US torture of Iraqi prisoners

parnell:
Sorry, I'm lost on exactly what was the original intent of your post? What was your goal? To preach? To enlighten? To embarrass? To be righteously indignant? To provide an answer?

You're right, torture sucks (but everyone knew that already)
We're enlightened (although everyone already knew torture exists in the world)
We're ashamed (although every country has skeletons)
We're righteously indignant (although every person has skeletons)
I don't have an easy answer, do you?

So what was your goal, exactly? My apologies, but I just don't get the point?

@ noddy


The Canadian 22nd Airborne tortured and murdered a Somali a few years back; a crime orders of magnitude more severe than what we see here. Further, the 22nd represented a higher per capita percentage of their nation than do these GIs. Alas, nobody went around blaming the whole Canadian nation.

Then why do some, you included, blame the USA as a whole? Bias.

from the BBC

from fox news

So it is not as bad as torturing and killing, but still bad enough to be dishonorable?(excluding the rape allegations)
Still, I would say that it is wrong to treat something that others hold as iconic or sacred and spit on it. I would never run around DC pulling the burquas off of ladies or show the nudity of someone who held that as sacred. That is their business and their right to believe in it. I would enter an endless debate with someone over the fact that taking their photo does not steal their soul rather than snapping the pic and saying 'see?'

That's true, and we have seen pictures of dead US soldies dragged through the streets and paraded around. The difference is, of course that those images are not going to shock as many people - after all, people are attempting to rid their country of an outside force. You can argue that it's understandable...there was only one invading army here - one aggressor to kick this war off...

However, on the other side, you have an army which promised to 'liberate' a nation. Torturing it's citizens flies straight in the face of the claims made by the US administration of why they are even there...

If it's to provide security, they are failing dismally. Would Iraq itself be much worse off if they left right now?

good point , I'm all for lynchin those Canucks as well

(and no I'm not jokin).

OK, So... With that all said, let's all just go watch an extremely violent movie from Hollywood, get drunk on some mixers and make some noise!!!

That's a ridiculous thing to say...so a little bit of torture is ok then?

That's like saying it's ok to cut off someones hand, because you didn't cut off their whole arm!!

To fuckin not let the day go by without saying something - personally I don't like offending anyone (although someone said to me recently that I must be havin my period) but I felt that this was too important not too get mentioned - hence I refrained from loads of comment in the first post.
If the thread went ignored then no problem - my conscience was clear but I felt that people should have the right to comment , ESPECIALLY cos i consider some of the people on this site personal friendds of mine and am interested in their views.

We crystal?

Can we watch 'Black Hawk Down'?

Runs away quickly

I didn't say that. That guy from the quote did. I agree with you, Hazza.
I was just making a point about respecting peoples ideals, no matter what they are.

Hm. Black hawk down. I thought it was Kill Bill tonight.

ok, maybe I'm not the only one that misunderstood?

while peeved initially, I do like discussing something other than where the next drinks are. on that note, CNN just said Michael Jackson was indicted, going to trial...

I know you didn't say it - I was commenting on the quote, not you...

But if the US want to win over hearts and minds (and they need to do that to be successful), then they've just taken a hell of a lot of backward steps because of this.

Michael Jackson raped that boy in Iraq???

apparentley there are some countries in the middle east where IT IS OK to chop of someones hand

different note, Hazza, different note.

So if I want to rectify the situation as an American, I should do it with my vote eh? Ok, i'll get the chance in November but how could I have prevented this with my vote? What if I voted for Gore? Am I still responsible? What should I do? Try to overthrow the government? I would argue that YOU are every bit as much to blame as I am because YOU have also done nothing. Furthermore, if Bush grabbed power by illegal means, as you suggest, then it was against the will of American people and they therefore cannot be blamed. (Even though I would argue that they and you are equally NOT to blame for torture (or whatever it was) done by these criminals.

