There's two sides to the story'

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Wed May 12, 2004 4:57 am

Originally posted by Sojourner
Well, it looks like the beginning of reprisals in Iraq (see favorite website on beheading).

Anyone else watch the uncensored video? I’m against brutalizing prisoners, but IMHO nothing the U.S. soldiers did in Abu Ghurayb remotely compares to the savagery displayed in that footage (and I sure as hell don't see it as a justified reprisal to the degradations the prisoner suffered). The screams Nick Berg lets out as his head is sawed off by his captors is going to stay with me for awhile. I knew that footage would haunt me (as the footage of reporter Daniel Pearl getting beheaded has) but I felt it important for me to watch anyway - not out of morbid curiosity but as a reminder of why I support the War on Terror. Frankly I don't care what sort of geo-political situation, foreign interference, or prisoner abuse lead these people to believe kidnapping someone, holding them down, and hacking their head off was a justified act. They crossed a line that the U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghurayb haven't come near (Compare the prisoner abuse pics to the beheading and tell me I'm wrong. I'd rather have a glow-stick shoved up my ass then have my head sawed off). Personally I see this beheading as a profoundly foolish act on al-Zarqawi’s part, since cutting off people’s heads tends to erodes sympathy for the Arab plight.

P.S. (On a somewhat lighter note): I was reading the translation of the little speech that was read before Berg was beheaded and I have to wonder... Why the hell do these people have to say Allah every other sentence? These guys invoke God more often than the most shameless televangelist. "Rejoice for Allah has granted us victory against the evil imperialist Americans," "Allah will lead the Arab nations to righteous victory over the Great Satan," "All your base are belong to Allah," etc., ad nauseum. Come on guys, Allah shouldn't be a crutch for poor speech-making.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 12, 2004 5:41 am

- not out of morbid curiosity but as a reminder of why I support the War on Terror.

Actually, I was reminded why I DON'T support the war on terror. It gives people excuses to act like this. And if the reports on gang rape and mauling by dogs in that prison are correct, they're definetly all in the same league. That beheading was sadly a golden opportunity for the focus to be pushed away from the torture issue.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 12, 2004 5:59 am

Originally posted by Kayless
They crossed a line that the U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghurayb haven't come near (Compare the prisoner abuse pics to the beheading and tell me I'm wrong. I'd rather have a glow-stick shoved up my ass then have my head sawed off).

With respect, I disagree. Remember, the US and UK invaded Iraq. They deposed a government, and killed (best guess) over 10,000 people. Yet the US maintains it did it, not for oil or to topple Arab MidEastern governments for its friend, Israel, but to install democracy, freedom, and empower the Iraqi people. Under such circumstances, the images of torture, abuse and (we're told) prisoner killing by US soldiers amount to a sudden revelation in the eyes of many Iraqi who were still willing to give the Allies the benefit of the doubt--even after the US and UK showed a complete lack of understanding and sympathy for their cultures, and no apparent interest in democracy, freedom, or empowerment.

In such conditions, it doesn't matter what the Iraqi splinter group did in revenge. They were just a tiny handful of fanatics. The US is a world-class power--the only one, it claims. The fanatics do not preach about the moral high ground. The US does. The fanatics are desperate thugs. The US isn't supposed to be judged by their standards, but by its own rhetoric.

The fanatics are just conducting business-as-usual. The US, on the other hand, has crossed a line with this torture of ordinary prisoners that supposedly dates back to before the turn of the 20th century. It has abrogated the Geneva Conventions, and put paid to any idea of being perceived by MidEastern nations as a fair arbiter sincerely interested in the welfare of Arabs.

Personally I see this beheading as a profoundly foolish act on al-Zarqawi’s part, since cutting off people’s heads tends to erodes sympathy for the Arab plight.

On the contrary. By non-Arabs, it will be viewed as the ravings of a small group of fanatics. By Arabs, I'm afraid it will be viewed as a bunch of Robin Hood-style vigilantes, bringing justice to this horrible American evil that has decided to invade and conquer the Arab-speaking world.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 12, 2004 6:10 am

...And the award for Amazingly Callous and Stupid Things to Say by People in High Places goes this month to James Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, who yesterday said, that the abuse issue was overblown. He continued:

''I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations while our troops, our heroes, are fighting and dying."

