NationStates Jolt Archive

Killed by their captors, too. Where is the world-wide outrage that is always present when a peaceful Islamist dies in captivity? Are any of these grand defenders of human rights going to step forward and condemn the Jihadists for this act? Apparently, soldiers just don't count. Not even when they have been tortured and killed "in a barbaric way".

Well, we are dealing with barbarians, aren't we? But then we knew that. Or some of us did.


The director of the Iraqi defense ministry's operation room, Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed, said the bodies showed signs of having been tortured. "They were killed in a barbaric way," he said.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200217,00.html

I usually don't like to just copy and paste from the internets, but I think this is appropriate for this occasion:

From The Rude Pundit, 6/19/06

Chances are, maybe even by the time you read this, the two American soldiers, captured by the Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq, will be dead, probably in some horrible way, probably with their bodies dumped like all the horribly murdered Iraqis in the blood and gore-strewn landscape that are the markers of Iraqi liberation. The Rude Pundit can't help thinking, though, about the implied "What if" of the capture, on the field of battle, of American soldiers, prisoners of war, if you will.

What if we get pictures of the soldiers, nude, cowering, screaming in a corner, shitting themselves on the filthy floors of a makeshift cell, as their captors hold snarling dogs on leashes just out of bite range of the soldiers?

What if we learn that their captors decide that the soldiers can offer intelligence that can be of use to al-Qaeda and, in order to get that information, the captors put the nude soldiers into rooms that are heated to hellish temperatures, followed by rooms that are impossibly cold with colder water tossed onto them? What if the soldiers are made to stand for days on end? Put into stress positions that fuck up their muscles and limbs? Denied sleep? Had loud music played into their cells? Kept in isolation and fed bread and water for days, weeks on end?

What if they strap one or both of those Americans to a board and hold them underwater until their drowning reflex forces them to panic, thrash, claw desperately for air, only to be brought up to breathe and then placed underwater again? And again? Until the captors get the answers they seek?

What if those captors take the nude, sleep-deprived, shit and piss-covered, nearly drowned and dog-frightened American soldiers and handcuff them to beds with women's panties on their heads, snapping photographs and laughing, talking about publishing the photos so that everyone can see the soldiers with their panty-sniffing heads and terror-shriveled cocks, so that all of al-Qaeda can laugh at what pussies Americans can be made to seem?

What if, and, really, does it need to be said, they are made to stand, hooded, with faux electrodes attached to their nuts and fingers, told that if they don't start answering questions, well, testicles only can take so much electroshock before they just pop like squeezed grapes?

What will our government do? What could it do? Could it condemn the actions as not abiding by the Geneva Conventions? Could it call the actions "torture"? Could it demand accountability? Could it demand that the soldiers be treated as POWs? Could it simply say, "Well, we don't do that shit...anymore"?

And what about the good right-wing punditry? Would Rush Limbaugh look at the photos of the nude, cowering Americans and say it looks like fraternity hazing or some such shit? Would others dismiss it as a media fabrication? Or would they just pathetically overlook everything done in our American names to Iraqis, Afghanis, and others, calling madly for the heads of the captors, not even thinking about the irony of such a statement?

It goes without saying, but, considering the times, perhaps it needs to be said: the Rude Pundit wishes none of this on Privates Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca. He hopes they are found or released safe and sound. But he also wishes none of this on our prisoners, whether in Iraq, at Gitmo, or in secret prisons or countries of rendition where fuck-all can happen with no law, no regulation, no hope to bespeak our putative humanity.

*snip* - actually, I won't contribute to the trolling.

I wouldn't say their deaths were any worse than what the US and US-funded government militias have done already. Iraqi government death squads are responsible for a large chunk of the arrivals at the Baghdad morgue, where one of the most common injuries seen is power drill marks. And the torture option remains open, as far as the US is concerned.

Speaking for myself, I would rather be photographed naked and threatened with a barking dog than to have my head sawed off, or any number of other barbaric tortures thrust upon me. I suspect that our dead soldiers would have prefered the same.

Now, the Abu Ghraib incident was discovered and the perpetrators were punished. Other incidents are being treated in a similar manner. Is the same thing going to happen to the Islamists that have tortured and murdered soldiers and civilians, alike?

Shame.

But not unsurprising.

They're just gonna say that the American soldiers "invaded their land" and that they have a duty to "protect their muslim brothers." They will always find excuses.
To Bottle: I agree with you. Torture is unjust and horrific.

Torture is unjust and horrific.
Too bad America can't claim the moral high ground anymore. Way to go, Shrub's lawyers.

Whoops, I used a potentially hurtful term to describe the nation best referred to as "_". I hope Daistaillia doesn't report me.

Speaking for myself, I would rather be photographed naked and threatened with a barking dog than to have my head sawed off, or any number of other barbaric tortures thrust upon me. I suspect that our dead soldiers would have prefered the same.

Now, the Abu Ghraib incident was discovered and the perpetrators were punished. Other incidents are being treated in a similar manner. Is the same thing going to happen to the Islamists that have tortured and murdered soldiers and civilians, alike?Are the islamists the self-proclaimed beacon of the values of the Western World, a City on a Hill?

It goes without saying, but, considering the times, perhaps it needs to be said: the Rude Pundit wishes none of this on Privates Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca. He hopes they are found or released safe and sound. But he also wishes none of this on our prisoners, whether in Iraq, at Gitmo, or in secret prisons or countries of rendition where fuck-all can happen with no law, no regulation, no hope to bespeak our putative humanity.
It needs to be said because there are some dishonest fucks out there--and I see no need to name names since those on this board (notice I said "board" instead of "thread") will know themselves if they're honest--will make a false equivalency.

Where's the outrage? Directed toward the same place it's always been directed--at the lying fucks who put those soldiers somewhere they didn't need to be for reasons other than what were advertised.

Too bad America can't claim the moral high ground anymore. Way to go, Shrub's lawyers.
Good point, but at least we hold ourselves accountable when our soldiers allegedly kill civilans, for example. The Islamists on the other hand, not so much.

Killed by their captors, too. Where is the world-wide outrage that is always present when a peaceful Islamist dies in captivity? Are any of these grand defenders of human rights going to step forward and condemn the Jihadists for this act? Apparently, soldiers just don't count. Not even when they have been tortured and killed "in a barbaric way".
:( :mad:

Speaking for myself, I would rather be photographed naked and threatened with a barking dog than to have my head sawed off, or any number of other barbaric tortures thrust upon me. I suspect that our dead soldiers would have prefered the same.

Now, the Abu Ghraib incident was discovered and the perpetrators were punished. Other incidents are being treated in a similar manner. Is the same thing going to happen to the Islamists that have tortured and murdered soldiers and civilians, alike?You're generally more honest than this. You know as well as I do that the people responsible for this have not been and never will be punished, and you degrade yourself by acting otherwise.