This just in from another site I'm a member of - posted by a prominent American member:

"I have a friend who works in the JAG Corps. He was giving me some "off the cuff" examples of abuse that he has run across.

For example, an Iraqi prisoner was forced to masturbate in front of his captors.

My bud said this isn't rampant, but the fact that it still happened is bad enough. Sorry that I can only give you word of mouth, I wish I could link to more specifics."

Blame Canada. You know they're not even a real country anyway.
Should we blame the government or should we blame society
or should we blame the images on TV?
We must blame them and cause a fuss before someone thinks of blaming us.
Let's form a full assault! It's Canada's fault!

Taken from the award winning song Blame Canada, written by Canadians, and sung by the late mrs. shelia broflovsky.

Please do not take this as anything other than a quick reference to pop culture.
Not meaning to offend anyone with personal beliefs here.

sickened.

I have nothing else to say.

p_g

Actually Profundo, none of those lyrics were written by Canadians.

IMDB has 4 people listed for original music, all of whom are Americans. Not that we mind that Americans wrote and sing it.

And yes, I will post off-topic in this. It's miscellaneous and random chat.

The Guardian

from the article: "His lawyer, Gary Myers, told the Guardian that Sgt Frederick had not had the opportunity to read the Geneva Conventions before being put on guard duty, a task he was not trained to perform."

oh geez. that guy needs a new lawyer. or maybe not...

@ noddy again

[British] Soldier arrested over Iraqi PoW 'torture' pictures

According to The Sun , one of the photographs showed an Iraqi PoW gagged and bound, hanging in netting from a fork-lift truck and soldiers performing sex acts near captured Iraqis.

Did you blame Britain as a whole for this? No, yet now you blame 'America.' I'd really like your response to this and my post about the Canadians in Somalia.

Torture of Iraqis by British soldiers:

okay DW,

i usually don't see the forum on my own time and so hadn't had a chance to comment on what has hit the papers about the british forces, but i'm in the orifice this aft for a bit, so here it goes...

let me start by stating i have no particular wish to insult/demean or in anyway offend anybody here, i simply have my opinion and if its okay, i'd like to express it as freely as everybody else does, even though it may not be the most popular one...

i don't know you, or anybody else on this forum for that matter, but i know many americans, canadians, britons and have worked for a number of years with a lot of people from the middle east, and to be honest i like some, i don't like some... but that is a personality based decision, not a nationality based one.

one of the things that makes me like a person is that they are open to discussion, which is why i enjoy discussing things with people on this board.

so, you mention the word bias, i'm not sure if it is the correct word but i see what you are getting at, i am personally very anti the invasion of iraq, secondary to that, i have an extremely low opinion of george bush and the way the republican party in the us operates as a whole.

i have no respect for any government that has bent over and let america drag it into the war as a member of the 'willing'...blair is one who did it, aznar was another, they did it against the will of the people.

once spain pulled out, i wasn't very suprised to see that two other 'willing' countries, the dominican republic and honduras (i think, i'm open to correction on that second one), who happen to be very dependent trading partners of spain also pulled out...

so yes, i'm an 'old european', i am 'anti-willing'

back to the word bias:

- i wasn't aware of the canadian issue, probably wasn't reading many newspapers at that time, but have no reason to anymore favourable to canada than the US

- the poor behaviour of british soldiers abroad will never cease to amaze me, although i come from the south of ireland, i have had sufficient contact with british squaddies (in ireland and britain) to know that they are never trained well enough or politically/historically educated enough to be put in the tinder box situations they find themselves in... this isn't quite the thread for that discussion

so no, i'm not particularly biased against the US in particular.

i hope that all makes sense, now back to my point.

you can thrall thru all the examples war crimes and torture you can find and my response will still be the same...

if there is an armed invasive force in a foreign land (no matter under what guise it is there), which is made up of citizens from my country, who are there as representitives of my country and who are bearing my flag then i have to put my hand up and say that i hold some portion of responsibilty for what those people are doing... even if it is wrong...

