O.T. Just Punishment For Abusers Of Iraqi Prisoners...

I don't know about 'this thread', but most such observations were made only for perspective- not to condone. They were not literal. I'll let Don answer for himself.

As for Jessica Lynch, she would have had to be a member of a military specializing in rape and torture, and mass murder to have still been fighting the US at that time. BA'th loyalists and remnants of the old dictatorship unwilling to relinquish priviledge. Then, for your imaginery Jessica Lynch, she would have been blowing up some innocent bystanders intentionally and using Human shields.

Contrast that to the US putting itself at risk by enormous attempts to avoid collateral damage. Your analogy falls flat, ferrous.

edit- simply said- by Ferrous's analogy the Allies should not have invaded Berlin in WWll because they were just trying to defend their homeland.i

munk
 
You comprehension of my statement may not be complete, I was going back to the "treatment of POWs" theme. If the Iraqis reciprocated in all things...

I dunno who all has read Osama's excuses fer attacks on the US, but he fails to make the distinction between US combatants and civilians. In his eyes, the civilians of the US back the military, thus he feels justified in killing US folks indiscriminately.

What is being proposed by some stuff here is the same blindness, just from the other side. (kill em all, let Allah sort it out).

This is precisely why neightborhood groups in Palestine and Israel have been meeting, parents, kids, etc so they can break the circle of violnece with understanding. Do you really think the average Iraqi's agenda has "Kill US citizens" at the top of the list, before "Provide for and protect family" or "Love wife and child?"

Keith
 
Ferrous Wheel said:
From what I've read in this thread, and were it true, Pvt. Jessica Lynch would been raped and murdered by now by here Iraqi captors...and some folks would call it justified...hey, she had a gun, right? She was part of an invading force, right? She killed some Iraqis right before being captured by the same...some rationalists would say, hey she should be killed when she ran outta ammo and hit the dirt.
Click to expand...

Well, near as we can tell, Lynch never fired a shot. Her injuries were sustained in the HUMMER crash.

There are those who would suggest she should have been raped and then murdered. Armies have been doing that for millenia.

As far as her being shot down during the course of a fire fight, hey, if she's armed, she's a combatant. She's a fair target.

As far as her vehicle being ambushed and perhaps her killed inside of it - same deal - she's a fair target.

By the way, there doesn't appear to be any proof that Lynch ever fired her weapon during the skirmish in which she was captured. But there does seem to be evidence that some of her fellow soldiers were executed by Iraqi soldiers.

Don
 
I have been trying Trying realy hard to advoid this hate filled thread, but will say, Its nice to hear your sense & clarity here Ferrous, rather than the illogical hate filled rhetoric of some of the views expresed here by some others.

Wonder how some you guys would react to say Iraq & syrian troops ripping up your countrys water & electricty with bombs, invading you, deposing your unjustly elected president {Remember that guys?} then abusing all & sundry in the streets & telling them your doing it in thier best intrests! Wise up!

As for the people in jail,most of them will be just looters & thieves, The true hard core soldiers, guerilas or terroists, wont shag one another up the ar*e to entertain a few sickos who end up working in evry prison in the world.

The simple truth is, no one wants forign troops in thier country!

That would include me or you, You were lied to by your president, trying to do what his daddy didnt, illegaly invaded another country, who then justifys it as Saddam is a bad man anyway! :barf: You were conned & if you choose to say thats good & right for both you & the iraqis, I suggest you stop taking your medication.

If they didnt have oil, no one would have cared less!

If politicians cared about justice, Idi Amin wouldnt have died as a free man of old age!

SpiraL
 
Ferrous Wheel said:
You comprehension of my statement may not be complete, I was going back to the "treatment of POWs" theme. If the Iraqis reciprocated in all things...

I dunno who all has read Osama's excuses fer attacks on the US, but he fails to make the distinction between US combatants and civilians. In his eyes, the civilians of the US back the military, thus he feels justified in killing US folks indiscriminately.

What is being proposed by some stuff here is the same blindness, just from the other side. (kill em all, let Allah sort it out).

This is precisely why neightborhood groups in Palestine and Israel have been meeting, parents, kids, etc so they can break the circle of violnece with understanding. Do you really think the average Iraqi's agenda has "Kill US citizens" at the top of the list, before "Provide for and protect family" or "Love wife and child?"

Keith
Click to expand...

I haven't read all the posts in this thread. I haven't ever suggested the notion of "killing them all and letting God/Allah sorting them out".

I believe the average Iraqi simply wants to live in peace and freedom, without oppression from anybody, including the US or the UN or other Iraqi groups for that matter.

I have, for the "average" Iraqi citizen, a great of sympathy. They have been oppressed by one tyrant or another for decades upon decades.