Thataway, Senator! Let's show those AY-rabs who's really important in the world!

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 12, 2004 7:05 am

I've always wondered just what it takes to become a Senator in the US. At the moment they're about as useful as their namesakes in later-day Rome.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Wed May 12, 2004 7:38 am

Originally posted by fable
On the contrary. By non-Arabs, it will be viewed as the ravings of a small group of fanatics. By Arabs, I'm afraid it will be viewed as a bunch of Robin Hood-style vigilantes, bringing justice to this horrible American evil that has decided to invade and conquer the Arab-speaking world.

Not Robin-Hood vigilantes, but something different. There is quite the precedent for honor killings in the Mid-East, and this is what it is more likely to be viewed as.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 am

Well, well! Lookee here. CBS is gonna air two full lenght videos from the prisons tonight. Get ready with the sick-bags.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Wed May 12, 2004 8:31 am

Originally posted by Moonbiter
Actually, I was reminded why I DON'T support the war on terror. It gives people excuses to act like this. And if the reports on gang rape and mauling by dogs in that prison are correct, they're definetly all in the same league. That beheading was sadly a golden opportunity for the focus to be pushed away from the torture issue.

Not to be indelicate, but the Abu Ghurayb pics I saw were no worse than a particularly rough frat hazing. Nudity, degradation, anal probes... Ah, it brings back fond college memories.

Okay, tasteless joke I admit (Blame South Park for corrupting me).

I still rate murder above humiliation (And no murder of prisoners have been confirmed as of yet).

And yes, the beheading is a perfect opportunity to shift the spotlight away from Abu Ghurayb. If I were a goverment P.R. guy that's exactly what I'd be trying to do (and judging from the initial reactions I've seen from folks 'round my neck of the woods, such a tactic will work).

Originally posted by fable
With respect, I disagree. Remember, the US and UK invaded Iraq. They deposed a government, and killed (best guess) over 10,000 people. Yet the US maintains it did it, not for oil or to topple Arab MidEastern governments for its friend, Israel, but to install democracy, freedom, and empower the Iraqi people. Under such circumstances, the images of torture, abuse and (we're told) prisoner killing by US soldiers amount to a sudden revelation in the eyes of many Iraqi who were still willing to give the Allies the benefit of the doubt--even after the US and UK showed a complete lack of understanding and sympathy for their cultures, and no apparent interest in democracy, freedom, or empowerment.

You know, I just wish we'd pick a direction and stick with it. If the U.S. is a force for freedom and democracy then "Hurrah," let's act like it. If we're a conquering nation, fine "Long live Genghis Bush!" It's the waffling back and forth, saying one thing and doing another, that bugs me. Sticking with either direction would have solved this problem, one way or the other (we'd either be the freedom hippies we claim bringing love and liberty to the Iraqi people, or we would have crushed the local population without the pretense of being nice guys not there for the oil).

Originally posted by fable
In such conditions, it doesn't matter what the Iraqi splinter group did in revenge. They were just a tiny handful of fanatics. The US is a world-class power--the only one, it claims. The fanatics do not preach about the moral high ground. The US does. The fanatics are desperate thugs. The US isn't supposed to be judged by their standards, but by its own rhetoric.

From what I've read of their Allah-centric speeches they definitely seem to be preaching the moral high ground (with all their talk of being just and righteous in butchering decadent American invaders).

Originally posted by fable
The fanatics are just conducting business-as-usual. The US, on the other hand, has crossed a line with this torture of ordinary prisoners that supposedly dates back to before the turn of the 20th century. It has abrogated the Geneva Conventions, and put paid to any idea of being perceived by MidEastern nations as a fair arbiter sincerely interested in the welfare of Arabs.

A violation of the Geneva Conventions or not, I don't think the U.S. has done anything here they haven't already been doing for years (they just got caught and it's getting more publicity this time around). In that case it's business-as-usual for both sides, twisted as it is. The Abu Ghurayb issue seems rather tame compared to the Phoenix Project of Vietnam (The C.I.A. effort to disrupt the Viet Cong infrastructure through a series of civilian assassinations and systemic torture).

