upnorthkyosa said:
Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.
- Thread starter hardheadjarhead
- Start date
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
I heard of an interesting study. It took the students in a class and randomly assigned them to be guards and prisoners. The study was designed to monitor what happens when one is placed in a position of authority. It was designed to run for 14 days.
The study had to be interrupted within 7 days because those that were given the power, used it in inhumane ways.
http://www.augsburg.edu/psych/vml/zimbardo.html
It is pretty spooky reading.
Incidently, after reading this article, and reflecting a bit on my own life, I am absolutely certain that I would be capable of commiting the same acts depicted in the photos we have seen from Abu Ghraib.
In my hopes, I can imagine I would be have as Nelson Mandela did. In my hopes, I can believe that Richard Lovelace was correct that 'Stone walls do not a prison make'.
Mike
The study had to be interrupted within 7 days because those that were given the power, used it in inhumane ways.
http://www.augsburg.edu/psych/vml/zimbardo.html
It is pretty spooky reading.
Incidently, after reading this article, and reflecting a bit on my own life, I am absolutely certain that I would be capable of commiting the same acts depicted in the photos we have seen from Abu Ghraib.
In my hopes, I can imagine I would be have as Nelson Mandela did. In my hopes, I can believe that Richard Lovelace was correct that 'Stone walls do not a prison make'.
Mike
Spooky reading... oh my yes... but it helped show that human nature does come out in role-playing (and real-life) with these scenarios. I dunno whether to call that a failed or successful experiment. But it is a model for us to better understand what happened at Abu Ghraib. I still stand by my "God in the heart" and what happens to people when it's removed or minimized or perverted.
I also still stand by that Americans in general are a civilized people and this behavior at Abu Ghraib is inexcusable regardless of who done it or ordered it.
Such actions only make things worse for the soldiers serving and trying to maintain order in Iraq unti the country can stand on it's own. If that is the "original intent" of the whole mess...
I also still stand by that Americans in general are a civilized people and this behavior at Abu Ghraib is inexcusable regardless of who done it or ordered it.
Such actions only make things worse for the soldiers serving and trying to maintain order in Iraq unti the country can stand on it's own. If that is the "original intent" of the whole mess...
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Here's my problem: by writing everything off to, "human nature," and a "few bad apples," we erase actual history. Of which here's a lil' piece:
"The following is from "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" written by Dee Brown:
"On the morning of November 29, 1864, 600 Cheyenne and Arapahos camped on a bend of Sand Creek were awakened by the sound of charging hooves. Two thirds of these 600 were women and children as the government granted able bodied men to go east and hunt buffalo to feed their hungry families. Only 35 braves were in the camp. This made the ensuing charge all the more frightening for the women, children, elders, and remaining braves.
So great was the fear of the coming charge that men, women, and children ran from their lodges into the biting cold taking no time to fully dress. The partially dressed Indians began to gather under a huge American flag above Black Kettles lodge (Black Kettle was given the huge American flag and peace medals by Abraham Lincoln and Colonel A. B. Greenwood in Washington only a year earlier and was told that as long as the American flag was above them, no one would be harmed). The braves present surrounded the women and children gathered under the flag. At 8:00 am more than 700 cavalry men under the command of Colonel John M. Chivington and Major Scott J. Anthony, rode in and fired on the huddled Indians from two directions. After the initial charge the US soldiers dismounted and continued the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children. During the killing unspeakable atrocities and mutilations were committed by the soldiers. Accounts from two white men, John S. Smith and Lieutenant James Connor, described the acts of dehumanization."
According to John S. Smith, Colonel Chivington knew these Indians to be peaceful before the massacre. Smith witnessed, as did helpless Indian mothers and fathers, young children having their sex organs cut away. U.S. soldiers mutilated Native American women, cutting away their breasts and removing all other sex organs. After the Massacre, soldiers displayed the women's severed body parts on their hats and stretched them over their saddle-bows while riding in the ranks. The sex organs of every male were removed in the most grotesque manner. One soldier boasted that he would make a tobacco pouch with the removed privates of White Antelope, a respected elder. Conner witnessed a soldier displaying the body parts of a woman on a stick. The fingers of Indians were cut off to get at the rings on them. Connor remembered a baby only a few months old who had been hidden in the feed box of a wagon for protection. When the soldiers discovered the baby some time later, the baby was thrown onto the frozen ground to die. In going over the site the next day, it was noted that every corpse was mutilated in some way, and scalped.