(as an aside, though the paramilitary IRA are not and have not, for a long time, been an official representitive of the Irish people, and I do not agree with their actions in anyway, i still feel guilty about what they did and claimed was in the name of the Irish people, even if it is just when i can't find a bin in a british train station)

earlier up the thread some one correctly pointed out the excellent work that the allied forces are doing in rebuilding bridges, schools and hospitals... i believe the folks back home in the allied countries should take pride in the good humanitarian work that those people are doing on the ground, even if they have no direct contribution to it (outside moral support and financial support thru tax)

but note that they are rebuilding stuff... which they destroyed on the way in... they have to take responsibility for that too... you have to take the rough with the smooth...

lets look at it from the troop on the ground's position (be he/she a GI or Squaddie or what ever), he is there in middle of the desert, looking at the same sandy horizon as he has been for the last 6 months, hasn't seen his wife or family in 9 months etc etc, he is there doing his job, why? because he is serving his country...

the people out there are there because they are serving their country, their people... he believes that he has the 100% support of the people at home... if he doesn't is he going to be able to do his job? i think not.

this is why i think that every citizen, no matter what country, bears some responsibility for the actions of their military (or foreign office for that matter)

okay various governments may have hi-jacked the armies and gone to war against the will of the people, but america is the supposed to be the greatest democracy on earth, how could that happen?

and the us and british armies are supposed to be the most sophisticated and well trained armies in the world, so how could atrocities like the ones we are seeing this weekend happen?

in my opinion, all of this as been 'allowed' to happen, by the people

i don't have the magic answer.

but for a start, i think something has to be done to wake up the electorate in countries where the government is acting against the will of the people... what is the average turn out at the polls in the US and the UK? not half high enough... i know its pathetic in ireland too, i propose making it a duty... you should get fined if you don't go and vote, even if you don't want to vote for anybody, you should still have to show up to spoil your vote.

if the citizens want their will to be done, they must make their will heard, otherwise things are being done in their name, awful things.

------------------------------------------>

@ ketchup, i hope what i have said above goes someway to answer your questions and explain my opinion... if not, then here is a more direct response:

yes, you should use your vote in november

yes, if you voted gore, you are still american and you are responsible for what is done in your name

yes, if you can overthrow your current government legally and democratically then you should, i mean lets face it, it ain't doing too well on the domestic front either is it?

no, i am not responsible for what is done in your name. i cannot directly influence what happens in your country, however, i can comment on what is done in your name in the rest of the world. i can discuss it with you and hope that you will consider what i say.

but, yes you are right, i do bear responsibility ...i bear responsibility for the fact that the government of my country is flouting the neutrality enshrined in our constitution by facilitating US troop transfer thru our territory for a measly $15 million a year... plus goodwill of course... and my member of parliment will know all about that very soon, and again when he comes looking for my vote.

noddy - thanks for the reply, and for taking the conversation up a level. i'll get back to this soon as i have a tad more time.

Doubt cast on Iraq torture photos

Iraq torture photos row widens

"BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams says sources close to The Queen's Lancashire Regiment believe many aspects of the photographs are suspicious.

He says they believe the pictures may not have even been taken in Iraq.

They believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq.

They say soldiers in Iraq wore berets or hard hats - and not floppy hats as in the photos.

They also believe the wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq."

"As well as questions over the rifle, vehicle and hat, he also pointed out that there were discrepancies over clothing and the condition of the captive.

"The shirt looks like a football shirt. Is that the sort of shirt that a captive might be wearing, slightly silky with an Iraqi flag?

"Why is it not dirty and dishevelled, why is the man not showing some signs of damage after eight hours of beatings?

"Why would the soldiers be wearing webbing that is undone? Normally soldiers are very particular about that."

