NationStates Jolt Archive

Clearly they're lying traitors, like John Kerry.

Yay threadsteal!

Sorta in response to RO's thread about Murtha:

WASHINGTON - It is an axiom of American political life that the actions of the US military are beyond criticism.
Democrats and Republicans praise the men and women in uniform at every turn.
Aside the odd bad apple in Abu Ghraib, the US military in Iraq is deemed to be doing a heroic job under trying circumstances.

That perception has taken a severe knock today with the publication in The Nation magazine of a series of in-depth interviews with fifty combat veterans of the Iraq war from across the United States.
In thousands of pages of typewritten interviews, veterans described in stark detail the everyday acts of violence in which US forces have abused or killed Iraqi men, women and children with impunity.
The report steers clear of widely reported atrocities - such as the massacre in Haditha in 2005 - but instead unearths instead a pattern of human rights abuses through the testimony of veterans of the war in Iraq.

"It's not individual atrocity," said Specialist Garett Reppenhagen, a sniper from the 263rd Armor Battalion, "It's the fact that the entire war is an atrocity."
A number have themselves returned home bearing mental and physical scars from fighting a war in an environment in which the insurgents are supported by the population.
Many war veterans interviewed have come to actively oppose the US military presence in Iraq, joining the groundswell of public opinion across the United States that views the war as futile.
This view is being echoed in Washington where increasing numbers of Democrats and Republicans are now openly calling for an early withdrawal from Iraq.
And the Iraqi quagmire has pushed President George W.
Bush's poll ratings to an all-time low.

Journalists and human rights groups have published numerous reports, drawing attention to the killing of Iraqi civilians by US forces.
The Nation's investigation has for the first time presented named military witnesses who openly back those assertions - some participated themselves.
Through a combination of gung-ho recklessness and criminal behaviour born of panic, a narrative emerges of an army that frequently commits acts of cold-blooded violence, with innocent civilians often bearing the brunt.

A number of interviewees revealed that the military frequently attempts to frame innocent bystanders as insurgents, often after panicked American troops have fired into groups of unarmed Iraqis.
The war veterans also provided disturbing evidence that the troops involved would round up any survivors and accuse them of being in the resistance while planting Kalashnikov AK47 rifled beside corpses to make it appear like they had died in combat.
"It would always be an AK because they have so many of these weapons lying around," said Joe Hatcher, 26, a scout with the Fourth Calvary Regiment.

He revealed that the army also planted 9-millimeter handguns and shovels--to make it look like the civilians were shot while digging a hole for a roadside bomb.

"Every good cop carries a throwaway," Hatcher said of weapons planted on otherwise incident victims incidents that occurred while he was stationed between Tikrit and Samarra, from February 2004 to March 2005.
"If you kill someone and they're unarmed, you just drop one on 'em."
Any civilians who survived such shootings were sent off to jails like Abu Ghraib for further interrogation.

There were also deaths caused by the reckless behaviour of military convoys.

Sgt Kelly Dougherty with the Colorado National Guard described a hit and run incident in which a military convoy ran over a 10-year-old boy and his three donkeys, killing them all.
"Judging by the skid marks, they hardly even slowed down. But, I mean, that's basically--basically, your order is that you never stop."

The worst abuses seem to have occurred during raids on private homes when soldiers were hunting insurgents.
Thousands of such raids have taken place in Iraq, usually in the dead of night.

The veterans point out that the overwhelming majority are futile and serve only to terrify the civilians whose homes were invaded, while generating sympathy for the resistance.

Sgt John Bruhns, 29 of the Third Brigade, First Armour Division, who raided nearly 1,000 Iraqi homes while serving in Baghdad and Abu Ghraib during 2003 described the casual brutality of a typical encounter.

"You want to catch them off guard," he explained.

"You want to catch them in their sleep... You run in, You go up the stairs. You grab the man of the house. You rip him out of bed in front of his wife. You put him up against the wall... Then you go into a room and you tear the room to shreds. You'll ask the interpreter to ask...: 'Do you have any weapons? Do you have any anti-US propaganda?'"
'Normally they'll say no, because that's normally the truth,' Sergeant Bruhns told The Nation.

