Iraqis tortured - truly despicable

Remove all ads!

If so, I think two A-bombs on Japan weren't enough, in fact, with your (to lazy to name names, no offense) theories we should have cleaned out the whole island.

On another note, this case has lessened my trust and respect for all humanity. Was it not the US that helped write the Geneva accord on the treatment of POWs? Was it not the US that help start Amnesty International?

God I love life's little twists.

NOTE: Wow, this is the first time I agree with Darkwolf on anything.

[ May 03, 2004, 11:08: Message edited by: Erebus ]

 

@ Slith

You weren't at war with Osama BEFORE Sept.11 ? Then why was the Pentagon trying to track him down for at least a decade before that ? And if you weren't at war with him, then why did he blow up two US embassy's in Africa, and blow a hole in the USS Cole ?

The US definitely WAS at war with Al Qaeda, for as far it's even possible to declare war on a group of people with no names and no faces. And as stated before, in war ANYTHING goes, right ?

 

Pacman, think about it like this: Just because somebody is harassing us and attacking us doesn't mean we're at WAR with him. If that was true, then we've waged hundreds of wars against loonies like the Unabomber, and serial killers, and the like. It's different, pursuing a fugitive, than it is being at war.

It's a strange comparison for me, at least, comparing Osama and a few hundred of his terrorist cohorts to an army of millions, such as that of Germany or Japan, or Vietnam.

 

Apart from the fact that US has now a declared war on terror, for many years now (since the end of Cold War), is trying to contain the winds US seeded around ex-USSR in order to destabilize the area. But after the end of the cold war these guys were useless and in fact dangerous for the USA interests in Asia.
So now what do we have? We have USA attacking their former employees and usefull regimes that now do not serve any other purpose, other than the burden of guilt and dark past on the enlightened chariot of US Democracy and way of life.
And for that burden to leave the chariot alone and get hidden in the dark corners of history many young (or not so young it does not matter) simple people, who had the misfortune to see things we hoped we have left behind (war), died and will still die. Because a guy with many complexes managed to grab within his hand some power and decided to purify himself and the nation along with him has managed to bring the exact opposite result.
People are dying everyday in Iraq, and the easy victory that he was dreaming and hoped for (in order to cleanse the ghost of Vietnam), has vanished in a cloud of dust and blood (the oil was just a profit for the few).
And the people who are there, i mean the coallision force, are seeing this everyday in front of their eyes, far away from their homes, family , loved ones fearing every second that they may be next etc. And most of them ( i am sorry but i believe that) are behaving improperly to put it mildly. Just in order to blow off some steam. But they are not to blame, their administration has made the mistake, and i fear that they won't pay for this.


BTW the quote at the beginning reminded me of the Kossovo case where the US did not declared war on Yugoslavia (they just bombed them). And one more thing out of topic.
Do you know that now in Kossovo Albanians are terrorising, killing the few Serbs that decided to stay in their houses? Do you know that Albanians are yelling about their dream of Great Albania, which is a state that includes territories from Yogoslavia (Kossovo), Greece (Ipeirus), the entire FYROM and some part of Bulgaria? Well i don't see any comment or threat, against these killings (national cleasings i would say) or these outrageous demands

 

Back to the topic, based on Major General Antonio M. Taguba's report, there were/are some major problems at that prison. Some excerpts:

 

@ Pac Man

You're saying that Bush is educated? As for our Tony, prime minister of UK. He's a muppet. Then again i guess he is educated.

Note: I said the majority. Not all. I just generally find that educated people have a much broader view on things then unedcated people.

 

Well, he was a "C" student at Yale.

 

Eh... it's better than 'F', isn't it? Therefore it doesn't matter as long as he passed.

 

Some of the most educated people can be downright ruthless. I think Hitler was very well educated and look how he turned out. But I suppose there are always exceptions.

 

Hitler was a High-School drop-out out and an unemployed. A classic case of from rags to riches. Bright but surely not educated.

As for the difference between more educated and less educated. I think it's the means. Less educated are more blunt, while more educated have a lot of euphemisms at their disposal.

 

Ah well, Darkwolf mentioned some weekend warriors putting the Iraq adventure at risk. That statement is quite unprecise and IMO even unfair to the US reservists - excluding the actual perpetrators. First of all, when that adventure is at risk, these morons are just *one* factor.

