothing but fogging over the truth. [/B]

The truth is... that BOTH sides should see justice for their crimes... BOTH sides. But people are going to say that the Iraqis who did this horrible act, and the other atrocities, were pushed into doing it. That's not true. They only used this as an excuse. If it hadn't been this... it would have been something else.

I honestly believe that those people who beheaded this man are not much more than animals.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ultimatejoe
Of course the actions of Al-Queda and the various other criminals involved are unacceptable. I take ANY violent action against an innocent person with regret and frustration. That man no more deserved his fate than the prisoners of the Abu-Ghraib, who are largely innocent. The Red Cross and Amnesty International have both documented cases where prisoners have died under suspicious circumstances in that locale, and others. The U.S. government also admits that many (if not most) of the people who have been detained have been innocent of any crimes.

The reason why you are seeing outrage here about the actions undertaken by Americans is quite simply because that's who reads these forums. There are very few Iraqi members in this community, or most of the others of this sort online.

That being said, I don't attack the U.S. government in the way you seem to think I do. Here are the facts: 3,000 civilians people were killed during the invasion, over 500 Americans have perished, the Sovereign rights of one nation have been trampled, innocent people are being persecuted, and the world is less safe than it was 14 months ago. As far as hypotheticals are concerned, perhaps you're right. All I know is that right now things are bad, and the obfuscation and blame-casting of people like Rumsfeld, Bush, and (more immediately) JerseyDevil only serves to stifle the discourse that could lead a course to improvement and stability.

Wow - I feel HONORED that you included me within the same sentence with Bush and Rumfeld. so where is this blame beine placed by the way? On the soldiers who did this maybe? Maybe where the blame NEEDS to be placed? it was publibly reported by BUSH and RUMSFELD to be prepared for worst back in March. It should be no surprise that things got worse. Good thing we had stroner people fighting Germany and Japan than you.

You know what ius terrible - the blind people such as yourself who think that Iraq was a safe country to begin with. it even seem more laughable thatg you actually feel that 3,000 Iraqi civilians dying is a large number compared to the many many more that Hussien has executed and tortured sinde 1991. But yeah - who cares about them - the US didn't perform those attrocities -right?

Yes, the people involved in the beheading are monsters and should be brought to justice. However, this is a discussion of Iraqi civilian prisoners being abused. Simply saying "they do much worse" accomplishes nothing but fogging over the truth.

No - it shows the type of people we are up against. it does not condone or defend the actions of what was done by those soldiers - but ti does show the enemy we are up against. That is where the damn bleeding heart liberal is so blinded by. "if we just sit down and discuss." "Can't we just all sit down and maybe talk about it?" **** talking - Clinton did it your way and the European way - and what WE GOT in return was damn 9/11.

I'm also wondering by the way - how many Middle Eastern countries have public hearings on the the buse of prisoners? Have you heard any outcry from Arab media about the beheading of Berg- like there has been from the US poplace and media about the iraq prisoners?

[Ultimatejoe]

Hey, if you want to be rude go ahead. Can I let you in on what my "bleeding heart liberal" education has taught me? You're engaging in moral relativism. I can't think of anything less American (or Conservative for that matter.)

The people who killed Mr. Berg are the people you are up against, not the Iraqi's who were tortured and perhaps murdered in Abu-Ghraib prison. As I said earlier (and you conveniently ignored,) the U.S. government has admitted that thousands of people detained there were held mistakenly or improperly.

So, what you are engaged in is lessening the impact of the torture scandal by comparing it to the actions of people who have no relationship to the victims outside of their rough geographic location.

Let me put it this way: if all of a sudden, white, Christian Americans starting committing similar crimes, would you be equally non-plussed if the government starting rounding up 'average' Americans by the thousands and grossly violating these rights.

======================================

Of course, I can pretty much assume that you're not going to listen to a bleeding heart such as myself, so let me put forward an argument you can understand. You say that "talk" and the "European Way" is the cause of the terror blemish. That statement probably couldn't be ignorant. It is however terribly convenient. The fact is that the United States has assumed a fairly consistent approach to foreign policy from administration to administration since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and there was a similar continuity in the cold-war period. American foreign policy up-to and following the Second World War was one that subscribed to the Realist school of International Relations Theory. Starting around the time of Reagan foreign policy began to follow a more Neorealist approach. I won't divulge the major differences between the two but I will emphasize that one of the worst mistakes people can make in analyzing foreign policy is in trying to parallel it to domestic policy.