Two other men, Robert Bent and James Beckwourth were forced to ride with Chivington that morning. They recorded similar images. Beckwourth noted that before the massacre, White Antelope (age 75) ran out to meet the soldiers. He came running out to meet the command, holding up his hands and saying Stop! Stop! He spoke in as plain English as I can. He stopped and folded his arms until shot down. Bent remembered seeing the shooting of a little girl carrying a white flag. He also remembered seeing an Indian woman on the ground whose leg had been shattered by a shell. As she lay helpless, a soldier drew his saber, breaking the arm she had risen in defense. She then rolled over on her other side. The soldier did not leave until breaking her other arm with his saber, whereupon he left without killing her. Bent saw a pregnant woman who had been cut open and disemboweled. Her unborn child lay mutilated almost beyond human recognition beside her. Quite a number of mothers were slain; still clinging to their babies. Such was the scene that cold gray morning at Sand Creek, November 29, 1864."
So in the face of the inevitable attacks, I am simply going to keep posting similar descriptions--taken, I am sorry to say, from our American history.
By the way, I was glad to see Ender cite a pinko America-hater like Seymour Hersch (who first came to prominence for reporting on My Lai 4) as an authority.
Coming up next: Gen. Curtis LeMay and the Fire Raids of 1944! Collect 'em all!!
"The following is from "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" written by Dee Brown:
"On the morning of November 29, 1864, 600 Cheyenne and Arapahos camped on a bend of Sand Creek were awakened by the sound of charging hooves. Two thirds of these 600 were women and children as the government granted able bodied men to go east and hunt buffalo to feed their hungry families. Only 35 braves were in the camp. This made the ensuing charge all the more frightening for the women, children, elders, and remaining braves.
So great was the fear of the coming charge that men, women, and children ran from their lodges into the biting cold taking no time to fully dress. The partially dressed Indians began to gather under a huge American flag above Black Kettles lodge (Black Kettle was given the huge American flag and peace medals by Abraham Lincoln and Colonel A. B. Greenwood in Washington only a year earlier and was told that as long as the American flag was above them, no one would be harmed). The braves present surrounded the women and children gathered under the flag. At 8:00 am more than 700 cavalry men under the command of Colonel John M. Chivington and Major Scott J. Anthony, rode in and fired on the huddled Indians from two directions. After the initial charge the US soldiers dismounted and continued the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children. During the killing unspeakable atrocities and mutilations were committed by the soldiers. Accounts from two white men, John S. Smith and Lieutenant James Connor, described the acts of dehumanization."
According to John S. Smith, Colonel Chivington knew these Indians to be peaceful before the massacre. Smith witnessed, as did helpless Indian mothers and fathers, young children having their sex organs cut away. U.S. soldiers mutilated Native American women, cutting away their breasts and removing all other sex organs. After the Massacre, soldiers displayed the women's severed body parts on their hats and stretched them over their saddle-bows while riding in the ranks. The sex organs of every male were removed in the most grotesque manner. One soldier boasted that he would make a tobacco pouch with the removed privates of White Antelope, a respected elder. Conner witnessed a soldier displaying the body parts of a woman on a stick. The fingers of Indians were cut off to get at the rings on them. Connor remembered a baby only a few months old who had been hidden in the feed box of a wagon for protection. When the soldiers discovered the baby some time later, the baby was thrown onto the frozen ground to die. In going over the site the next day, it was noted that every corpse was mutilated in some way, and scalped.
Two other men, Robert Bent and James Beckwourth were forced to ride with Chivington that morning. They recorded similar images. Beckwourth noted that before the massacre, White Antelope (age 75) ran out to meet the soldiers. He came running out to meet the command, holding up his hands and saying Stop! Stop! He spoke in as plain English as I can. He stopped and folded his arms until shot down. Bent remembered seeing the shooting of a little girl carrying a white flag. He also remembered seeing an Indian woman on the ground whose leg had been shattered by a shell. As she lay helpless, a soldier drew his saber, breaking the arm she had risen in defense. She then rolled over on her other side. The soldier did not leave until breaking her other arm with his saber, whereupon he left without killing her. Bent saw a pregnant woman who had been cut open and disemboweled. Her unborn child lay mutilated almost beyond human recognition beside her. Quite a number of mothers were slain; still clinging to their babies. Such was the scene that cold gray morning at Sand Creek, November 29, 1864."