Originally posted by fable
On the contrary. By non-Arabs, it will be viewed as the ravings of a small group of fanatics. By Arabs, I'm afraid it will be viewed as a bunch of Robin Hood-style vigilantes, bringing justice to this horrible American evil that has decided to invade and conquer the Arab-speaking world.

That hasn't been the case with the people I've talked to. Hate to say it, but to most Joe-Blow Americans Iraq, Al-Qada, and the Arab world in general are all one entity (just ask some guy on the street if Sadam had something to do with 9/11 and see what answer you get). Since the extremists get all the media attention the perception is that that's how all Arabs are, which means less American sympathy for Iraqi prison victims

(unless the folks in your neighborhood are much more informed than those in mine).

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed May 12, 2004 8:55 am

A violation of the Geneva Conventions or not, I don't think the U.S. has done anything here they haven't already been doing for years (they just got caught and it's getting more publicity this time around). In that case it's business-as-usual for both sides, twisted as it is. The Abu Ghurayb issue seems rather tame compared to the Phoenix Project of Vietnam (The C.I.A. effort to disrupt the Viet Cong infrastructure through a series of civilian assassinations and systemic torture).

Yes, but that was to "enemy combatants." Some figures drawn from the US Army reports conclude that 90% of the people interred in Abu Ghurayb by the Allies were not combatants, and were in fact inappropriately detained. The method didn't suit the situation, which brings us back to the Military Intelligence control of prisons and guards ceded by the general-in-charge last year...and not revoked until a few days ago.

From what I've read of their Allah-centric speeches they definitely seem to be preaching the moral high ground (with all their talk of being just and righteous in butchering decadent American invaders).

You're right in this: I just heard their remarks. I've heard them called "Al Qua'da wannabes" from a couple of sources, which may explain the extravagant rhetoric. It won't win 'em any friends.

Not to be indelicate, but the Abu Ghurayb pics I saw were no worse than a particularly rough frat hazing. Nudity, degradation, anal probes... Ah, it brings back fond college memories. Okay, tasteless joke I admit (Blame South Park for corrupting me). I still rate murder above humiliation (And no murder of prisoners have been confirmed as of yet).

Rumsfeld's testimony included mention of murder among the visuals that would be coming out. But as to the pics: remember, in MidEastern culture forcibly rendering a person nude in public is considered an extreme form of humiliation--rather like being forced to drink the urine of a person who's peeing on you, I suppose. (I apologize if this offends anyone, but these things happen, disgusting as they are.) It is a way of saying that the human being doesn't exist, and is nothing more than an animal, with an animal's lack of a soul. Throw in forcing someone to masturabate, attaching a leash to them, etc, and you are dealing with extraordinary provocation of innocent people in a society that the Allies supposedly were coming over to "liberate."

...To which I can only add that hazing is now illegal and enforced as such in many American universities, and a good thing, too.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Wed May 12, 2004 9:50 am

Considering how hazing has had often serious, sometimes fatal consequences (which is why they were made illegal), I wouldn't make light of these incidents as mere "college pranks". And considering where they took place - I, for one, am definitely NOT laughiing.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Wed May 12, 2004 9:51 am

Originally posted by Kayless
Not to be indelicate, but the Abu Ghurayb pics I saw were no worse than a particularly rough frat hazing. Nudity, degradation, anal probes... Ah, it brings back fond college memories. Okay, tasteless joke I admit (Blame South Park for corrupting me). I still rate murder above humiliation (And no murder of prisoners have been confirmed as of yet).

My understanding was that there were at least 10 deaths attributed to the abuse in Abu Ghraib. That's pretty much murder.

An interesting story on NPR this morning. A military interrogation expert was speaking about standards in interrogation and what was allowed and what was not allowed. He said that the intent of any interrogation was to get the subject into a reactive state where the subject would blurt something out unintentionally. That would then be used as the basis of continued interrogation. Humiliation, tourture, and abuse are not conducive to reactive states and are known to provide unreliable information. Nudity and starvation of prisoners is not allowed, as providing basic needs to the prisoners is required. Sexual abuse, injury, and tourture are also forbidden under US Military convention.

So, not only was the abuse in Abu Ghraib illegal under US law, and immoral, but it was also very poor interrogative technique.

If this kind of thing were to happen in a frat house, and if I were the school administrator, I would expell the students involved and disolve the fraterity.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed May 12, 2004 10:45 am

provocation of innocent people in a society that the Allies supposedly were coming over to "liberate."