I bear them as a whole, no ill will. But I do bear a great deal of animosity toward any dirtbag who intentionally murders civilians or hides behind them (including kids and schools), and then throws down their weapons when they are surrounded.

I do not believe in an an "All or nothing", or "Ones and Zeros" or a "Black and White" approach to things. Life is too complex, and I try to live it as much as possible with the philosophy of not harming innocents.

Don
 
then they wouldn't be able to buy it. Law and justice are no longer synonomous, if they ever were.

Keith
 
Hey, Spiral;

You wrote, "Wonder how some you guys would react to say Iraq & syrian troops ripping up your countrys water & electricty with bombs, invading you, deposing your unjustly elected president {Remember that guys?} then abusing all & sundry in the streets & telling them your doing it in thier best intrests! Wise up!"

Me: It depends on a lot of things, Spiral. A lot of Iraqis are glad the US invaded and are glad the US is there. You act like the US blew up the infrastructure and left it in shambles. Electricity, water, sewage and oil plants are back up and running, most of them at greater capacity than before the war now.

Abusing all and sundry in the streets? Aw come on, gimme a break. If that were indeed the case every American trooper in Iraq would be dead by now. There's what, some 24 MILLION inhabitants of Iraq?

If US troops were strutting around the streets of Iraqi cities terrorizing, brutalizing and in general just harassing the citizens, they'd be wiped out in a day. There are weapons stashed all over Iraq now and only a 150,000 US troops of all kinds there.

By the way, about the election, please do some research. There were literally a dozen major newspapers who personally recounted those votes, time and again, and even using the loosest standard possible, still showed G.W. Bush taking those contested counties by anywhere from several hundred to several thousand votes. And they didn't even count all the military absentee ballots, most of who were clearly pro-Bush.

Face it, Spiral, the fact is the president is elected by the Electoral College, not raw numbers of votes. If you don't like that, convince your congress critters to write a Constitutional Amendment that gets rid of the Electoral College. If that Amendment had been in place, then you'd have had your candidate Al Gore (who invented the internet you know) as our leader now. And he'd still be trying to get legal extradition of Osama Bin Laden and others out of Afghanistan, while Al Qaeda continued to arm and train and equip there.

You: "As for the people in jail,most of them will be just looters & thieves, The true hard core soldiers, guerilas or terroists, wont shag one another up the ar*e to entertain a few sickos who end up working in evry prison in the world."

Me: And what is your source for the makeup of the prison population in Iraq? And how do you know who will and who won't shag someone else up the rear, for any reason? The reputation of the staunchest pro-Saddam troops is one of brutality, or did you not remember what they did to the inhabitants of Kuwait City back in 1990?

The point is, your statement that the bulk of the prison population is basically just a bunch of petty thieves has no more credibility than anyone who would say that the bulk of them are children-sacrificing dirtbags.

The fact is, none of us here on this side of the world really knows.

You: "The simple truth is, no one wants forign troops in thier country!"

Me: That is true in general. However, when the presence of those troops keeps your own countrymen from rounding your family up for extermination, you might be glad to have some foreign troops around for a short while. Just ask the Muslim Kosovars about the presence of UN troops there. Without them, they'd be unearthing scores of mass graves of Muslim Kosovars instead of the half dozen they did find.

You: "That would include me or you, You were lied to by your president, trying to do what his daddy didnt, illegaly invaded another country, who then justifys it as Saddam is a bad man anyway! :barf: You were conned & if you choose to say thats good & right for both you & the iraqis, I suggest you stop taking your medication."

Me: Been through this lying stuff. It's old and it comes down to if you think Bush was lying, then you have to think the rest of the nations in the UN were lying too. Even Clinton on Nightline a few months back said that he was convinced that Saddam had WMD's right up until Saddam was overthrown. So I guess you'd have to say that you think Clinton was lying too.

I don't know how many times we've gone over Bush Sr not invading Iraq, so won't go over it again.

Uh, exactly what constitutes a "legal" invasion? I've always been puzzled by this term, legal and illegal, when it comes to war.

Was Clinton's invasion of Kosovo legal, I wonder?

You: "If they didnt have oil, no one would have cared less!"

Me: Yep. There's just ALL KINDS of oil in Afghanistan. The truthful statement is, "If Saddam had simply declared his WMD's, no one would have cared less." It's never been about the oil. It's always been that 9/11 demonstrated that the US is vulnerable to people who will use whatever weapons they can manufacture or BUY.

You: "If politicians cared about justice, Idi Amin wouldnt have died as a free man of old age!"

Me: Justice is nice, but sometimes there's more than that for a reason for going to war. Frankly, it makes no difference if Uganda has a stable, elected government or not. But it does make a difference if Iraq does.