So in the face of the inevitable attacks, I am simply going to keep posting similar descriptions--taken, I am sorry to say, from our American history.
By the way, I was glad to see Ender cite a pinko America-hater like Seymour Hersch (who first came to prominence for reporting on My Lai 4) as an authority.
Coming up next: Gen. Curtis LeMay and the Fire Raids of 1944! Collect 'em all!!
Please keep posting, Robert. Perhaps some of the folks here will find their fill of war and then discover the meaning of "do". Peace is the only "perfect" self defense...
Americans are human just like anyone else. And ALL humans are capable of brutality. For all of our vaunted virtues, there will always be biology.
Americans are human just like anyone else. And ALL humans are capable of brutality. For all of our vaunted virtues, there will always be biology.
Thanks from me also Mike.
In my earlier "human nature" post I included mentioning that American History is likewise tainted with innocent blood of the Native Americans. Likewise I'll add the brutality against other minorities like Chinese and Jewish and Irish immigrants during the mid/late 1800's and the slavery of Africans here. Being from Utah (but not mormon) I can also include the slaughter/massacre at Haun's Mill in Missouri sometime during the 1830's where hundreds were killed... and these were primarily white people who believed in something different than everybody else.
Andersonville and other Civil-War prison camps could tell their own horror stories as well.
So why is America appalled at the goings on in Iraq by our own troops?
Denial? :idunno: having a desire to minimize and/or rationalize and justify the events? :idunno:
No, we're not perfect but we are supposed to have higher standards of living and that also includes higher levels of morality and humanity. We are supposed to be a nation founded on principals of freedom where tyranny and oppression are non-existent. We are supposed to have an inspired document(s) that should guide us in how we treat our fellow man.
Of course freedom does not come without price... but innocents should NOT be allowed to pay the costs.
In my earlier "human nature" post I included mentioning that American History is likewise tainted with innocent blood of the Native Americans. Likewise I'll add the brutality against other minorities like Chinese and Jewish and Irish immigrants during the mid/late 1800's and the slavery of Africans here. Being from Utah (but not mormon) I can also include the slaughter/massacre at Haun's Mill in Missouri sometime during the 1830's where hundreds were killed... and these were primarily white people who believed in something different than everybody else.
Andersonville and other Civil-War prison camps could tell their own horror stories as well.
So why is America appalled at the goings on in Iraq by our own troops?
Denial? :idunno: having a desire to minimize and/or rationalize and justify the events? :idunno:
No, we're not perfect but we are supposed to have higher standards of living and that also includes higher levels of morality and humanity. We are supposed to be a nation founded on principals of freedom where tyranny and oppression are non-existent. We are supposed to have an inspired document(s) that should guide us in how we treat our fellow man.
Of course freedom does not come without price... but innocents should NOT be allowed to pay the costs.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
This just in....
Pentagon denies prison scandal stems from secret program gone awry
Sunday, May 16, 2004 Posted: 8:57 AM EDT (1257 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was not the result of a few misguided soldiers, but of a decision last year by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to expand a clandestine operation against al Qaeda to the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, according to a report in The New Yorker.
Rumsfeld's goal was to bring the success of the secret terrorism program to Iraq in an effort to "generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency," the magazine reports.
The rules governing the secret operation were "Grab whom you must. Do what you want," according to a former intelligence official whom Seymour M. Hersh quotes anonymously in "The Gray Zone."
The Pentagon sharply rejected....
Just so's you know, too, the Seymour Hersh mentioned here is an investigative reporter who's been studying this sort of thing for going on forty years. So far, I am aware of no case in which he's been shown to be wrong...the pattern is always, "Nope, that never happened," to, "Well, it sorta happened but not that way," to, "I guess you've got some things right, but why do you hate this country so much?" to, "OK, OK, yes, you were right, but you shouldn't have said so," to....
And, previous page, Ender quoted him as a reliable source.
A few bad apples, my foot.