You're generally more honest than this. You know as well as I do that the people responsible for this have not been and never will be punished, and you degrade yourself by acting otherwise.
Ever hear of Lynndie England?

Ever hear of Lynndie England?
Ever hear the term 'scapegoat'?

Ever hear the term 'scapegoat'?
He said that no one got punished. I was merely pointing out that someone didget punished. I don't know all the facts, but perhaps some people at the top should have been punished too.

Ever hear of Lynndie England?
I know more than that. I had a student last term whose best friend was one of the dog handlers that got one of the harshest sentences. But his superior who ordered it got jack fuck all, and neither did the others all the way up the chain of command. Gen. Geoffrey Miller ought to be rotting in a cage right now, but instead he got promoted. So spare me your smart-ass replies, please.

I don't know all the facts, but perhaps some people at the top should have been punished too.
Perhaps. Some. Yeah.

Good point, but at least we hold ourselves accountable when our soldiers allegedly kill civilans, for example. The Islamists on the other hand, not so much.

Took the words right out of my mouth. We never hail torturers as heroes on any side. I only wish we were even more harsh on American troops who destroy our credibility by torturing or killing innocents.

Took the words right out of my mouth. We never hail torturers as heroes on any side. I only wish we were even more harsh on American troops who destroy our credibility by torturing or killing innocents.
Really? I wish you were harder on the officers who direct their troops to do so. And those who direct the officers in turn.

Killed by their captors, too. Where is the world-wide outrage that is always present when a peaceful Islamist dies in captivity?
Oh yeah, this bit.

These guys weren't peaceful.

And it's not just the jailing of innocent muslims that does not compare.

You know as well as I do that all the journalists, aid workers, engineers, etc who got kidnapped in Iraq, got miles of sympathetic press coverage, on the front pages and as the main TV news items too, for days and weeks. You know as well as I do that military deaths are going to get a different international reception. They just aren't on the same moral plane to start with. An uncomfortable thing to hear perhaps, but there it is. You can directly compare the death of a man who travelled to kill, to the death of a man who travelled to teach or build, only within their home country. Everywhere else, the death of a civilian in captivity will always be more tragic.

I know more than that. I had a student last term whose best friend was one of the dog handlers that got one of the harshest sentences. But his superior who ordered it got jack fuck all, and neither did the others all the way up the chain of command. Gen. Geoffrey Miller ought to be rotting in a cage right now, but instead he got promoted. So spare me your smart-ass replies, please.
Maybe I wouldn't have to give you any smart-ass replies if you didn't generalise:rolleyes:

Well this is a case of Insurgents 2, the US Army 0. It's quite sad, but I'm just going to post in response in the same was as people do when some brutal massacre of freedom fighters occurs, simply because it's fair to do so.

Oh and the who Abu Grhaib thing was psi-ops tbh. It's no wonder that nobody got properly punished for it, because it was meant to be discovered, to break the morale of the freedom fighters in Iraq by showing them pictures of what happened to them if they were captured.

That they got out to the civilian population was irrelevant, because the people who "performed" the act were pawns, and the people at the top are pretty much untouchable.

Maybe I wouldn't have to give you any smart-ass replies if you didn't generalise:rolleyes:
In the post you replied to, I said "the people responsible for this have not been punished." That's not much of a generalization if you have sense enough to pour piss out of your shoes. The implication is that the people who were punished weren't solely responsible. Nowhere in that post do I even hint that no one was punished--unless you don't have sense enough to pour piss out of your shoes, and I'm sure you have at least that much sense.

Oh and the who Abu Grhaib thing was psi-ops tbh. It's no wonder that nobody got properly punished for it, because it was meant to be discovered, to break the morale of the freedom fighters in Iraq by showing them pictures of what happened to them if they were captured.

Malarkey. Psi-ops? More like psychobabble. No sale.

Iraqi government death squads are responsible for a large chunk of the arrivals at the Baghdad morgue, where one of the most common injuries seen is power drill marks.

Now, I knew Northern Irish forces were sent over to help train the new Iraqi police in dealing with terrorism, but I didn't think they'd teach them everything they knew!

Now, I knew Northern Irish forces were sent over to help train the new Iraqi police in dealing with terrorism, but I didn't think they'd teach them everything they knew!
Unfortunately, when the wrong people get armed, that's what happens the world over.

Freedom Fighters???? Would you call them that if it were Brits that were killed? Also what "freedom fighters" use such wanton violence as to kill more of ther own people then the occupation force?

There is not an insurgentcy in Iraq there are HUNDREDS every group or individual having there own motivation. Few in any have acted in a manner worthy of the title of freedom fighter. The smarts way to get the US out quickly is to stop the violence so the country can be handed back to the Iraqi's so the truest freedom fighters are the Iraqi's in the security forces try to get rid of the US by restoring order.


Well this is a case of Insurgents 2, the US Army 0. It's quite sad, but I'm just going to post in response in the same was as people do when some brutal massacre of freedom fighters occurs, simply because it's fair to do so.

Oh and the who Abu Grhaib thing was psi-ops tbh. It's no wonder that nobody got properly punished for it, because it was meant to be discovered, to break the morale of the freedom fighters in Iraq by showing them pictures of what happened to them if they were captured.

That they got out to the civilian population was irrelevant, because the people who "performed" the act were pawns, and the people at the top are pretty much untouchable.

*snip* - actually, I won't contribute to the trolling.

I wouldn't say their deaths were any worse than what the US and US-funded government militias have done already. Iraqi government death squads are responsible for a large chunk of the arrivals at the Baghdad morgue, where one of the most common injuries seen is power drill marks. And the torture option remains open, as far as the US is concerned.

Even before Gitmo, the al-Q people didn't take prisoners. They killed a Navy Seal in Afghanistan, within a few minutes of capture.

Look on the bright side. Just more signs that the insurgency is collapsing as scheduled.

-----

Now, on a more serious note. Lynndie England is just the latest in the proud United States Military tradition of "Brass Flies, Grunt Fries" that's probably been going on long before Calley got court-martialled in Medina's place. Convicting a bunch of enlisted National Guardmen from states that probably don't even know what a Muslim is for calculating specifically sacrilegeous abuse is pure bullshit. Anyone knows that the orders come from the top, but it's almost inevitable that the rank and file get tossed to the dogs in an attempt to pass it off as "justice," but the real masterminds never get touched. Hell, they often get promoted afterwards.

Look on the bright side. Just more signs that the insurgency is collapsing as scheduled.

-----

Now, on a more serious note. Lynndie England is just the latest in the proud United States Military tradition of "Brass Flies, Grunt Fries" that's probably been going on long before Calley got court-martialled in Medina's place. Convicting a bunch of enlisted National Guardmen from states that probably don't even know what a Muslim is for calculating specifically sacrilegeous abuse is pure bullshit. Anyone knows that the orders come from the top, but it's almost inevitable that the rank and file get tossed to the dogs in an attempt to pass it off as "justice," but the real masterminds never get touched. Hell, they often get promoted afterwards.