Don
 
I have been trying Trying realy hard to advoid this hate filled thread, but will say, Its nice to hear your sense & clarity here Ferrous, rather than the illogical hate filled rhetoric of some of the views expresed here by some others.

Wonder how some you guys would react to say Iraq & syrian troops ripping up your countrys water & electricty with bombs, invading you, deposing your unjustly elected president {Remember that guys?} then abusing all & sundry in the streets & telling them your doing it in thier best intrests! Wise up!>>>>>>>>>>>> Spiral twista


No hate here- except for terrorists. As for your analogy- again, that is exactly what Nazi troops in Berlin might say to the Allies at the end of WWll.

As for it being just for oil- too simplistic, but lets say that's it. Who do you think suffers the most during oil shortages? THe THIRD WORLD!!!! We're in this together. If you want an alternative energy source- invent one. Frankly, comparing feedback about the atrocities of Iraqi Bathists to hate, is ridiculous. That is the kind of view that silences people. What's next- we're bigots? Homophobes? Mean to our Mothers?

munk
 
munk said:
The last few posts have not addressed the alleged murders and torture. That is what I'm concerned about.



Don- I've never vote libertarian as long as they want to unilaterally open the US borders to the world.


munk
Click to expand...


Munk, I agree. I am 99% Libertarian (who usually votes for the pro-gun Republican candidate) in all aspects of my political outlook, but disagree with the Libertarians strongly on this one point. I guess I'm lucky to find any political outlook with which I can be in that much agreement, but it's too bad I can't go all the way.

True open borders would finish the job of killing this country that has been started by the millions of illlegals aliens flooding across our borders already. I understand their free-border idea in theory, and maybe in a world where our neighboring countries weren't as corrupt and poverty stricken as Mexico it would be a good idea, but for now all that would happen is that we would be dragged down to the level of the poorest country surrounding us.

regards,

Norm
 
Open borders would lead to a kind of Continental slum- a post industrial third world nation.



munk
 
I am a cynical, cold, selfish bastard. I know and accept this.

On the battlefield, I expect to kill my enemies without regret. If they hide behind women and children, or send children to me with arms, in their hands, I will kill them. I will do what is necessary to protect my life and the life of my comrades.

Being selfish, I want my side to win, to lessen the chances of my fellow combatants sustaining injury. Taking prisoners will increase the chances of this, because of intelligence collected. As I am selfish and cynical, I understand that treating prisoners humanely makes sense. Who wants to be taken prisoner by a foe who will torture you to death? Why not just die fighting?

Taking prisoners, and treating them well, ensures that more of the enemy will allow themselves to be taken prisoner instead of fighting, and saves US lives.

I expect to kill enemies in the field by any means necessary, attacking ferociously without relent until my side has carried the day. Once I have taken prisoners, though, my conduct will change.

Prisoners will be treated fairly. They should be given accomodation at least as good as fellow soldiers. They should be protected. These things are taught to every US soldier.

Those who increase the will of the enemy to fight me are my enemy.

My enemy should be killed by any means necessary.

Those directly involved in these atrocities- and they are atrocities- should be shot. No torture, because torture is harmful to those inflicting it as well, and useful as propaganda against me, but killed, definitely.

What happens in US prisons may not be positive, either, but it has no bearing on the discussion of what happens to enemy combatants, and to even mention it is specious and sophistic.

John
 
Dear Spectre;

first- as to what happens in military jail war zones - I suspect you and I are about to have our eyes opened as to what Military intelligence, psy ops, and the CIA have been doing for many decades. I suspect other nations do this and worse. I think if we don't like it- we change it. Shooting someone is a knee jerk response from a moral view islotated in a Castle and one we cannot afford. If you remember, the CIA was prohibited from assassinating foreign leaders and other black arts since the 70's. Their budget and their operations were severely cut the last 30 years- which is credited by almost all investigatory agencies as contributing to the atmosphere where a 9-11 was even possible.

Two- what happens in the World's prisons is very germane. To islolate your outrage to these photos of a girl holding a leash in a military prison while rape murder and torture happen here at home is denial, rationalizing, and shallow.
In other words. some deserve human treatment under your quixotic intellect and moral view, but not others?

We tolerate these abuses all over the world but selectively show our 'goodness' in specific cases; that is hypocracy, and your objection to my observation is either dishonest or poorly founded.