Pentagon denies prison scandal stems from secret program gone awry
Sunday, May 16, 2004 Posted: 8:57 AM EDT (1257 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was not the result of a few misguided soldiers, but of a decision last year by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to expand a clandestine operation against al Qaeda to the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, according to a report in The New Yorker.
Rumsfeld's goal was to bring the success of the secret terrorism program to Iraq in an effort to "generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency," the magazine reports.
The rules governing the secret operation were "Grab whom you must. Do what you want," according to a former intelligence official whom Seymour M. Hersh quotes anonymously in "The Gray Zone."
The Pentagon sharply rejected....
Just so's you know, too, the Seymour Hersh mentioned here is an investigative reporter who's been studying this sort of thing for going on forty years. So far, I am aware of no case in which he's been shown to be wrong...the pattern is always, "Nope, that never happened," to, "Well, it sorta happened but not that way," to, "I guess you've got some things right, but why do you hate this country so much?" to, "OK, OK, yes, you were right, but you shouldn't have said so," to....
And, previous page, Ender quoted him as a reliable source.
A few bad apples, my foot.
Whew, I'm glad that's over and done with... just a hoax... wow what a relief! 
R
Rainman
Guest
hardheadjarhead said:
Really? Where is the out cry from the muslim world about the raping of the US soldier and the torture of two US female POW's... Maybe these jerks did some of the raping for saddam... And far more killing and torture than the American public will ever get to know....
I do believe the American Government handled this wrong- As far as humiliating those that Kill US citizens and military- Boo hoo. So sad too bad their poor little feelings were hurt. These are not true muslims anyways, these are socio paths who kill and torture for pleasure same as Saddam and more than likely are part of his Rebulican Guard!
someguy
Master Black Belt
Rainman said:
Let us suppise you are right on some f this. Still it will do as HHJH has said.
Ruin the morale on the home front. to some extent yup more like harm it though.
Do irreparable damage to Arab/US relations...which are rotten to begin with. It will be repaired some but still damage it some.
Make us look terrible in the eyes of our allies and the rest of the world.Sort of yeah
Give our critics abroad and at home justification for saying "I told you so," in their efforts at demonizing us as a nation.Hmm I have heard it plenty of times so I will have to say yup.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
According to widely accepted reports, as many as 90% of those held in the Abu Ghraib prison were not charged with any crime. They were not 'Republican Guard' troops. They were Iraqi's "lucky" enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The US military could not even determine who should be held, and who should be released.Rainman said:
And the outrage of the Muslim world world, during the invasion was directed at the country doing the invading (not just the muslim world, by the way, but pretty damn near the whole world). The Iraqi's posed no threat to the United States, so according to International Law, we had no right to invade. I don't think anyone, anywhere was cheering on rape or torture, but there may have been some bigger items in the news, at the time.
R
Rainman
Guest
someguy said:
Didn't ruin my morale any- this is war- war is ugly- All fighting is ugly- With that being said, who cares what the "feelings" of dictatorships and those that hide behind their so called religeon think. They are cowards. Cowards killed unarmed civilians working to rebuild Iraq. They love the turmoil and subterfuge they live in otherwise the Iraqi people would come together and flat out put a stop to it. It is the demagoguery that gets the retarded masses... What can you say about that? Open your eyes? Their eyes are wide open.
Honestly I am really disturbed by people in my own country putting other countries before our own military and and our own citizens. As soon as an American body was desecrated and humilated by being drug around on the streets of terikati the current administration should have zoomed in with a satellite and directed an intense military take over to recover those bodies and take those people out.
I just don't see the point in letting cancer fester. It is like someone brandishing a weapon, use it or don't. Stay away from the inbetween it is not logical because it gives the opponent time to react.
On the flip side yes, someone didn't do their job... Big deal fire them, that is the American way.
R
Rainman
Guest
michaeledward said:
Not the whole world- we have had many allies privately supporting the US invasion. Saddam wasn't a threat? Are you nuts? Mass graves were found with thousands of people in them... He was a threat to anyone at anytime... Same as bin ladden and the other rich boy playboy creeps over in the middle east that are just flat out lunitics.