What a load of bullshit.

What a load of bullshit.
Yep, that post convinced me just how wrong I've been all this time. I bow before your mighty power of logic and reasoning. [/snark]

Yep, that post convinced me just how wrong I've been all this time. I bow before your mighty power of logic and reasoning. [/snark]
No sense in arguing with Gauthier, who believes that there were written orders to abuse civilians whereever possible.

No credence is given, for instance, for well-proven theories on why people abuse prisoners, regardless of safeguards, orders, and other protections.

No sense in arguing with a complete jackass.

What a load of bullshit.

A masterful rebuttal from Mister "I Need More Substantial Arguments Than That" Himself.

:rolleyes:

Pay attention to the Haditha investigation. If all the Marines aren't acquitted, it'll just be the enlisted who get nailed. And maybe a junior officer or two if they want to make it look "impartial." But any senior brass even directly connected to the massacre won't even get a slap on the wrist.

I imagine we have enough arab soldiers in our torture camps and morgues that no one really cares when we get back a little of what we dish out.

Pay attention to the Haditha investigation. If all the Marines aren't acquitted, it'll just be the enlisted who get nailed. And maybe a junior officer or two if they want to make it look "impartial." But any senior brass even directly connected to the massacre won't even get a slap on the wrist.

That still dosen't prove your assertion.

You claim that things like Abu Gharaib and Haditha are the direct result of direct orders from on high.

Prove it. Or shut up. I know you can't prove it, so go ahead and shut up.

Speaking for myself, I would rather be photographed naked and threatened with a barking dog than to have my head sawed off, or any number of other barbaric tortures thrust upon me. I suspect that our dead soldiers would have prefered the same.



I think there is no commparrison. I for one would rather do alot of stuff rather that have my head sawed off!:headbang:

No sense in arguing with Gauthier, who believes that there were written orders to abuse civilians whereever possible.

No credence is given, for instance, for well-proven theories on why people abuse prisoners, regardless of safeguards, orders, and other protections.

No sense in arguing with a complete jackass.
Well. General Miller was sent to Iraq to Gitmo-ize Abu Ghraib, and there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the permission to "soften up" Iraqi prisoners went at least that high. Whether written orders were ever issued is beside the point--the shit that went on in Abu Ghraib (and just what we know about) was too well planned to have been conceived by the people at the levels that have been prosecuted.

Again, just so we're clear--we're not talking about reasons why people in charge torture their prisoners. We're not talking about Stanford experiment stuff here. We're talking about planned, targeted actions meant to cause the greatest emotional distress based on knowledge of the cultural and religious backgrounds of the prisoners, plus advanced forms of torture.

That still dosen't prove your assertion.

You claim that things like Abu Gharaib and Haditha are the direct result of direct orders from on high.

Prove it. Or shut up. I know you can't prove it, so go ahead and shut up.

What? Gonzalez's "I did not have Torture Relations with that Prisoner" memo isn't proof enough for you, Mighty Bushevik? We all know you want a Perry Mason/Columbo-esque cartoon villain confession as "proof" so don't pretend you're impartial.

Prove it. Or shut up. I know you can't prove it, so go ahead and shut up.
Or you could instead irrefutably prove him wrong, with your cause celebre - some shut-in kooks' web blog that backs your agenda to the hilt.

Bush's democratically repugnant "signing statement" on the mccain torture bill and the attorney general's memo authorizing torture ammount to a direct endorsement of torture from the oval office.

tbh it's probably better this way.
im not trying to be heartless, but tbh its better that they were found dead rather than it drawing into some hostage situation where the us government wont back down (as they shouldn't) and the terrorists getting pissed off and so executing the two guys. and then the video showing up on the internet

if i died i wouldnt want it to show up all over the internet.

unless it was a really cool death like, a failed bungee jump. and dying in a huge samurai style sword fight

tbh it's probably better this way.
im not trying to be heartless, but tbh its better that they were found dead rather than it drawing into some hostage situation where the us government wont back down (as they shouldn't) and the terrorists getting pissed off and so executing the two guys. and then the video showing up on the internet

if i died i wouldnt want it to show up all over the internet.

unless it was a really cool death like, a failed bungee jump. and dying in a huge samurai style sword fight
Or choking on a chicken beak in McDonalds.

In the post you replied to, I said "the people responsible for this have not been punished." That's not much of a generalization if you have sense enough to pour piss out of your shoes. The implication is that the people who were punished weren't solely responsible. Nowhere in that post do I even hint that no one was punished--unless you don't have sense enough to pour piss out of your shoes, and I'm sure you have at least that much sense.

Sorry about your lack of indoor plumbing...

But you implied that the people who actually performed the acts are not responsible for their own actions---only those who gave the orders. Sounds strange to those of us who constantly preach personal responsibility.

Sounds strange to those of us who constantly preach personal responsibility.
So then, why aren't the higher-ups doing just that - taking personal responsibility? And why isn't anyone holding them accountable for just that failure?

It's a lot easier to scapegoat the minions and get promoted, that's why.

Well. General Miller was sent to Iraq to Gitmo-ize Abu Ghraib, and there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the permission to "soften up" Iraqi prisoners went at least that high. Whether written orders were ever issued is beside the point--the shit that went on in Abu Ghraib (and just what we know about) was too well planned to have been conceived by the people at the levels that have been prosecuted.

Again, just so we're clear--we're not talking about reasons why people in charge torture their prisoners. We're not talking about Stanford experiment stuff here. We're talking about planned, targeted actions meant to cause the greatest emotional distress based on knowledge of the cultural and religious backgrounds of the prisoners, plus advanced forms of torture.


like reading your post 's truly an advanced form of torture .


I'm calling the IRC . Shame on you .:p

like reading your post 's truly an advanced form of torture .


I'm calling the IRC . Shame on you .:p
You can read? You certainly don't show it most of the time.

What? Gonzalez's "I did not have Torture Relations with that Prisoner" memo isn't proof enough for you, Mighty Bushevik? We all know you want a Perry Mason/Columbo-esque cartoon villain confession as "proof" so don't pretend you're impartial.

A written order to execute the civilians in Haditha signed by Bush will do. Otherwise, you're full of it.

A written order to execute the civilians in Haditha signed by Bush will do. Otherwise, you're full of it.
Well, if you're going to make a reasonable request like that... :rolleyes:

A written order to execute the civilians in Haditha signed by Bush will do. Otherwise, you're full of it.
Pfft, tyrants rarely bother themselves with the paperwork.

And they like to say things such as "this conversation never happened".

Well, if you're going to make a reasonable request like that... :rolleyes:
If you're going to make the assertion that the order came from on high, you have to prove it.

Simple. Go ahead. Otherwise, you're making assertions without any proof.

At least the Republicans who were after Clinton managed to find a blue dress - there hasn't been any damning order from Bush to massacre civilians popping up.