I apologize for my strong wording to you and others who have been or are in the military and uphold the finest honor. That these things have been going on does not detract from your contributions. Attacking me for speaking the truth is understandable, but misplaced in any but a first reaction. It's time to think now and not shoot the messenger. I don't appreciate being called sophist.
If you don't like what the CIA or Psyops is doing then make your case and change the world. If the individuals who 'abused' prisoners acted on their own they should be punished. But shot? What we really should be waiting for is evidence of torture and murder.



munk
 
I have sympathy for Semper and Spectre and others who understand that prisons are brutal places, but wanted the military to be the sole exception.



munk
 
Dearest Munk,


There is a qualitative difference between enemy combatants and criminals. This can be easily found in both law code and military regulations, and is an internationally recognized difference.

I do not isolate my outrage to this particular instance, but all instances of mistreatment of enemy POW. I find any apologism for these outrages disturbing and sad. Those in the military community I respect most share my feelings. (Though not necessarily my beliefs about how the guilty parties should be punished.)

Please not the difference between saying you are...(x), versus bebunking a red herring argument. (Which is in direct opposition to, for instance, saying, "your own anger and irrationaliity (sic)".)

If you can find any instance of me attacking you for speaking the truth, I will be happy to apologize for it- in fact, let me apologize in advance. In my previous post, however, I believe I simply note the reasons why we should both be relentless in our conduct of battle, and our vigilance in treatment of our captured. If these observations- which I believe to be self-evident upon examination- are interpreted as an attack, please reconsider your criterion.

John
 
John;

I never thought I'd say this, but believe it or not, not everything can be handled by shooting it.

Your notion of suggesting that the folks who "abused" those prisoners should be shot demonstrates you have some real "issues", my friend.

We agree on much. In fact, I agree with just about everything you wrote, except the idea of shooting guards who were either being jerks, or simply following orders to be jerks.

These issues are very complicated. Soldiers have a duty to not follow illegal orders. However, defining "illegal" is pretty hard when you are in the middle of the storm as it were. Soldiers are reluctant to go against their superiors - we trained them that way.

If a soldier were ordered to decapitate an Iraqi prisoner with a large knife like the Iraqis have been known to do, a soldier would have little trouble saying that is a violation of policy and the various accords, just as they would not willingly go along with breaking fingers or chopping offs various things.

But simply making them strip and making fun of them? One can argue that that might be degrading and humiliating, but it hardly counts the same as breaking a person's bones one by one, or skinning them alive or a whole host of other terrors.

It is real easy to see that holding a prisoner on a leash does not meet the standard for abuse or torture when you have seen or witnessed REAL abuse.

When you start standing people against a wall and shooting them for non-capital crimes, where do you draw the line? Are you, "Colonel" Spectre then going to decide that the next soldier who walks by you and has his hat on crooked should be shot because he is engaging in treasonous behavior because his actions undermine morale and that therefore leads to more friendly troops getting killed?

And if you truly believe that any enemy of the US is going to kill captured Americans simply because of these "abuses" in prison, you are delusional. It's merely an excuse for them to say that is why they are going to kill prisoners they would have killed anyway. A number of captured Americans and other foreign nationals have been killed and long before any pictures were released of a woman pointing at a naked Iraqi.

Killers kill, John. That's what they do, and they don't need any trivial stuff like that to do it over. And if they say that's why they are doing it, then it's just because they don't want to be standing there like that when they get captured. If it wasn't for that, then they'd say they were killing the American because some innocent Iraqis were killed when gunmen were hiding behind them when the Americans opened fire. Or they can always use the Osama line - because they don't like infidels on Muslim soil.

By the way, let me give you some advice - someone like you who is so willing to eagerly stand fellow soldiers up against the wall and shoot them for non-capital offenses, is the kind of guy who takes a round in the back during a firefight - if you're lucky. If you're not lucky, you might find yourself kidnapped some night, tied to a frame, skinned alive, and allowed to die of thirst.

Bad things happen to people like you when they get in the real world of death for service or death for hire.

Don

PS: Oh, and just to ease your mind - it wouldn't be your fellow soldiers who kidnap and skin you. It would be someone or a group of someones who did it for so little money you'd be horrified to know how little the amount is. In some places, life is real cheap.
 
Spectre- calling my post/point of view sophist is as close to an attact one can get without addressing yours truly personally. I did note the difference, but found it of little comfort.

IF the individuals acted alone I am totally unsympathetic to them. If they acted under orders from the CIA or whomever and this is normal dirty tricks for these groups why scapegoat the soldiers? In fact- it makes George Bush a bit of a hypocrite if so. Either understand the policy or change it.

Maybe this is good in another way- we see what government and our agencies do.


I have no good answer for all of you honorable people who believed in your country, served honorably, and have to read of this crap- let's hope those soldiers acted under orders. I'm never happy to read of individual criminal behavior by our military- remember the rape of the young teenager in the Phillipines?

anyway, I've a poopy baby to change who should be on a leash.
It's invisable, but he actually has me on one.


munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top