The US armed forces are pretty stretched thin, at the breaking point actually, and do rely on reserves to do jobs that should be left to active duty but there aren't the numbers of full time soldiers for the respective jobs. Therefor the US rely on reservists for quite a while.

When someone goes blaming the "weekend warriors" he overlooks the point that they were part of the plan right from the start and that they were needed right from the start.

When their discipline and morale are low that is first of all a leadership problem in the small unit level.
When the command structure is unclear and military intelligence, or worse, civilian contractors, encourage wardens to humiliate prisoners that's a leadership problem at the large unit level.
When soldiers are sent to become jail wardens without receiving adequate training that's also a leadership problem, this time on a the professional planning level in the pentagon.
And when the US start wars they don't have the manpower to handle, so that they have to rely on reservists and prolong their duty periods in Iraq, and to prevent soldiers from leaving the army in order to maintion the manpower needed - now that is a political failure, a substantial blunder, and heads should roll for that.

Blaming the individual prison wardens and treat them as isolated cases of sickos does anything but adressing the underlying problem.

 

Right... I just figured I should update this, due to some news I heard.

On the news program that my school broadcasts on the TVs each morning, this has been talked about for days, now. The most recent update states that a military tribunal is soon to be a reality. Extremely harsh punishment (read: execution) is expected... I suppose that's all I had to say.

 

@Ragusa - that's not the whole picture. Civilians, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were heavily involved in this, and indeed, General Taguba, in his investigative report, directs his most scathing criticism at them.

 

That's among the things i wanted to say:

The US gonna blame individuals, the usual CYA procedure in Washington, they don't adress the problems in the system. Abu Grahib is about much more than just a few whacked out individuals.

I mean what will change? The outsourcing the dirty work to mercenaries? Or Iraqi militia types, or tribals like they hired in Afghanistan to hunt down their enemies? What exactly do you think did Chalabis militia do with the lists of names they got during the process of de-baathification in Iraq? I would be very surprised if they did not work as death squads - eventually the US just started something resembling the Phoenix program in Iraq - atm the world's largest program for extrajudicial killing in place. The US have gotten into something very dirty, an occupation, and that is alwys dehumanising the occupier. The US are no liberator anymore. Key difference.

There is the saying of the two crow not scratching out the others eyes ... how long did the abuse go before someone eventually spoke out? A few months? Half a year? And how about Aftghanistan and the other places of legal limbo except Guantanamo or Abu Grahib? Isolated cases?

This is the tip of the iceberg, and it is IMO to a good degree attributable to small unit loyalty, primarily a good things - except when it comes to war crimes: when a buddy gets crazy from the sun and shoots a civilian, how likely is it that his corporal or sergeant go and report it as anything else but the killing of a "suspected insurgent"? Go watch some old vietnam flicks to catch the spirit. A whole village of suspect VC? No sh*t man!
When you're in a foreign country where you can't distinguish friend from foe - that directly resonates in how the troops treat the Iraqis, it is quite simple: everyone is a suspect insurgent.

And then, there is Bush's rhetoric - all the sh*t about us vs. them, good vs. evil ... swell, he expressed "deep disgust" (and no doubt he's honest) - but nevertheless he keeps on uttering his stuff about the good guys vs. the bad guys, and that everyone who resists all the good the US intends to bring to Iraq (here I give Bush the benefit of doubt again) must be evil and a thug? Gimme a break.
When someone comes to your country, occupies it and pushes you around, and you fire back - you're a patriot. Go look the hilarious movie "Red Dawn", it has a boulder of truth in it.
When the US doesn't even get their terminology straight they will never even understand what they have gotten themselves into ... denouncing patriots as thugs, petty criminals and legitimate resistance against a foreign occupation as terrorism guarantees that things like Abu Grahib will happen again and again. The US are the good guys. And as the US intend to such good to Iraq, don't the ends justify the means?

The tempting idea, that tough action is needed, and that ends justify the means, is IMO deeply anti-american, though it has sure an appeal to the "can do" spirit Americans IMO tend to have.
Do America's inherent and unique virtue give it the right – Bush says the duty – to exercise unlimited power in the name of enforcing American values elsewhere in the world?
Imposing US values (like freedom/ liberty) at gunpoint and perhaps torture?
The US virtues, are they suspended for the time of fighting? If so, what makes the difference between Saddam's, Hitlers, Stalins or Bush's warmashines? Anyone else sees the problem?