Everyone gets all upset when a few Iraqi soldiers are put on a box, with some fake wires on them. If they had just been shot instead of captured, there would have been no news article. Most people would prefer that I suppose. Death is OK in war, but not forcing somebody to take their kit off and get photographed.

Excellent post Noddy.

I have to agree with don a bit. The attitude of the press in the coalition countries doesn't help any of us get a good idea of what's really happening in Iraq. They'd much rather report a dodgy heroic story (eg Jessica Lynch), or shock story like the ones we're seeing now, than tell us about the daily suffering and hardships of living in an occupied country (however nice the occupying armies are trying to be).

Not that that information would necessarily change peoples views on the war, but a least they'd be making a much more informed decision.

(My votes for best reporting on Iraq go to the Guardian and Robert Fisk in The Independent. For the non-Brits, the Guardian is the most left-wing of the popular papers and Robert Fisk lives in the Lebanon, so they're not exactly going to be the biggest flag waivers for Bush, but when seen together with the mainstream press it does broaden the view a bit.)

To read a view(which I actually rate and respect) on what iraq was like, can I suggest you go a read the blog of a friend of mine Stuart Hughes.

http://stuarthughes.blogspot.com/

Go back to the start of the blog, and start reading.

Also, John Simpson I think from the BBC as a book, which gives you a lot of the historical background to the whole IRAQ thing.

Poots

Death is a pretty much unavoidable part of war. It is also frequently touted as being "for the greater good", and this occasion is no exception.

Thus I believe it's more the hypocrisy that is getting people upset. Iraq is attacked because it has WMD - then we discover it hasn't got any. So then Iraq is attacked because Sadam is evil and tortures his people - then we discover that some of the coalition troops are doing the same. If coalition troops started performing the cold-blooded execution of prisoners, you'd likely see the same sort of outrage.

Even more importantly is how this is perceived in the Middle East, where public humiliation is a far more heinous crime. Even if you don't care about coalition troops torturing a few Iraqi prisoners, you still need to think of the repercussions it could have.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3676495.stm

"We are certain that Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri and al-Qaeda supporters are the happiest people on earth as they watch the shameful clips because they have given them the best ammunition for recruiting more frustrated young men who are zealous about their religion, creed and honour."

I think people need to get some perspective about this.

It's pretty sickening how these Iraqis were treated, but the key point is that what happened was passed to the media and JAG and so on. Bush has condemned it, as has Blair and the people responsible will get punished.

Also, you should do some research and see what used to go on in this prison - much nastier things (including mass executions to reduce overcrowding!) took place with the full approval of Saddam and his cronies.

And The Sun today has run the headline that the photos of the British torture are totally fake - the reasoning they give seems plausible enough to me.

So, back to blaming U.S. troops, the U.S.A., Uncle Sam and every American I've ever met then...

I agree with your other point, but don't consider this one particularly valid. So Saddam tortured people more than the coalition troops have...that's no justification for people who are supposed to be there to help.

And my other point about the perception in the Middle East still remains. Do you think the Iraqi's are saying to themselves "At least we don't get tortured as much as we did under Saddam - how lucky we are!"?

Re: Jimbo - I already posted links about the doubts cast on the photos of the British soldiers. However just as I'm unlikely to believe the pictures are real on the basis that they were posted in a newspaper, equally I'm not going to simply take the word of another newspaper that they're fake. In particular, I don't pass judgement based on what I read in The Sun (which is about as reliable as the Bild over here). Instead, I will wait and see what the official investigation turns up.

Of course not, that's not what I meant.


Well, I'm sure the Arab Street, particularly as reported by Al Jazeera and the BBC won't be saying that. It's a pity Salam Pax is otherwise engaged, it would be interesting to see how he reacts. Actually, you can find out from here in a couple of hours.