Gitmo... unlucky enough to be hanging around terrorists? Bit of a stretch for me... maybe some are innocent... maybe they are murderers and rapists. Would you not rather error on the side of safety... 3000 of our folks got wiped off the planet for going to work that day... So what if the US has takes time to fully investigate these things. Our citizens come first. I mean really- to mass murder 3000 people for going to work-
International Law- Law is the job of lawyers now- are you an international attourney at law? If you are please state where it is written that socio paths such as Saddam should test mustard gas on the kurds... That is a collection of empiracal data the could be used in terrorists attacks throughout the world. Tell me if it is not the same to let a known serial killer out on a loop hole and try to get him before he kills again. Whoever failed to close the case and do the job they were paid for FIRE THEM. Don't know what else to say about that.
someguy
Master Black Belt
I seriously doubt that this incident didn't effect moral at all. OK so it may not be as big of an effect as say Sadams capture but I would bet it has to some ectent or another. As o proof it has hmm prove it hasn't. Does that harm my case sure but I don't feel like thinking of a good bit of proof. Any one else care to do that for me?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
I'm curious what planet you are living on? Odds are high that Tony Blair is going to be voted out of office for so vigorously supporting the United States in this little excursion. The 'Coalition of the Willing' is supported by extensive bribes by the United States.Rainman said:
He was definately a threat to the citizens of his own country, but only if they voiced dissent. He was not a threat to anyone else. His military was severely degraded in 1991, and with the United Nations sanctions, replacement parts for his weaponry was unavailable. The only possible threat he could have posed was with Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons. As we have seen, those just didn't exist.Rainman said:
Certainly, bin Laden is a lunatic. No argument from me on this statement.Rainman said:
Gitmo? Who mentioned Gitmo? Now, since you bring it up. That the United States is holding indefinately, without charge, without rights, without status human beings is a disgrace and an embarassment. If they are criminals, charge them and try them. If they are prisoners of war, name them as such and provide them the rights granted to POW's.Rainman said:
Abu Ghraib is a prison in Iraq. The detainees in this prison are being detained for questionable reasons. Some are supposed to be criminal, but others just happen to be living on the same block. When the US military executes a 'sweep', they detain all of the people in an area, detain them, and then are supposed to vet those who do not belong in the prison. However, due to manpower related shortages, many remain detained that should be released.
Thirdly ... 3000 murded (actually 2948) ... ahh, gee, haven't you heard, THE IRAQI's weren't involved with that ... Why don't we start randomly arresting Canadians?
Forthly ... "would you not rather error on the side of safety" ... well, No. You see, if we do not provide every guarantee to our enemy, our enemy will feel justified to deny our soldiers those same guarantees. This begins the escalation of violence. Yes, the US Military can destroy all the other militaries on the planet, but unless you are going to destroy all of the people on the planet, the problem is not going to be solved.
Our country has done pretty well for itself guaranteeing the rights of citizens to be 'innocent until proven guilty'. Why should we abondone this noble concept, that has served us so well for 225 years?
No, I am not an international attourney at law. I am going to assume that is a rhetorical question.Rainman said:
It is not written that 'socio paths' such as Saddam should test mustard gas on the kurds.
Also, he should not use it on the Iranians. Also, the United States should not provide intelligence data to Saddam Hussein so that he may effectively use his chemical & biological weapons against his enemies and citizens. ... But we did.
In 1949, the world adopted the 'Geneva Conventions'. These Convetions function as 'International Law' and deal directly with armed conflict. In 2001, apparently, the George Bush Administration decided that we no longer need to operate within the guidelines of the Geneva Convetions (Kyoto, anyone?).
Here are the Geneva Conventions
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Here is the US abondoment of the Geneva Conventions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/
Mike
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Huh. Nobody seems to want to tangle with Seymour Hersh's reporting, though it is the essence of this thread. I'll be darned.
"Would you not rather error on the side of safety... 3000 of our folks got wiped off the planet for going to work that day... So what if the US has takes time to fully investigate these things. Our citizens come first." Well, if people can't understand that those of us who have been born incredibly privileged have moral responsibilities (yes, Virginia, I mean you) to humankind, what can one say?
As long as we're forgetting, anybody recollect Quaddafi's baby girl, killed by our airstrikes under Reagan? Anybody recollect the Iranians--300 plus Iranians--killed by one of our Aegis cruisers (some of y'all are into technology; like, isn't the Aegis' phased-array radar rilly, rilly kewl?)?