Until Bush and crew decide to not take this stance...the stance I did support...they cannot fall back on the 'excuse' that others have did worst.

9 out of 10...meaning the family members of these 9 will also look at the US in a bad light as well....

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Wed May 12, 2004 10:49 am

Its very bad to compare hazing with the torture of prisoners, even if the real actions would be the same. As much as I dislike hazing in most of the cases the participants are quite sure they will not be seriously harmed, and they submitt atlest partially willingly to the process. They have contact with the outside world, and they continue to live their lifes pretty much as usual, and they have the option to quit. The situation in any prison is dramatically different, and even more so in a prison where the prisoners dont know why they are there, if they will get a trial or when, if they will be released or when, what have happened to their families, if they will get killed, what the limits of the abuse is etc etc. The situations are not in the least comparable even if the abusive actions are.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Wed May 12, 2004 1:00 pm

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
My understanding was that there were at least 10 deaths attributed to the abuse in Abu Ghraib. That's pretty much murder.

No. That's just "blowing steam off" (to quote Rush Limbaugh). They were having a rough day, so they decided to have a little fun.

In other news, when House Republican Leader Tom DeLay of Texas heard about the murder of an unarmed prisoner, he said, "They're not soldiers, they're monsters ... and we are not going to rest until every last one of them is in a cell or a cemetery." That's it, Tom; let's hold them accountable.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu May 13, 2004 1:22 am

Release them all

CNN

I really don't care to see the pictures, but I see no reason for the government to stop the release of them. Someone will just leak them a little at a time anyway, might as well get it over with now.

If Bush thinks leaking them a little over time will save his election, I think his has lost what little mind he had.

If Bush thinks releasing all of them now will save his election, I also think he has lost what little mind he had.

Either way, I believe Bush has lost what little mind he had.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu May 13, 2004 2:46 am

an on-going investigation

Published on Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Found this while looking for information on Major General Charles Swannack. Why you ask (well you didn't but I'm going to say anyway...call me a Tyrant

) was I looking up this M General...

Leadership or McNamara's statistical logic

Therion · Post by **Therion** » Thu May 13, 2004 6:53 am

Re: Release them all

Originally posted by Weasel

If Bush thinks leaking them a little over time will save his election, I think his has lost what little mind he had.

If Bush thinks releasing all of them now will save his election, I also think he has lost what little mind he had.

Either way, I believe Bush has lost what little mind he had.

So.. you say he should not release them at all? Well, it may be better for his election (if they're not leaked anyway.. which is quite reasonable to expect IMO).

He has little choice in the matter.. we know he has documents, he knows he has them.. and at this time it would probably be worse for him to withold information from the American people.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 13, 2004 8:09 am

I've heard from more than one source that there are over a thousand images and videos, all of which show abuse, torture, forced sex (which reads *rape* in my mind, whatever euphemism they choose to employ) and murder. Frankly, I hope they do become available to the general public, because we all know that sooner or later, some select images will somehow show up on Arabic language television networks. Better to reveal all and take the bashing that follows, than also earn a reputation for "hiding something more."

Meanwhile, the administration has come up with a solution to it all. They've sent over Rumsfeld for a "fact-finding mission" to Iraq. Words fail me.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Thu May 13, 2004 9:22 am

In an ideal world, there would have been lots of high-ranking people up on charges over this already. I can't help thinking people have become jaded, that we've stopped caring as much as we should. Like I've previously stated, only 20 years ago this kind of thing would still have caused something close to a revolution. It is a sickening sign of the times and how impotent the UN and the world community as a whole has become, when action isn't taken immediately against what is without any doubt pure war crimes.

Coot · Post by **Coot** » Thu May 13, 2004 9:52 am

Originally posted by fable
Meanwhile, the administration has come up with a solution to it all. They've sent over Rumsfeld for a "fact-finding mission" to Iraq. Words fail me.

Why are there "facts" out there to begin with? Why take those pictures and why allow them to be leaked? Wasn't it obvious that certain Iraqi groups would respond the way they did? That would be as naive as, say, liberating a nation that has been under a dictatorship for centuries, that has never known democracy at all and expecting to install a western style government and for it to work within months.