This makes me sick

Remove all ads!

The soldiers involved at Abu Ghirab hardly got punished - a few years in military prison for rape and physical abuse. Like I said earlier Its better to be a rapest and murderer in USA than an innocent civilian in Iraq.

Using custer bombs in public places is also very cowardly and not a way to win the war.

"but if you were an American soldier in these prisons you would have done the same bloody thing." No I would never rape anyone especially an innocent young girl. [snip]

[ A matter for PM discussion ] - Beren

[ November 05, 2004, 09:11: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

AMaster, there were some official shakes of the heads and condemnation and a bit of dutiful outrage. There was even more whining that people wasnt outraged at the Falluja desecrations of the mercenaries there, or that it was just college pranks. What I read between the lines of many manys, especially right wing and members of the cabinet, outrage so was it an outrage that somone had dared to release those photos, that some traitor not tortured prisoners but that a traitor released pictures of it. That is and was the overwhelming impression I got from the Abu Ghraib story.

The American public frowned, whined and then closed their eyes and forgot and pentagon strung up some hick half retards for the cases where the public had seen the face of the poor soldier.

This is aimed at the Bush voters as it are those who tend to express the sentiments I have ranted about.

 

I think some of my comments were a wee bit too strong and I don't want to come accress as anti-American which my comments can probably suggest, but it is wrong to rape and torture anyone whether you are at war or not.

The original mission (I hope) was to help the Iraqis - let us not forget the original intent.

 

You know, I read that story, and there wasn't the slightest bit of evidence in it, aside from one person's account that is unverified in any way, whatsoever.

And is it just me, or is that slightly suspicious? I rather doubt the veracity of this piece. It lacks any backup. Just because you think the war is bad, and there have been some cruel guards at a prison doesn't mean that there are more and more horrible atrocities going on.

If this really happened, it will be found out about, reliable sources will report on it, and the soldiers will doubtlessly be disciplined, hopefully at a court still posessing the death penalty.

 

Well Slith, first off you should know that in a war what gets out, especially in such a blatant way as the Abu Ghraib prison is just the tiny little tip of the ice berg so even if this specific story wouldnt be true there would be a hundred others just as horrible.

The US credibility isnt all that great either and sadly havent deserved one whit of benefit of the doubt.

 

However, joacqin, you can't convict somebody on past crimes. Now, if you can prove that Abu Ghraib was the tip of this 'iceberg' then there might be reason to not give anyone the benefit of the doubt. But an accusation is just that, an accusation - suspicion is not proof.

Before you make a sweeping statement such as "true there would be a hundred others just as horrible." be sure to have at least some shred of proof. Every American soldier knows about the Nuremburg Trials (the trials after World War II where "I was just following orders" is not an excuce for war crimes).

 

And that was the only time in history such courts were used, and it was only the soldiers on the losing side on trial. Do you really think the American soldiers swept through Germany like jolly soldiers of love? We know for sure that the Russians didnt and even though I doubt that the Americans reached the Russians heights of atrocity I doubt they came away with clean hands.

Abomination, do you think what we know of Abu Ghraib had ever come out if it werent for the fact the idiot soldiers took pictures of some of the abuses and then they were leaked? That is what it takes for such things to come out, that or a journalist with integrity being on the spot. If the cases we do know about we came to know about it in such a way how many instances do you think there have been where there havent been any pictures taken, or if there were pictures taken which didnt get out?

 

So your argument is that: "we have no proof so it must have happened"? Or maybe Abu Ghraib was the ONLY case? Yes, there is a CHANCE there have been more cases but it doesn't mean that they HAVE happened.

The point about the Nuremburg Trials is that if you commit a crime you can't blame it on your superior officer if you KNOW you're committing a crime. Any reasonable person understands this and any reasonable person WOULDN'T rape a 14 year old, force inmates into sexually abusive positions and/or kill inmates - unless you want to accuse the American military of having a majority of unreasonable enlisted men and officers.

 

That's all there is in the entire story where something so henious is mentioned. And that too is so off hand a way, you wonder if it's because the reporters could find no credible backup for that story.

The United States has no respect for the rights of non-americans. This has been proved in its detention centers such as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. But on the basis of that to assume that someone did commit paedophilia...

 

Abomination, you just dont get what a war situation does to a person. Those Americans in for example Abu Ghraib wasnt torturing fellow humans, they were degrading the enemy, torturing a foe who have been demonized to the extent that all humanity have been stripped away from them. That is what happens in war, how else do you imagine the soldiers are able to pull the trigger? On either side. Talking about unreasonable things in a war zone is preposterous, is it reasonable to shoot somone in the head? Is it reasonable to strap bombs to you and run towards a road block?

If anything I think the US forces comparitively speaking behaves rather well but that is like saying that normal rape is comparitively better than anal rape.

 

I'm not surprised...

 

Well, they say all's fair in war (and love, but that's another topic), although I believe this time specifically both sides have gone quite far to demonize each other. I begin to think that whenever someone in the US government attaches the label "terrorist" to a group they remove them from any human status whatsoever (terrorists aren't prisoners of war with the required rights, but "enemy combatants" - so they might or might not have rights, depending on the mood of the CO's), and the Iraqi rebels think about as much of any coalition soldier, if not less.
Talking for demonization, remember which song US tank troops reportedly played most often during the invasion? "The Roof is on fire", especially the part "Burn, ......, burn." Hmph.

Still, no matter what, even in war there is a line that is most often kept. Rapes of minors in prisons, which would suggest planned and in (relatively) cool blood, is something that would shame any army, no matter how undemocratic the country.

 

Terrorists will do bad things - its in their nature, however when a legitimate army sinks lower than the terrorists then you know things are bad. You cannot use the age old chilidish excuse "He did it first"