Or hey, mustard gas. Clearly wrong and damnable--and hate to tell some, us lefties noticed that it was wrong and damnable. Regrettably we also noticed that a previous Bush administration abandoned the Kurds when then needed us...when we had a perfect, almost-immaculate chance to stand up for our best values and make a good political/military move, too. Instead, it was hasta la vista, suckers.
Mustard gas. Yes, absolutely unforgivably wrong, all irony aside.. Hey, do a search. Check out: MK-Ultra. Check out the Christmas bombing of Hanoi. Check the experiments that the US government did in the 1950s, administering lethal doses of radiation to terminally-ill hillbilly children around a little area we like to call, Oak Ridge, Tennesse. Or look up the Phoenix Program.
By the way, the angrier and more insulting responses? I'll be responding with some episode from American history, so enjoy, enjoy.
The only sane and moral response is that it is all wrong, wrong and damnable. Robert Heinlein was right in "Starship Troopers:" doesn't matter if it's one or a million. Evil methods, evil ends: "you fight."
I heard Mr. Hersh on NPR (yes, I know: like to dismiss it as Communist, wouldn't some of you?): what I liked best, when he talked about the unforgivable **** that Rumsfield and the rest of the Gestapo (yes, gestapo: torturers who torture for high-minded purposes are Gestapo in my book) have been up to (sheesh, it's like some of you guys never saw, "Above the Law," and have failed to come up to the moral standards of Steven Seagal--or Billy Jack--not a high standard, mind), Hersh said, "We."
He's right. And so was Pogo.
Shame on those of you who have been thinking up fancy, abstract, intellectualized theories to justify torture and murder. Shame on you.
"Would you not rather error on the side of safety... 3000 of our folks got wiped off the planet for going to work that day... So what if the US has takes time to fully investigate these things. Our citizens come first." Well, if people can't understand that those of us who have been born incredibly privileged have moral responsibilities (yes, Virginia, I mean you) to humankind, what can one say?
As long as we're forgetting, anybody recollect Quaddafi's baby girl, killed by our airstrikes under Reagan? Anybody recollect the Iranians--300 plus Iranians--killed by one of our Aegis cruisers (some of y'all are into technology; like, isn't the Aegis' phased-array radar rilly, rilly kewl?)?
Or hey, mustard gas. Clearly wrong and damnable--and hate to tell some, us lefties noticed that it was wrong and damnable. Regrettably we also noticed that a previous Bush administration abandoned the Kurds when then needed us...when we had a perfect, almost-immaculate chance to stand up for our best values and make a good political/military move, too. Instead, it was hasta la vista, suckers.
Mustard gas. Yes, absolutely unforgivably wrong, all irony aside.. Hey, do a search. Check out: MK-Ultra. Check out the Christmas bombing of Hanoi. Check the experiments that the US government did in the 1950s, administering lethal doses of radiation to terminally-ill hillbilly children around a little area we like to call, Oak Ridge, Tennesse. Or look up the Phoenix Program.
By the way, the angrier and more insulting responses? I'll be responding with some episode from American history, so enjoy, enjoy.
The only sane and moral response is that it is all wrong, wrong and damnable. Robert Heinlein was right in "Starship Troopers:" doesn't matter if it's one or a million. Evil methods, evil ends: "you fight."
I heard Mr. Hersh on NPR (yes, I know: like to dismiss it as Communist, wouldn't some of you?): what I liked best, when he talked about the unforgivable **** that Rumsfield and the rest of the Gestapo (yes, gestapo: torturers who torture for high-minded purposes are Gestapo in my book) have been up to (sheesh, it's like some of you guys never saw, "Above the Law," and have failed to come up to the moral standards of Steven Seagal--or Billy Jack--not a high standard, mind), Hersh said, "We."
He's right. And so was Pogo.
Shame on those of you who have been thinking up fancy, abstract, intellectualized theories to justify torture and murder. Shame on you.
R
Rainman
Guest
michaeledward said:
No doornob, I brought up Gitmo because it is similar and sets the precident- that being if you are caught near such a situation the US government will incarcerate first and then sort through the material. This has already been done to the citizens in the format of trying to reduce gang violence... "guilty by association" Don't know why everyone is so shocked at this, has been a leverage tool used by law enforcement since the early 90's.
Innocent until proven guilty... That is a laugh. You are more innocent the more money you have... OJ, Enron, most business owners, unions and the rest of it.