If Iraqis resist military imposition of US values, then they must be "thugs and outlaws" deserving to be exterminated for standing in the way of America’s virtue and superior morality?
Only evil people would resist the good we are imposing on them? Didn't Bush cast the conflict as one of good vs. evil? That sort of rhetoric encourages mistreatment.

It seems to me that some US soldiers have caught that spirit, oblivious to the reality that it is pretty much the other way round when they go to work.

[ May 05, 2004, 14:04: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The promblem may run even deeper than you think Ragusa.From listing to the radio and following the news here in the states.It seems public opion is this matter should just be dropped.It is just overblown and the media makes too much of it.

It amazes me that people can't see the simple fact that when you invade a country to "liberate" them from there evil oppressor and then turn around and do something like this it tends to tear away your credibility.

Sentiment here seems to be along the lines that the Arabs hate us and our way of life so we can do whatever we want cause in the end they are going to hate us anyway.

Forgotten are the long years we have spent meddling in there nations afairs.Deposing leaders and putting in US freindly ones.Forgotten are the times when we supported Saddam,especialy during the times when he committed alot of the atrocities we seem so outraged by now.He did gas the Kurds under US watch after all did he not.

IT really seems like we are turning this into an us againts the Arab states type of thing and thats just plain scary.

Until the media and the goverment stops labeling any Irag resistance as terrorists and thugs this line of thinking will just get worse.

 

From what I have seen and heard, a lot of the "Iraqi resistance" is imported from other nearby nations. The polls (if you believe any of them) seem to indicate that the rank and file Iraqi citizen is mostly happy with what the US has accomplished. Sure they want us gone, but I don't think they understand what will happen there if we cut and run now.

We are in a dilemma. If we stay we are the meddling Americans sticking our noses into that in which it doesn't belong, and if we leave we will be blamed for abandoning the Iraqi people.

Bush is giving 2 10-minute interviews to Arab media tonight. This could be the start of an effort to turn the tide.

Regardless, if we want this issue resolved in the best interests of all (or most), we better be ready to pay the price, and it won't be cheap.

 

Thanks Darkwolf you just helped to prove my point.Here in the States people are unwilling to accept even the chance that these people may just be normal Iragi people who are unwilling to accept a foreign goverments idea of how they should set there country up.

The information coming out of Irag,at the very least has a strong pro US slant.The reporters cant leave the bases so all the information we receive is coming from the US military.I am sure there is no bias there.

I still dont understand how we can invade a country and just expect them all to fall in line like good little soldiers because we seem to think we know what is best for a people whos culture ,quite frankly the average American has no idea about.

 

Uh, yes? I don't think that Fallujah needed outside input to be pissed off on the US, panicked US paratroopers shooting demonstrators did more than enough to start an amplifying circle of violence.
I stress this so very much because this "foreigh fighters" myth is so very convenient: See, we don't make mistakes, the Iraqis love us and they are only incited by troubleseeking jihadis from ouside!
No, I don't think so. And besides, it is chauvinism to think that Iraq, before Gulf War I the middle east's second strongest economy with high living standards, good scientists and excellent education, doesn't have intelligent people with the will and skill to kill US soldiers, and through unparalleled US blundering plenty of reason as well.

Maybe they just don't know how much they like the US. As a matter of fact the last polls I saw indicated something like: "We don't want you here, we never asked you and now get the hell outa here!"

When you believe what the pro war dudes tell you, that the Iraqis are happy the US are there you're fooling yourself. Eventually, they have a war to sell, and telling you that the Iraqis actually want the US to stay there is a way.

That isn't really one of your business or America's actually, it is THEIR country. And a self-chosen mess is a privilege of the people to choose. Without the US meddling in they have no one to blame but themselves.
And Al Qaeda would have one less argument as well.

 

Sorry to get involved so late in this one, I was trying so hard to stay out of it.

One thing, is it ironic to anyone else, that one of big "selling points" on this war was that Saddam and co. were making use of torture chambers and "rape rooms?" Evidence that they are bad and dangerous to the world community.

I see the comment all the time, here's a literal quote from another board: "Are you saying that with sadaam out of power, the world isn't better off? The rape rooms are gone."

Funny thing, his rape rooms are gone, and now Americans and Brits are doing it in his stead.

Great.

 

Chance of executing any soldier or contractor for his actions? Zero percent. Soldiers will get a dishonorable discharge and be sent home. I do not think the U.S. even has jurisdiction over the contractors, so they might not even be able to do anything to them, but at worst they'll go to prison for a little while.

Executions? Laughable.