If you're going to make the assertion that the order came from on high, you have to prove it.

Simple. Go ahead. Otherwise, you're making assertions without any proof.

At least the Republicans who were after Clinton managed to find a blue dress - there hasn't been any damning order from Bush to massacre civilians popping up.
I think in all fairness, you have to agree that someone thought up the procedures for "interrogation", and when they realised that they were doing something illegal, they wanted to cover it up. It makes much more sense that someone high-up would be guilty of this, rather than some low-flying Lynndie England (although she too is not innocent).

If you're going to make the assertion that the order came from on high, you have to prove it.

Simple. Go ahead. Otherwise, you're making assertions without any proof.

At least the Republicans who were after Clinton managed to find a blue dress - there hasn't been any damning order from Bush to massacre civilians popping up.First of all, I've seen you accuse Gauthier of claiming Bush ordered the massacre of civilians, but I haven't seen where Gauthier said it. More importantly, as concerns me, I haven't said it, and I think it's a pretty fucking stupid suggestion. More likely what happened in Haditha was a case of some guys losing it in the heat of battle.

But you're trying to play the switcheroo game here, and I won't let you, because I've haven't been talking about Haditha--I've been talking about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, and you have yet to actually answer any of those situations. It's understandable, because you know your only way of getting out of this is to act as though Haditha and Abu Ghraib are the same. They're not. You know it. I know it. And everyone reading these exchanges knows it.

Enough with the bullshit, DK. The orders to torture came from on high, and the Yoo memo shows that the Executive knew enough about it to try to get some legal cover for their action. That's at least passive acceptance of the process, even if they're trying to cover their asses by saying they didn't know about the details.

Haditha is not part of this discussion. Don't try to bring it in again.

First of all, I've seen you accuse Gauthier of claiming Bush ordered the massacre of civilians, but I haven't seen where Gauthier said it. More importantly, as concerns me, I haven't said it, and I think it's a pretty fucking stupid suggestion. More likely what happened in Haditha was a case of some guys losing it in the heat of battle.

But you're trying to play the switcheroo game here, and I won't let you, because I've haven't been talking about Haditha--I've been talking about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, and you have yet to actually answer any of those situations. It's understandable, because you know your only way of getting out of this is to act as though Haditha and Abu Ghraib are the same. They're not. You know it. I know it. And everyone reading these exchanges knows it.

Enough with the bullshit, DK. The orders to torture came from on high, and the Yoo memo shows that the Executive knew enough about it to try to get some legal cover for their action. That's at least passive acceptance of the process, even if they're trying to cover their asses by saying they didn't know about the details.

Haditha is not part of this discussion. Don't try to bring it in again.


Gauthier brought up Haditha, not me.

First of all, I've seen you accuse Gauthier of claiming Bush ordered the massacre of civilians, but I haven't seen where Gauthier said it. More importantly, as concerns me, I haven't said it, and I think it's a pretty fucking stupid suggestion. More likely what happened in Haditha was a case of some guys losing it in the heat of battle.
But you're trying to play the switcheroo game here, and I won't let you, because I've haven't been talking about Haditha--I've been talking about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, and you have yet to actually answer any of those situations. It's understandable, because you know your only way of getting out of this is to act as though Haditha and Abu Ghraib are the same. They're not. You know it. I know it. And everyone reading these exchanges knows it.

Enough with the bullshit, DK. The orders to torture came from on high, and the Yoo memo shows that the Executive knew enough about it to try to get some legal cover for their action. That's at least passive acceptance of the process, even if they're trying to cover their asses by saying they didn't know about the details.

Haditha is not part of this discussion. Don't try to bring it in again.
Just one quick question: Why are you so ready to accuse those Marines? Sure, it doesn't look good, but perhaps you should wait for the verdict, and if they are found guilty, then talk about Haditha as if it happened as the Iraqi civvies say it happened.

Just one quick question: Why are you so ready to accuse those Marines? Sure, it doesn't look good, but perhaps you should wait for the verdict, and if they are found guilty, then talk about Haditha as if it happened as the Iraqi civvies say it happened.
You see those words "more likely?" They're meant to show that I'm guessing, based on limited evidence. Every time Haditha has come up on these boards, I've been very careful to say that I'm not making any accusations aganst those men.

You also have to look at the statement I was replying to--DK was working on the assumption that Gauthier had claimed the Marines were ordered to kill civilians. If I'm working from that assumption, namely that the Marines deliberately killed civilians in Haditha, then "more likely" is a way of saying "assuming all this other stuff is right, then...." You have to examine the whole context of the conversation.

regardless of what has happened or what will happen, I'm really sorry that these two soldiers wound up tortured and murdered.
there is no justification no matter what anyone says or proves or just continues to gush about.

regardless of what has happened or what will happen, I'm really sorry that these two soldiers wound up tortured and murdered.
there is no justification no matter what anyone says or proves or just continues to gush about.
So am I.

interesting that none of the usual suspect militaristic types have come out with their 'shit happens during war' line in relation to this.

too busy telling us the recent raids have crippled the insurgency.

i really hope the troops didnt lower their guard because they believed that wishful thinking propaganda line.

i really hope the troops didnt lower their guard because they believed that wishful thinking propaganda line.
I doubt any sensible soldier would believe what they're told.

Today's Independent has a leaked memo on its front page, from the US Ambassador to Iraq, to the National Security Advisor. One of its many disturbing points is that the Iraqi guards in the Green Zone are now compromised. There have been complaints that they speak out loud when reading IDs at entrance checkpoints. As the author observes, if the wrong person overhears, it is a death sentence. The sheer number of important people getting shot to pieces lately...

If you can't trust the guards at the doors to your HQ, you have lost.

Speaking for myself, I would rather be photographed naked and threatened with a barking dog than to have my head sawed off, or any number of other barbaric tortures thrust upon me. I suspect that our dead soldiers would have prefered the same.

Why do think there is no outrage against Islamists? I remember quite a lot of shock and anger during the spate of beheadings last year.

Now, the Abu Ghraib incident was discovered and the perpetrators were punished. Other incidents are being treated in a similar manner. Is the same thing going to happen to the Islamists that have tortured and murdered soldiers and civilians, alike?
I would hope so, but Bush wants to just capture them instead of giving them a real punishment.

Why do think there is no outrage against Islamists? I remember quite a lot of shock and anger during the spate of beheadings last year.


And during the whole Sept. 11th aftermath thing as well... but that doesn't count right?

You're generally more honest than this. You know as well as I do that the people responsible for this have not been and never will be punished, and you degrade yourself by acting otherwise.
No, this is typical -- remember the joke what a fighter pilot won't do?

I don't like the behavior of troops or officers that act outside of the UCMJ. But I understand that the military justice system is just as imperfect as the flavors availble in the civilian courts. Good lawyers count for a lot in both systems. So do friends in high places. I also understand that every incident that has been trumpeted by those darlings of the press are the exceptions to the exceptionally professional job that 99 & 44/100ths percent of our soldiers, sailors, and Marines perform every day.