Now, to my argument. You seem to see the War On Terror (and the terror itself) as grounds to engage in brutal behaviour. What you fail to see is that active violent engagement does nothing but foster the sort of behaviour you're seeking to stifle. Now, I would never excuse Al Queda for their actions on September 11th , but even you must realize that that organization was prompted to follow the path of violence and hatred for some reason. Interventionist policies, even the most successful and well-intentioned, are bound to upset at least some people. This hatred which I once again must assert is inexcusable, does not exist in a vacuum. It exists because people are lonely, or desperate, or humiliated, or confused, or even just angry. People with their own agendas can exploit these feelings to commit them to hate. You seem to be suggesting that instead of trying to stop people from coming to depend on hate, that we should just kill them instead. That didn't work in N. Ireland. In fact, through diplomacy, the violence and strife that plagued that particular area has subsided dramatically. The people there, as they gained self-respect, became less angry, and stopped resorting to violence.

Now, nobody would suggest that if you start dropping posies instead of bombs everything will be hunky-dory. What I am suggesting is that simple "we have to stop them" mentality is too narrow-minded to work. The fact that casualties are escalating instead of decreasing is a testament to that.

On Edit: Actually, there was a great article in my local paper today documenting on how most local papers and news organizations in Iraq didn't run videos/photos of the beheading because it was inhumane and horrifying. Of course, I don't suppose you bothered to look up what the Iraqi media was saying before you decided they are implicit.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ultimatejoe
Hey, if you want to be rude go ahead. Can I let you in on what my "bleeding heart liberal" education has taught me? You're engaging in moral relativism. I can't think of anything less American (or Conservative for that matter.)

Your "bleeding heart liberal" education seems to have given you the "oh we can't go war unless we are first near destruction." I'm not - for your information - enagaging in moral relativism - what I said was true - you just don't want to face it. So how many iraqis were being killed under Hussien - or do we just ignore that now? Is it irrelevant? doesn't matter at all?

The people who killed Mr. Berg are the people you are up against, not the Iraqi's who were tortured and perhaps murdered in Abu-Ghraib prison. As I said earlier (and you conveniently ignored,) the U.S. government has admitted that thousands of people detained there were held mistakenly or improperly.

When did they say that? That's sort of funny - since I have been watching the unfiltered hearings and nothing like that has been said. But - hey - I'm sure if you say it is so - it must be -right? They said that many people there were held who were later released because they shouldn't have been held - they did not say thousands.

So, what you are engaged in is lessening the impact of the torture scandal by comparing it to the actions of people who have no relationship to the victims outside of their rough geographic location.

oh yeah - I guess Fallujah never happened either against the contractors either.

Let me put it this way: if all of a sudden, white, Christian Americans starting committing similar crimes, would you be equally non-plussed if the government starting rounding up 'average' Americans by the thousands and grossly violating these rights.

Hey - A LOT of people have no problems condemning all priests and the catholic church for the sins of the few who are pedophiles. But I guess you'll deny that is happening or just say that doesn't fit the argument. But it's the truth - people look at priests - all priests differently now.

As for "rounding" up thousands - I don't really know what you are referring to. if you are trying to make a point about rounding up American Muslims and Arabs - you obviously have your facts wrong. But hey - I know it looked good in Seige - but that was a movie and didn't happen. What I find ironic about the movie - is that in the movie ONLY 100+ people were killed and 1000's of Middle Eastern descent Americans were rounded up and sent to a stadium and held - but actually on 9/11 - nearly 30 times that amount were killed and there wasn't that hollywoodized action taking place.

Of course, I can pretty much assume that you're not going to listen to a bleeding heart such as myself, so let me put forward an argument you can understand. You say that "talk" and the "European Way" is the cause of the terror blemish. That statement probably couldn't be ignorant. It is however terribly convenient. The fact is that the United States has assumed a fairly consistent approach to foreign policy from administration to administration since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and there was a similar continuity in the cold-war period. American foreign policy up-to and following the Second World War was one that subscribed to the Realist school of International Relations Theory. Starting around the time of Reagan foreign policy began to follow a more Neorealist approach. I won't divulge the major differences between the two but I will emphasize that one of the worst mistakes people can make in analyzing foreign policy is in trying to parallel it to domestic policy.

Actually you see - clinton started to go after Osama and there was HUGTE outcry from Europe and others in the US. I have a bleeding heart liberal friend - who was outraged that Clinton started bombing Iraq - he then stopped. There were demonstrations against the bombing. There were demonstrations against going after Osama. So much for presidency by the polls.

by the way - i'm not paralleling foriegn policy with domestic. For one thing - the president has VERY little control over domestic offairs - unless Congress agrees with him 100%.

Now, to my argument. You seem to see the War On Terror (and the terror itself) as grounds to engage in brutal behaviour.