The Iraqis were not involved... and GW doesn't know what the CIA does either. OPEC, the CIA, whatever. Large amounts of money and power. Money and power corrupt- and some of these folks absolutely have power... you know the rest.
Saddam never bothered anyone unless they spoke out against him.
The United states routinely spoke out against him...
You are speaking in past tense dude- They already raped and tortured and dragged bodies around the streets. They violated the rules of engagement First.
Also, he should not use it on the Iranians. Also, the United States should not provide intelligence data to Saddam Hussein so that he may effectively use his chemical & biological weapons against his enemies and citizens. ... But we did.
I did not give my permission to do that. There is no we. I disagree with giving or selling any military secrets to anyone and I also believe anyone who does should get life in prision.
He was definately a threat to the citizens of his own country, but only if they voiced dissent. He was not a threat to anyone else. His military was severely degraded in 1991, and with the United Nations sanctions, replacement parts for his weaponry was unavailable. The only possible threat he could have posed was with Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons. As we have seen, those just didn't exist.
By that logic you could also say the republican guard doesn't exist... They all slither off reappear and disappear. Never would have found Saddam if he wasn't ratted out- and even that was for money.
Blair is a socialist- that is the real reason people are not so happy with him. England has been bombarded by imigrants who basically get the same stuff as people born there... It is putting a strain on their economy. Sorry to pop your bubble but a co-worker of mine just imigrated to the US from the UK. He is neither conservative or liberal, sad ,what he is is not is represented in his government by a middle of the road party.
Lastly when is it your think terrorists are going follow the Geneva Convention?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
chuckle !!Rainman said:
It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad that you keep argueing that 'Terrorists' and the Iraqi people are interchangable.Rainman said:
By that arguement, Cheif John Ross was a Terrorist (Cherokee Trail of Tears - and I had to look it up. - Also see 'General Winfield Scott')
What is causing me trepidation is that you are worried not about the United States abondoning the Geneva Conventions (and there will be ramifications Pandora), but whether the other guy is going to respect them.
Off to memorize the phone book with you. - Mike
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
"No doornob, I brought up Gitmo because it is similar and sets the precident- that being if you are caught near such a situation the US government will incarcerate first and then sort through the material. This has already been done to the citizens in the format of trying to reduce gang violence... "guilty by association" Don't know why everyone is so shocked at this, has been a leverage tool used by law enforcement since the early 90's."
Ah. I feel so very much better now, knowing that law enforcement is building up a proud tradition of grabbing citizens off the street--largely black and hispanic citizens, mind you--because they're hanging around with the wrong crowd. Thank god we are applying the same standards everywhere.
By the way--just to mention the topic of the thread--"sort{ing} through the material," apparently means COMMITING ACTS OF TORTURE ON HELPLESS PRISONERS. And, "the material," actually means HUMAN BEINGS.
Sheesh. And some of us constantly get accused of being materialists with no sense of values.
By the way, nothing in the Christian message says that decency is easy. It says that it's necessary--much as in martial arts, the discipline and control one learns on the mat is supposed to extend to the difficult parts of dealing with others.
But as always, the interesting thing is the invocation of capitalism as the fundamental problem. In that, I tend to agree.
Ah. I feel so very much better now, knowing that law enforcement is building up a proud tradition of grabbing citizens off the street--largely black and hispanic citizens, mind you--because they're hanging around with the wrong crowd. Thank god we are applying the same standards everywhere.
By the way--just to mention the topic of the thread--"sort{ing} through the material," apparently means COMMITING ACTS OF TORTURE ON HELPLESS PRISONERS. And, "the material," actually means HUMAN BEINGS.
Sheesh. And some of us constantly get accused of being materialists with no sense of values.
By the way, nothing in the Christian message says that decency is easy. It says that it's necessary--much as in martial arts, the discipline and control one learns on the mat is supposed to extend to the difficult parts of dealing with others.
But as always, the interesting thing is the invocation of capitalism as the fundamental problem. In that, I tend to agree.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
The stupidity of people will never cease to amaze me. Here are a couple of things.