My complaint is that those so-called guardians of human rights can't see far enough through their own hatred of the United States to recognize greater and systematic human rights abuses by the Jihadists.

Oh yeah, this bit.

These guys weren't peaceful.

And it's not just the jailing of innocent muslims that does not compare.

You know as well as I do that all the journalists, aid workers, engineers, etc who got kidnapped in Iraq, got miles of sympathetic press coverage, on the front pages and as the main TV news items too, for days and weeks. You know as well as I do that military deaths are going to get a different international reception. They just aren't on the same moral plane to start with. An uncomfortable thing to hear perhaps, but there it is. You can directly compare the death of a man who travelled to kill, to the death of a man who travelled to teach or build, only within their home country. Everywhere else, the death of a civilian in captivity will always be more tragic.
Not true. Nick Berg had about 15 minutes of recognition. His beheading should have been shown on every newscast, every night. If we could do a Lexus-Nexus search, we'd find his story was buried by Abu-Ghraib coverage. Not a single Jihadist died there, either.

And we're not talking about KIAs here. Not in the conventional sense, anyway. We're talking about KIAs that were tortured and mutilated so badly that the cause of death couldn't be readily determined. That's different.

No, this is typical -- remember the joke what a fighter pilot won't do?

I don't like the behavior of troops or officers that act outside of the UCMJ. But I understand that the military justice system is just as imperfect as the flavors availble in the civilian courts. Good lawyers count for a lot in both systems. So do friends in high places. I also understand that every incident that has been trumpeted by those darlings of the press are the exceptions to the exceptionally professional job that 99 & 44/100ths percent of our soldiers, sailors, and Marines perform every day.

My complaint is that those so-called guardians of human rights can't see far enough through their own hatred of the United States to recognize greater and systematic human rights abuses by the Jihadists.

I have yet to see a specifically pro-Jihadist sentiment expressed, nor do I get the sense that any approve of their actions. To talk about "greater and systematic" than the US would be to ignore the last few decades of US foreign policy, I might add.

My complaint is that those so-called guardians of human rights can't see far enough through their own hatred of the United States to recognize greater and systematic human rights abuses by the Jihadists.

nonsense. if there were any jihadists or their supporters on here we would give them hell. its not that sort of forum.

and we dont have cultural, political and trade ties with jihadists.

interesting that the jihadists are the benchmark to which you compare the US military's behaviour

My complaint is that those so-called guardians of human rights can't see far enough through their own hatred of the United States to recognize greater and systematic human rights abuses by the Jihadists.
Guardians of human rights generally do not hate the US, nor do they fail to recognise human rights abuses by the jihadists. Do you expect Amnesty to be writing letters to jihadists as they do to governments?

Not true. Nick Berg had about 15 minutes of recognition. His beheading should have been shown on every newscast, every night.
In the country that went apeshit over an exposed breast do you think that's realistic? "Think of the children" they would say.

Not true. Nick Berg had about 15 minutes of recognition. His beheading should have been shown on every newscast, every night. If we could do a Lexus-Nexus search, we'd find his story was buried by Abu-Ghraib coverage. Not a single Jihadist died there, either.

And we're not talking about KIAs here. Not in the conventional sense, anyway. We're talking about KIAs that were tortured and mutilated so badly that the cause of death couldn't be readily determined. That's different.


Patriotic people tend to hold the US, and the west in general, to a higher standard than the sort of savages who torture their prisoners and cut off their heads.

Nick Berg's death was obviously quite a bit less of a shock than finding out we were behaving the same way.

No reason to show it over and over, I certainly wouldnt want my son, dad, brother or friend's killing to be shown over and over on the TV in the name of politics. Thats disgraceful and you should be ashamed.

In the country that went apeshit over an exposed breast do you think that's realistic? "Think of the children" they would say.
No, of course it's not realistic. I just get angry. The only reason that I made that statement is that the video really put a fine point on exactly what the bad guys stand for.

Although, and it's really a mystery to me, we do tolerate exposing minors to violence far more than we tolerate exposing them to nudity.

They sow the wind
and reap the whirlwind.
The stalk has no head;
it will produce no flour.
Were it to yield grain,
foreigners would swallow it up.

Hosea 8:7

They sow the wind
and reap the whirlwind.
The stalk has no head;
it will produce no flour.
Were it to yield grain,
foreigners would swallow it up.

Hosea 8:7
Yes, we understand you know how to quote the Bible. Now explain what thou meanest by thus.

Yes, we understand you know how to quote the Bible. Now explain what thou meanest by thus.
The president has made a decision and you have to live with the consequences.
Real bullshit has been going on all sides of this war and you're still surprised by this?
It's awful, and I bet those folks were not to blame - but those always die in wars they haven't started.
Don't start calling for reason when reason was not the father of this warchild.

The president has made a decision and you have to live with the consequences.
Real bullshit has been going on all sides of this war and you're still surprised by this?
It's awful, and I bet those folks were not to blame - but those always die in wars they haven't started.
Don't start calling for reason when reason was not the father of this warchild.
You could have just said that the first time. No need to ambiguify your thoughts in a shroud of mystery and mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Hm...ambiguify...did I just make a Bushism?:p

You're generally more honest than this. You know as well as I do that the people responsible for this have not been and never will be punished, and you degrade yourself by acting otherwise.

Just who do you want punished for the humiliation suffered by the inmates at Abu Grab?

Just who do you want punished for the humiliation suffered by the inmates at Abu Grab?

Its not the humilitation that is the bad part, its the physical torture like the beating of wounds and burning with acid.

And to answer your question, donald "scum" rumsfeld.

You could have just said that the first time. No need to ambiguify your thoughts in a shroud of mystery and mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Hm...ambiguify...did I just make a Bushism?:p
Yes, I surely could've said that. I didn't. And what is "ambiguify"?

--the shit that went on in Abu Ghraib (and just what we know about) was too well planned to have been conceived by the people at the levels that have been prosecuted.

You have absolutely no idea how much "well planned" operations enlisted people can carry out without the knowledge of their superiors.

You have absolutely no idea how much "well planned" operations enlisted people can carry out without the knowledge of their superiors.
Then honestly, what the hell is wrong with the elisted people?

Then honestly, what the hell is wrong with the elisted people?


Thats "the 800 lb gorilla in the room," sad to say.

So then, why aren't the higher-ups doing just that - taking personal responsibility?

Perhaps...just maybe...there is a possibility that he "higher-ups" were not responsible. :eek:

Perhaps...just maybe...there is a possibility that he "higher-ups" were not responsible. :eek:
"Higher-ups" are always responsible when the "lower-downs" screw up. That's why they are in charge!