And you seem to just wish to ignore all my statements that say that what the soldiers did was inexcusable or that I feel they should be jailed for life or tried for treason. but yeah - I'm sure that someone such as yourself may think that I condone that. I'm not the level headed liberal you are - right?

What you fail to see is that active violent engagement does nothing but foster the sort of behaviour you're seeking to stifle.

Yeah - sure. And I'm sure during World War II you would have said - "now if we just talk to japan and germany - I'm sure they'll stop".

Now, I would never excuse Al Queda for their actions on September 11th , but even you must realize that that organization was prompted to follow the path of violence and hatred for some reason. Interventionist policies, even the most successful and well-intentioned, are bound to upset at least some people.

see the problem is - that most bleeding heart liberals wish to ignore the fact that in SEVERAL tapes - bin ladin states his real purpose for his war against the 'west" - which isn't even just against the west - it's also against any muslim country he disagrees with too. He doesn't care about the Palestinians, he doesn't care about the iraqis - he only cares about them as far they they work into his ultimate plan that he himself has stated - that is to create an ALL MUSLIM world in the same model as the Taliban.

[jerseydevil]

This hatred which I once again must assert is inexcusable, does not exist in a vacuum. It exists because people are lonely, or desperate, or humiliated, or confused, or even just angry.

Or they don't have any freedoms - or any jobs. hey - Saudi Arabia has HUGE HUGE unemployment rate. if people had job and a reason to live - they wouldn't ****ing go around blowing themselves up.

People with their own agendas can exploit these feelings to commit them to hate. You seem to be suggesting that instead of trying to stop people from coming to depend on hate, that we should just kill them instead.

Actually =- I didn't say that at all. That's why I'm for the war in iraq - contrary as that may seem to you. I support the war because WE NEED to change the Middle East - bring them the freedoms that they are lacking and develop the jobs. Byt accomplishing that is the ONLY way to combat the terrorists.

That didn't work in N. Ireland. In fact, through diplomacy, the violence and strife that plagued that particular area has subsided dramatically. The people there, as they gained self-respect, became less angry, and stopped resorting to violence.

Hmmm- so your suggesting to set up a one on one betwen Bush and osama. You send the letter to osama - and I'll wait here for hell to freeze over. believe me - being an atheist - I have more faith that hell will freeze over - than I do of Bin Ladin or Al Qaeda negotiating.

Now, nobody would suggest that if you start dropping posies instead of bombs everything will be hunky-dory. What I am suggesting is that simple "we have to stop them" mentality is too narrow-minded to work. The fact that casualties are escalating instead of decreasing is a testament to that.

Actually what tha is a testement to is the fact that Al Qaeda wants Iraq VERY VERY badly. They want US to leave, they want to divide us from our allies. There was even the letter that was recieved from Al Qaeda that suggested attacking Spain because they were the weakest link in the coalition and that an attack on them would change the election AND cause them to withdraw. Amazing how right Bin Ladin was. NO- what we must do IS STOP THEM - not sit down with them at a coffee table and talk. Europe tried that with Germany - and it didn't work - it's not going to work here either.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
rage is understandable. but of course you realize you are completely playing right into those terrorists hands when you suggest this right? why do you think they carefully taped this? and put it on the internet for the world to see? To show that they can defeat America in a war? of course not. they did this to enrage us so much that we come down on them so hard that ALL the middle east would unite against us.

Actually the reaso it's out there - is to try to get the US population to say "ph my god - we must leave - look at what they have done." That is why they have put that out. They know if they put it out on the web - it will get to us. The don't give their messages to OUR media - but they know we will get them - this is no dfifferent. This message was directed at the American people very plainly and many people are falling for it by calling for us to leave Iraq. That is the ONE thing they want and they will do anything to try to accomplish it. We have a job to do - and we had better not leave until it is done.

By the way - i watched the tape too - it's much worse than can be believed. The only thing I had heard was that the person had his head cut not - not sawed off the way you say it. But the way you have described it - is far far more accurate. It should give Americans and people around the world the world a resolve to FIGHT and not back down into a hole and hide.

[BeardofPants]

Guys, be careful. We don't want this thread to get closed.

Ultimate Joe, from one bleeding heart liberal to another, your post(s) on this topic are very well enunciated.


Don't mind JD, that's just the way he posts. (which for some reason that I can't figure out, he seems to get away with). His somewhat unpleasant arguing manner aside, I don't think he means it as a form of personal attack.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
What about Daniel Pearl?

Don't you know - he was jewish. isn't that reason enough to kill someone? it seems to be from what they teach in the Middle East. I know most people seem to want to ignore the hatred that goes on in their educational system - but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Janny - I think that it was the captures who made the statement "want to see how an italian dies". They picked one randomly - according the video and they didn't know which one was going to die.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Guys, be careful. We don't want this thread to get closed.