My point was that all armies have sickos, under the Baathists they had free rein, and in a democracy, or even an occupation by a democracy, there are checks and balances on them, like a free media, independant prosecutors and so on. More to the point, because this sort of thing discredits the occupiers, the politicicians will hopefully take some action to stop it happening in future. None of this was true back in the days of Saddam.

Thanks for pointing out the article Jimbo. I got a copy of the Telegraph today and the first thing I thought when I saw the picture was "fake".

Like the prisoner "happens" to be wearing an Iraqi flag T-shirt - yeah right.

I feel for sorry for our boys out there. Bad enough being in a warzone without the rest of the world thinking you are scum. Vietnam all over again.

Do you also feel sorry for the girls over there?

Don't worry Showem - I'm sure that Johnny wasn't being deliberately sexist - the Sun writes our Boys with a capital 'B' to show they mean our forces in general. And if he was being deliberately sexist, well, you do get cheaper car insurance when you're a girl...swings and roundabouts innit???

It's a slip of the keyboard I'm sure. But it reinforces images in people's heads that there's only men there. Gets my goat.

And the comparison between getting cheaper car insurance and the dangers of war no matter your gender, is hardly a valid one.

Depends what post code you live in - it can be quite a saving (I'll put a smiley this time to indicate that this is indeed a flippant remark and not a serious one)

Glad to see the politically correct brigade are also out in force doing their bit for world peace. The expression "our boys" is very old in the UK and probably dates pre- WW1.

It no more refers to "males only" any more than it refers to males under the age of 16 (e.g. boys). Although as it happens the British Army to do not allow women to shoot people.

So I feel sorry for the "boys at the front" and also the "girls at the back" doing all the cooking an' washing and stuff.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
relax showem - I am teasing ya.

Amusingly enough...due to Gender Equality European plans it will soon be illegal to offer women lower insurance premiums. Details here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/busines...id77201?source=

So you get lumped with a 30% increase in the cause of political correctness. As it happens this will also effect life insurance and annuities, which means women (cos they live longer) will pay more for their annuities.

It is a little known fact however that the reason women have less accidents is simply because they do less mileage. This I guess is pretty much 'cos they are stuck at home doing the cooking 'an washing and stuff.

Sorry Johnny, baiting doesn't bother me. Unconscious sexism does.

But that's interesting about the car insurance. I wonder how long before they try and do the same to private health insurance here. I mean, it's ageism to charge someone older more money, right?

I, on behalf of the other 290,999,999 Americans apologize. What was I thinking!? Boy, I really dropped the ball on that one.

In much the same way as rest of us are expected to accept responsibility on behalf of some bad apples, we Americans all intend to take individual credit for good things that have come out of the USA.

I'm personally owed a 'thank you' by every non-American for a lot of things, but let's just start with a few that have occured since I became an American:

- The invention of the artificial heart
- The design of the CPUs in the PC you are currently typing on
- The lectures of Richard P. Feynman between 1977 and 1988

That's a good place to start.

I would also like to personally thank all Brits for their individual contribution to Stephen Hawking's 'Brane Theory.' Jimbo, in particular I'd like to single you out and thank you for the Aston Martin DB7. Good work my friend.

And a BIG THANKS goes to all Canadians for producing Elisha Cuthbert.

what wre you before you became american

A twinkle in his father's eye.

No problem at all mate, although I preferred my work on the DB9 and the Nissan 350Z's door handles. I would also like to thank you for Cindy Crawford, Bill Clinton 'Sack the cook' jokes and Walt Disney. Oh, and my favourite invention that (probably) came out of the U.S. - napalm. Way cooler than any other bomb you boys have dropped on innocent villages up until Vietnam.

Ha ha, you mispelled brain!

I'd always thought it would be easy enought to base premiums on individual driving records, which is why I always objected to having to pay more for insurance...Imagine if an insurance company charged people of African descent more for car insurance, because statistics showed they have more accidents? There'd be an outroar.

@ Drivinwest

Thanks a lot for leaving out the Aussies as a people to thank...