What about that fat monkey?!? I didn't get that part. *shrugs*

Perhaps...just maybe...there is a possibility that he "higher-ups" were not responsible. :eek:


They are responsible for what their charges do, even what they don't order them to do.

Hanging field and general officers would probably give the armed services a much needed boost in discipline.

The idea of personal responsibility in the US has been vetoed by bush and rumsfeld.

The president has made a decision and you have to live with the consequences.
Real bullshit has been going on all sides of this war and you're still surprised by this?
It's awful, and I bet those folks were not to blame - but those always die in wars they haven't started.
Don't start calling for reason when reason was not the father of this warchild.

I hate to interrupt, but...what the hell are you talking about? :confused:

Its not the humilitation that is the bad part, its the physical torture like the beating of wounds and burning with acid.

And to answer your question, donald "scum" rumsfeld.

I don't recall any "burning with acid" or beating incidents. Were they ever proven? No one was ever charged so I guess not. :(

Ever hear of Lynndie England?

Messed up whore of a soldier. That whole group was messed up in the head.

I don't recall any "burning with acid" or beating incidents. Were they ever proven? No one was ever charged so I guess not. :(

I wonder where john gotti would be today if we let the mob investigate and prosecute itself.

I hate to interrupt, but...what the hell are you talking about? :confused:
That while I really don't like to hear that those who were kidnapped have been killed, I'm not at all surprised that this kind of bullshit happens as well after all the serious bullshit that has happened before in Iraq.

oh say, can you see?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

Perhaps...just maybe...there is a possibility that he "higher-ups" were not responsible. :eek:

Why should they be excluded?

The navy will charge the captain of a ship for anything that goes wrong.

... by the dawn's early light


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894033/

^taguba report

Then honestly, what the hell is wrong with the elisted people?

Well, the incidents at Abu were not well planned. If they had been, no one would have taken pictures and probably would not have been caught. What they did was wrong, but it didn't amount to torture. The military has people from all walks of life and no matter how much training you give them there will always be some "bad apples." Those who were responsible for what happened at Abu were caught and brought to trial. They were convicted and justice has been served.

Most enlisted people are very honorable and dedicated people. They are willing to give their lives for this country and people in other countries so they can be free. Most of them deserve out utmost respect but few ever get the respect they deserve. They never ask for it even though they have earned it. And if you ever praise them for what they have done or the sacrifices they have made they would probably say, “Sir, I was only doing my job.”

Instead of condemning the many for the actions of the few, why not try this; why not thank the next soldier, sailor, marine, airman, or coastguardsmen for what they have done and will do to insure the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and America have the freedom they deserve? Why not buy them a cup of coffee, lunch, or dinner and listen to how they feel, what they think, and thank them for what they do?

Well, the incidents at Abu were not well planned. If they had been, no one would have taken pictures and probably would not have been caught. What they did was wrong, but it didn't amount to torture. The military has people from all walks of life and no matter how much training you give them there will always be some "bad apples." Those who were responsible for what happened at Abu were caught and brought to trial. They were convicted and justice has been served.

Most enlisted people are very honorable and dedicated people. They are willing to give their lives for this country and people in other countries so they can be free. Most of them deserve out utmost respect but few ever get the respect they deserve. They never ask for it even though they have earned it. And if you ever praise them for what they have done or the sacrifices they have made they would probably say, “Sir, I was only doing my job.”

Instead of condemning the many for the actions of the few, why not try this; why not thank the next soldier, sailor, marine, airman, or coastguardsmen for what they have done and will do to insure the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and America have the freedom they deserve? Why not buy them a cup of coffee, lunch, or dinner and listen to how they feel, what they think, and thank them for what they do?


The military called it torture in the Fay report
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/25/abughraib.report/

Enough with the false witness, you dont want to go hell, plus it is dishonorable to defend criminals who torture people.

That while I really don't like to hear that those who were kidnapped have been killed, I'm not at all surprised that this kind of bullshit happens as well after all the serious bullshit that has happened before in Iraq.

So the abuse of some people in Abu means it is ok for the militants to abuse American soldiers, journalists, and aid workers. One justifies the other?

The military called it torture in the Fay report
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/25/abughraib.report/

Enough with the false witness, you dont want to go hell, plus it is dishonorable to defend criminals who torture people.

I will concede that point, however the individuals involved were brought to trial, convicted, and justice has been served.

Why should they be excluded?

The navy will charge the captain of a ship for anything that goes wrong.

Yep.

Messed up whore of a soldier. That whole group was messed up in the head.
damn right
Yes, I surely could've said that. I didn't. And what is "ambiguify"?
A word I made up by modifying the grammatically correct word "ambiguity."

So the abuse of some people in Abu means it is ok for the militants to abuse American soldiers, journalists, and aid workers. One justifies the other?
It's like that saying: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind."

It has to stop somewhere.

The military called it torture in the Fay report
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/25/abughraib.report/

Enough with the false witness, you dont want to go hell, plus it is dishonorable to defend criminals who torture people.

The military will call it torture because..well..it looked bad and most people would freak and go "OMG! TORTURE!" so they cut to the chase. Fraternity hazings are worse.

But seriously, most navy guys have done worse.

damn right

A word I made up by modifying the grammatically correct word "ambiguity."

The discipline of that group was GONE. England was pregnant by one of the other soldiers. Another example of what happens when discipline is NOT maintained...order and chaos come in, and so does bad press.

I totally agree on you longer post up there. The question that remains in my thoughts on that is why for example the minister of defense can still have his job when stuff like that has happened. Then again, on the other hand, he is also responsible for that concentration camp on Cuba, so maybe I shouldn't be the least bit surprised?

So the abuse of some people in Abu means it is ok for the militants to abuse American soldiers, journalists, and aid workers. One justifies the other?
No, of course not. I said that I'm not surprised by what's going on in Iraq. That, e.g., extremists have flocked to Iraq during and after the war who will commit crimes like that. And if I'm not completely mistaken, the situation ain't improving at all in Iraq (as this latest episode has clearly shown). It was a mistake to begin with and since nobody apparently ever thought the whole thing through completely, "Mission accomplished" didn't mean jackshit and you'll have a long time to spend there until the Iraqi people manage on their own.
Problem with the whole ordeal: The US has made themselves a target in that region when there was no need for it, now they can't pull out without causing even more mayhem in the region - and as long as they're there they will be targeted. Now, if that ain't a dilemma which the US has chosen to put on the list...

I would like 10 minutes alone with all the guys who harmed those soldiers. Got some ideas from watching Hostel....



:mad:

Another report said the soldiers fought back and were seriously wounded when captured, possibly they died from the wounds or they died later from torture/execution/wounds, pick two.

Either way, coalition forces will get the bad guys, regardless of what happens. We got Zarqawi, we'll get these guys.

I don't recall any "burning with acid" or beating incidents. Were they ever proven? No one was ever charged so I guess not. :(
Scroll through this (http://salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/), then. You'll have to sit through an ad, since I don't imagine you're a member of Salon, but those are the photos and the videos from Abu Ghraib. Just because you don't get charged doesn't mean shit didn't go down.