Ultimate Joe, from one bleeding heart liberal to another, your post(s) on this topic are very well enunciated.

Well guess that must be becuase you agree with him.

Don't mind JD, that's just the way he posts. (which for some reason that I can't figure out, he seems to get away with). His somewhat unpleasant arguing manner aside, I don't think he means it as a form of personal attack.

Actually - i don't really do personal attacks - unlike you. but hey - you have never been banned - which I find funny - considering how many times you have ACTUALLY personally attacked me. But now I'm used to your arrogant snide condescending comments directed at me.

[Earniel]

Alright people, chill it. The topic is about the prison, not the near-ending 'Europe never does anything and America never listen to anybody' debate speckled with namecalling.

[The Gaffer]

Really sickening development yesterday.

Again, we're seeing deliberate conflation of Iraq with 9/11 when the two had nothing to do with one another. We're also seeing some Olympic class doublethink when everyone with a long-term memory knows that Bush et al consistently and continually promoted the existence of WMDs and the War on Terror as the primary justifications of the Iraq War.

There also seems to an assumption that all muslims are the same.

[Lizra]

A little voice in my head reminds me that war is naturally loaded with hatred and atrocities...that really is the nature of war, IMO. To imagime them neat, sweet, and by the rules is wishful thinking. I'm trying not to allow myself to get overcome (and stalled out) with emotional shock. (This internet posting, media manipulation of the brutality of war, for anyone to see while eating dinner in suburbia is a modern, strange, sick sideshow, IMO ) We are in Iraq NOW....I want us to proceed with the plan and get out, so that the sites can be lined up on Al Queda.

[Valandil]

Ultimatejoe - the term 'Neorealism' for US foreign policy strikes me as condescending. Is this a term which those who espouse or practice current US policy make use of... or is it only used by their detractors? It SOUNDS like something I'd expect to see in a liberal textbook - but do admit that I'm unfamiliar with the term and its usages. Also - college was awhile back - and my own course of study kept me somewhat separated from Political Science, etc.

Can you define the term for me, explain the differences between 'realism' and 'neorealism' and tell me where these terms originated, as they relate to US foreign policy?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Don't you know - he was jewish. isn't that reason enough to kill someone? it seems to be from what they teach in the Middle East. I know most people seem to want to ignore the hatred that goes on in their educational system - but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Interesting. Nick Berg was also Jewish. That may have sealed his fate.

[Ultimatejoe]

Originally posted by Valandil
Ultimatejoe - the term 'Neorealism' for US foreign policy strikes me as condescending. Is this a term which those who espouse or practice current US policy make use of... or is it only used by their detractors? It SOUNDS like something I'd expect to see in a liberal textbook - but do admit that I'm unfamiliar with the term and its usages. Also - college was awhile back - and my own course of study kept me somewhat separated from Political Science, etc.

Can you define the term for me, explain the differences between 'realism' and 'neorealism' and tell me where these terms originated, as they relate to US foreign policy?

Actually, Neorealism is a term employed by the more right-wing IR (International Relations) Scholars themselves, as opposed to a critical label.

Realism is a model for International Relations which is primarily historical. Neorealism on the other one is a systemic nomological system of understanding IR. It assumes three things:
[list=1][*]States are the primary actors[*]States pursue their own interests[*]The world order is one of anarchy[/list=1]

If I had my notes with me I could divulge more but I don't, and the stuff gets pretty heavy. Rest assured that the term is an academic one and not a critical one (even though I am a critic thereof.)

[Ultimatejoe]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
When did they say that? That's sort of funny - since I have been watching the unfiltered hearings and nothing like that has been said. But - hey - I'm sure if you say it is so - it must be -right? They said that many people there were held who were later released because they shouldn't have been held - they did not say thousands.

By the way, calling me an ignorant bleeding heart sucker DOES strike me as a personal attack. Just so you know. Anyways, I won't respond to anything else you said because A) It is off topic and B) we're not going to settle this argument since it is mostly rhetoric and histrionics. I can however counter these sorts of statements with facts. Here is what two minutes of research turned up:

The Red Cross report also says that coalition intelligence officials said to International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) that nearly 70-90 percent of the captives are caught by mistake. The ICRC also registers that the coalition forces failed to set up a system for the families of captives and that it caused 'missing in custody'. It is stated that reluctant manners of the occupying forces and difficulties for reaching out correct information have caused increasing rage among the Iraqi against coalition forces.

Now, if 70-90% of the prisoners are mistakes... and there are between 5-12000 prisoners at any given time, well that would put the number of innocent prisoners in the thousands, would it not?