#1. For those of you who keep saying that "them Muslims aren't in objection to acts of terrorism" need to realize that all them "rag heads" aren't the same. Just like there are distinctly different versions of Christianity with some involving violence (like KKK and neo-nazi groups), there is the same diversity in the Muslim world. The only thing that we see from our "liberal media" is the fundamentalist rallies and parades. Yes, there sure seems to be a lot of muslim fundamentalists, however, if the roles were reversed and the U.S. was the third world, and the middle east was the unilateral power who fixed trade laws, and treated us "Christians" as lesser people, then you would see the violent forms of christianity marching in the streets all the same.
But the fact is, not all christians would agree with the violent forms.
This is true in the Muslim world. There many Muslims both in and outside of the middle east who are horrified by ther actions of Muslim fundamentalists, and who are in objection to acts of terrorism. MichealEdward posted a few links to Arabic media to support this fact in this thread, if you look back.
So, quit saying statements like "You don't see an outcry for bla-blah-bla in the "Muslim" world" because it only makes you look racist and ignorant.
#2. On to the torture...for those of you who argue that "they," meaning the thousands of prisoners, needed to be tortured by us because "they" had valuable information to prevent terrorism, stop it. Out of all the prisoners, there may have been only a handful of them who knew anything. That doesn't excuse the now 1800 photo's detailing prison abuse that have been confiscated to date. Most of the people tortured in our prisons were not "terrorists", or anyone with military intelligence, but were just regular ol' Iraqi soldiers. So when you argue this way, you look retarded.
#3 Stop using the arguement that "because other countries might torture 'us' worse, then it must be o.k. for us to torture in the manner that we did." You all know that your mamma's taught you that "2 wrongs don't make a right" the same as mine.
#4 Stop saying that the torture wasn't a top down order when we have endless proof that M.I. told the guards to break these men down. This arguement is about as logical as trying to argue that the world is flat.
#5 And stop saying that IF you are upset at the way we handle foriegn policy, or upset with people in power, or upset with silly little things like "torture" at our own hands, that you are somehow, "putting other countries before our own military and citizens." If I am upset at the way my government handles something, it doesn't mean that I must support the terrorists. This is not a logical arguement.
O.K.....now that that's settled....proceed....
#1. For those of you who keep saying that "them Muslims aren't in objection to acts of terrorism" need to realize that all them "rag heads" aren't the same. Just like there are distinctly different versions of Christianity with some involving violence (like KKK and neo-nazi groups), there is the same diversity in the Muslim world. The only thing that we see from our "liberal media" is the fundamentalist rallies and parades. Yes, there sure seems to be a lot of muslim fundamentalists, however, if the roles were reversed and the U.S. was the third world, and the middle east was the unilateral power who fixed trade laws, and treated us "Christians" as lesser people, then you would see the violent forms of christianity marching in the streets all the same.
But the fact is, not all christians would agree with the violent forms.
This is true in the Muslim world. There many Muslims both in and outside of the middle east who are horrified by ther actions of Muslim fundamentalists, and who are in objection to acts of terrorism. MichealEdward posted a few links to Arabic media to support this fact in this thread, if you look back.
So, quit saying statements like "You don't see an outcry for bla-blah-bla in the "Muslim" world" because it only makes you look racist and ignorant.
#2. On to the torture...for those of you who argue that "they," meaning the thousands of prisoners, needed to be tortured by us because "they" had valuable information to prevent terrorism, stop it. Out of all the prisoners, there may have been only a handful of them who knew anything. That doesn't excuse the now 1800 photo's detailing prison abuse that have been confiscated to date. Most of the people tortured in our prisons were not "terrorists", or anyone with military intelligence, but were just regular ol' Iraqi soldiers. So when you argue this way, you look retarded.
#3 Stop using the arguement that "because other countries might torture 'us' worse, then it must be o.k. for us to torture in the manner that we did." You all know that your mamma's taught you that "2 wrongs don't make a right" the same as mine.
#4 Stop saying that the torture wasn't a top down order when we have endless proof that M.I. told the guards to break these men down. This arguement is about as logical as trying to argue that the world is flat.
#5 And stop saying that IF you are upset at the way we handle foriegn policy, or upset with people in power, or upset with silly little things like "torture" at our own hands, that you are somehow, "putting other countries before our own military and citizens." If I am upset at the way my government handles something, it doesn't mean that I must support the terrorists. This is not a logical arguement.
O.K.....now that that's settled....proceed....
Similar threads