So the abuse of some people in Abu means it is ok for the militants to abuse American soldiers, journalists, and aid workers. One justifies the other?
Nope, but it sort of takes away our right to complain, doesn't it? We've no right to bitch if we're doing it too.

I would like 10 minutes alone with all the guys who harmed those soldiers. Got some ideas from watching Hostel...
Which puts you on exactly the same level. I've seen Hostel as well. Sick. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/sm_shake.gif

Nope, but it sort of takes away our right to complain, doesn't it? We've no right to bitch if we're doing it too.
Glad you said it straight away - I feel sort of feel inhibited stating those things as a German. I'm tired of the reclamation "but your country has a past, yadda yadda ..." Sure we do. And when I see that the US is leaning towards the Dark Side, I have and will continue to speak up.

I would like 10 minutes alone with all the guys who harmed those soldiers. Got some ideas from watching Hostel....



Treason

Treason
Well, I'm just glad that is has been officially said that "We [the US] don't torture."

Glad you said it straight away - I feel sort of feel inhibited stating those things as a German. I'm tired of the reclamation "but your country has a past, yadda yadda ..." Sure we do. And when I see that the US is leaning towards the Dark Side, I have and will continue to speak up.The key in your sentence is "past." Yes, your country has a past. So do most countries. We're not talking about the past in these cases--we're talking about the here and now, about this conflict, and Gitmo and Baghram and Abu Ghraib have cost the US any right to bitch about the way captured soldiers are treated, and the blame for that goes all the way to the top.

Well, I'm just glad that is has been officially said that "We [the US] don't torture."


It is treason because it provides "material support" to terrorists in the form of extremely effective recruiting material.

Bush made it clear in his signing statement of the mccain torture bill that he would disregard it if he decided "national security" was at stake - ie, he made a formal endorsement of torture.

It is treason because it provides "material support" to terrorists in the form of extremely effective recruiting material.

Bush made it clear in his signing statement of the mccain torture bill that he would disregard it if he decided "national security" was at stake - ie, he made a formal endorsement of torture.
He made it clear before then when he asked John Yoo to come up with a legal justification for ignoring Geneva--you don't ask for that kind of opinion unless you're looking for cover for planned actions.

The key in your sentence is "past." Yes, your country has a past. So do most countries. We're not talking about the past in these cases--we're talking about the here and now, about this conflict, and Gitmo and Baghram and Abu Ghraib have cost the US any right to bitch about the way captured soldiers are treated, and the blame for that goes all the way to the top.
And in addition to that I might add that the way the US is regarded now has changed tremendously as well.
I am refering to the present as well, Nazz - problem is (while I have made a certain peace with my country's past) those whose country is making history of the bad kind always bring up my country's bad history and then try to differentiate themselves from wrongdoing. But what can one do except having patience and hope?

It is treason because it provides "material support" to terrorists in the form of extremely effective recruiting material.

Bush made it clear in his signing statement of the mccain torture bill that he would disregard it if he decided "national security" was at stake - ie, he made a formal endorsement of torture.
Yes. "If we are threatened, we don't care about our laws anymore." That's terrible! I'm still waiting for a real wake-up call. That would be patriotic!

Treason

I say not.

I say not.


You say a lot of less than well-considered things on this forum, who cares?

The key in your sentence is "past." Yes, your country has a past. So do most countries. We're not talking about the past in these cases--we're talking about the here and now, about this conflict, and Gitmo and Baghram and Abu Ghraib have cost the US any right to bitch about the way captured soldiers are treated, and the blame for that goes all the way to the top.


Are you a phsycho or just an idiot ?
How do you compare Abu Graib...ANYTHING that happened there or GTMO and ANYTHING that happened there ...with being captured ...draged away choped up tortured then beheaded and burned ?

You have absolutely no cred ..your just a hater ..period .

You would be happy then if every Al Queda suspect is no longer given the option of being captured...they get a full mag unloaded in their groin and get left to the buzzards and to bleed out...after all they no longer have a right to bitch about the way captured soldiers are treated .

You dont even see how moronic and blind your statement is ..thats how far gone you are .

Hey they did the Marines and every other American soldier a favor...
SEE how much we give a shit when a bunch of " terrorist" or unlawfull combatants or fucking freedom fighters or whatever you wish to call them gets turned into a happy meal for the pigs . I want pictures and I want more publicity so the American people can be reminded AGAIN what animals we are slaughtering in Iraq for the sake of humanity .

You say a lot of less than well-considered things on this forum, who cares?

I'm right of nearly everyone on the forum, but left of Pat robertson. Of course ya'll are gonna think I say a lot of less considered things...ohwell.

Are you a phsycho or just an idiot ?
How do you compare Abu Graib...ANYTHING that happened there or GTMO and ANYTHING that happened there ...with being captured ...draged away choped up tortured then beheaded and burned ?

You have absolutely no cred ..your just a hater ..period .

You would be happy then if every Al Queda suspect is no longer given the option of being captured...they get a full mag unloaded in their groin and get left to the buzzards and to bleed out...after all they no longer have a right to bitch about the way captured soldiers are treated .

You dont even see how moronic and blind your statement is ..thats how far gone you are .

Hey they did the Marines and every other American soldier a favor...
SEE how much we give a shit when a bunch of " terrorist" or unlawfull combatants or fucking freedom fighters or whatever you wish to call them gets turned into a happy meal for the pigs . I want pictures and I want more publicity so the American people can be reminded AGAIN what animals we are slaughtering in Iraq for the sake of humanity .
You really don't understand a thing that's going on do you? It's all just a confusing kind of hubub, and then you lash out in a tantrum. Any country has the right to fight back against invasion. The Americans have torn up the Geneva convention and done away with due process and tortured and killed vast numbers of people. Some completely innocent but murdered anyway just for the pointless fun of it. They kill and torture them in their homes, on the streets and in prisons. Pictures of tortured people have been in all the papers. What you get so uppity about is nothing, nothing at all compared to the murdrous behaviour of the US. Don't bother your head about such stuff, it clearly just makes you sulky. Go back to your video games and steroid abuse.

Perhaps...just maybe...there is a possibility that he "higher-ups" were not responsible. :eek:

A possibilty that went for a hop when they wrote memos to essentially define legal and illegal torture.

I would like 10 minutes alone with all the guys who harmed those soldiers. Got some ideas from watching Hostel....


Which side of the "barbarians v civillisation" thing were you on again...?

My complaint is that those so-called guardians of human rights can't see far enough through their own hatred of the United States to recognize greater and systematic human rights abuses by the Jihadists.
They can see it, actually. Many are members of Amnesty International and everything. But you are really slow to catch onto the fact that you don't get a pass. What, you really expect a cookie just because you can point to someone who is worse?

They can see it, actually. Many are members of Amnesty International and everything. But you are really slow to catch onto the fact that you don't get a pass. What, you really expect a cookie just because you can point to someone who is worse?
I have not read a single story about these two dead soldiers that included any statements by anyone, other than the family, demanding that the murderers be brought to justice. Amnesty International has made no statement, whatsoever. In fact, they are worried more about the rights of Polish homosexuals than they are about tortured soldiers in Iraq. In fact, their website doesn't even report the torture and killing of these two soldiers. There is certainly a double standard that is observed by all concerned.

I'm right of nearly everyone on the forum, but left of Pat robertson. Of course ya'll are gonna think I say a lot of less considered things...ohwell.
*reads your signature*

Are you going through an angst phase? What is this path you speak of?

Amnesty International has made no statement, whatsoever. In fact, they are worried more about the rights of Polish homosexuals than they are about tortured soldiers in Iraq.
And this is because they hate America? Maybe it's because the jihadists are already being hunted down by the forces of justice.

They can see it, actually. Many are members of Amnesty International and everything. But you are really slow to catch onto the fact that you don't get a pass. What, you really expect a cookie just because you can point to someone who is worse?

Precisely. The Nuremburg trials taught the world that saying "Well, you did it too" is not a legitimate excuse - because ultimately we are all sinners and hypocrites. The best we can do is prosecute violators where we find them, whether they be Al-Qaida, U.S. Marines, insurgents or politicians.

I would like 10 minutes alone with all the guys who harmed those soldiers. Got some ideas from watching Hostel....
So you wish to be alone with all the possibly armed guys who murdered two trained soldiers?

...

Be my guest.
Mind you, it wouldn't be how I chose to go in the end but to each his own I guess.
(By the way, can I have your guns? My guess is that you won't need them after your 'meeting'...)

Amnesty International has made no statement, whatsoever. In fact, they are worried more about the rights of Polish homosexuals than they are about tortured soldiers in Iraq.
And that is wrong because...?

*sigh*

This isn't worth a comment, because everyone in this thread has already shredded every bit of their common decency and only look to use capitalized bolded words to try and make others feel inferior. Look at how people speak online, then think about how people treat PoWs. Think, maybe it isn't the people being jackasses...but all of this is an unavoidable human behaviour?

Amnesty International has made no statement, whatsoever.
I'd be surprised they had. Because that's what AI is *not* about! AI is about abuse of power by governments and administrations. Up to now, nobody has said that the Iraqi soldiernappers are part of a government or a governmental administration. So why should AI interfere?

I'd be surprised they had. Because that's what AI is *not* about! AI is about abuse of power by governments and administrations. Up to now, nobody has said that the Iraqi soldiernappers are part of a government or a governmental administration. So why should AI interfere?
You do find however, that they express concern at what the Iraqi government security services are doing in their basements. You are quite correct, non-governmental extra-judicial killing generally falls outside their scope.

HRW do, however.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/21/iraq13601.htm

HRW do, however.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/21/iraq13601.htm
Good catch.

HRW do, however.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/21/iraq13601.htm
Good for them.

Precisely. The Nuremburg trials taught the world that saying "Well, you did it too" is not a legitimate excuse - because ultimately we are all sinners and hypocrites. The best we can do is prosecute violators where we find them, whether they be Al-Qaida, U.S. Marines, insurgents or politicians.
Hmm.. Marines and Army personnel seem to be prosecuted. Yes, there are some bad guys in Guantanamo, and maybe we should give them a fair trial and a first class hanging.

But for the violators on the streets of Iraq, it looks like there's an unofficial, unspoken, no-quarter policy on both sides. Note that we didn't capture Zarqawi - as soon as we knew it was him, we gave him a 500-lb bomb curb stomp. And they responded by killing the Americans they captured - almost immediately.

So don't worry too much about trials for the dead.

I have not read a single story about these two dead soldiers that included any statements by anyone, other than the family, demanding that the murderers be brought to justice. Amnesty International has made no statement, whatsoever. In fact, they are worried more about the rights of Polish homosexuals than they are about tortured soldiers in Iraq. In fact, their website doesn't even report the torture and killing of these two soldiers. There is certainly a double standard that is observed by all concerned.

Amnesty international is like the internal affairs of governments. It doesn't concern itself with what the terrorists are doing. That terrorists are evil people deserving of condemnation is a given, so much so that no one feels it necessary to really talk about it. Besides, what are you more outraged by, another story of a meth addict killing someone for their money, or a story of a police officer getting agrivated with a speeder and blowing their brains out?

So you wish to be alone with all the possibly armed guys who murdered two trained soldiers?

...

Be my guest.
Mind you, it wouldn't be how I chose to go in the end but to each his own I guess.
(By the way, can I have your guns? My guess is that you won't need them after your 'meeting'...)

If they're followers of Zarqawi, the safest place to be is right in front of them. Look at the mad-crazy machine-gun-fu their late-leader displayed.

Hmm.. Marines and Army personnel seem to be prosecuted. Yes, there are some bad guys in Guantanamo, and maybe we should give them a fair trial and a first class hanging.

But for the violators on the streets of Iraq, it looks like there's an unofficial, unspoken, no-quarter policy on both sides. Note that we didn't capture Zarqawi - as soon as we knew it was him, we gave him a 500-lb bomb curb stomp. And they responded by killing the Americans they captured - almost immediately.

So don't worry too much about trials for the dead.

500 lb Curb stomp! :eek: :p ;)

[Bill Engvall] I don't care who yare, that's funny! [Bill engvall]

If they're followers of Zarqawi, the safest place to be is right in front of them. Look at the mad-crazy machine-gun-fu their late-leader displayed.

And yet right after he's bombed to wherever, Al-Zarqawi was suddenly a "terrorist mastermind" whose death struck a great blow against the Iraqi insurgency as a whole.

It's like capping Dr. Evil and claiming that struck a great blow against SPECTRE.

And yet right after he's bombed to wherever, Al-Zarqawi was suddenly a "terrorist mastermind" whose death struck a great blow against the Iraqi insurgency as a whole.

It's like capping Dr. Evil and claiming that struck a great blow against SPECTRE.

His US machinegun skills are lousy, to say the least, although his organization skills were much better, and he was good at beheading tied up hostages.

His US machinegun skills are lousy, to say the least, although his organization skills were much better, and he was good at beheading tied up hostages.

He wasn't even good at organizing a competent component of an insurgency, alienating Muslims by directly attacking Shiites against standard Al Qaeda policy and if that bit of data recovered from a computer is any bit true, he held his own fanboy club (aka Al Qaeda in Iraq) to be of such importance in the overall insurgency that he claimed its failures were failures of the insurgency as a whole. His death simply made way for the real Al Qaeda to move in and place one of their own in charge.

And since when is skill required to behead a tied-up captive? All that's needed is a very sharp, very heavy blade and a lack of moral decency.