'So what you'll do is you'll take his sofa cushions and you'll dump them. If he has a couch, you'll turn the couch upside down. You'll go into the fridge, if he has a fridge, and you'll throw everything on the floor, and you'll take his drawers and you'll dump them...
You'll open up his closet and you'll throw all the clothes on the floor and basically leave his house looking like a hurricane just hit it.
"And at the end, if the soldiers don't find anything, they depart with a 'Sorry to disturb you. Have a nice evening'."

Sergeant Dougherty described her squad leader shooting an Iraqi civilian in the back in 2003.
"It was just, like, the mentality of my squad leader was like, Oh, we have to kill them over here so I don't have to kill them back in Colorado," she said.

"He just, like, seemed to view every Iraqi as like a potential terrorist."
Last line: Lord knows where he'd get that idea from.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10451113

Here's the original story:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges

Only briefly scanned thru the whole story, but I did notice this tidbit:
Much of the resentment toward Iraqis described to The Nation by veterans was confirmed in a report released May 4 by the Pentagon. According to the survey, conducted by the Office of the Surgeon General of the US Army Medical Command, just 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of marines agreed that civilians should be treated with dignity and respect. Only 55 percent of soldiers and 40 percent of marines said they would report a unit member who had killed or injured "an innocent noncombatant."
Certainly a great way to win hearts and minds.

Expect people to come in defending this with either "they're liars", "the Iraqi's deserve it" and "acceptable casualties"

Great. Just great. I'm sick at injustice again, only this time we're the ones causing it.

Why do you hate America?

Sorry--someone was going to say it, so I decided to act pre-emptively. ;)

US Soldiers committing atrocities?!? unthinkable....

Told ya so. No, wait, not just me, but most of non-USA media and NGOs. The military of the USA aren't exactly known for being good guys.

It's the culture of permission they have set up there pretty much. Anything bad happens, they'll either ignore it, or pardon the criminals.

Makes the idea of a military tribunal a joke.

In fact, it also makes a joke of the meaning of discipline in an organization that's supposed to uphold discipline as one of its key traits.

Expect people to come in defending this with either "they're liars", "the Iraqi's deserve it" and "acceptable casualties"

I'll hold you to the same standard that you hold me -

when they've proven it in a court of law, it's proof.

Otherwise, these are allegations.

It's the culture of permission they have set up there pretty much. Anything bad happens, they'll either ignore it, or pardon the criminals.

Makes the idea of a military tribunal a joke.

In fact, it also makes a joke of the meaning of discipline in an organization that's supposed to uphold discipline as one of its key traits.

Ah, you're assuming that they're guilty, and someone is either failing to investigate, or covering up.

Where's your proof?

I only wish this kind of thing could actually break through the "red" curtain of the U.S. media. But, who am I kidding, they learned their lesson from Vietnam. It becomes less real, and more supportable, if you aren't faced with the reality of the bloodshed.

Ah, you're assuming that they're guilty, and someone is either failing to investigate, or covering up.

Where's your proof?

It's funny how people demand "poof" when it pertains to something rather obvious yet distasteful to them. But, are totally absorbed by anecdotal "evidence" when it comes to talking shit about things they don't like, such as universal healthcare, global warming, etc...

The press always focus on the few individuals who want to make money out of a story. They never tell of our troops handing out clean water or of our Engineers building new roads and railways, it always has to be negative.

Ah, you're assuming that they're guilty, and someone is either failing to investigate, or covering up.

Where's your proof?

One would assume that the veterans who are describing their eyewitness accounts would constitute evidence.

Or are you implying that these veterans are liars?

dp

The press always focus on the few individuals who want to make money out of a story. They never tell of our troops handing out clean water or of our Engineers building new roads and railways, it always has to be negative.

Part of the peason you have a free press is so that it can act as a balance or check to the government. They do this by reporting stories that criticise the government.

It's called democracy. Some of us like it.

Let's break this one down.

The press always focus on the few individuals who want to make money out of a story.

I'd say that 50 is more than "a few", and that's just in this ONE article. There have, since the "war" started been far, far more.


They never tell of our troops handing out clean water or of our Engineers building new roads and railways, it always has to be negative.

Well, considering that we've been there more than four years, and we have to HAND OUT clean water instead of actually restoring the infrastructure enough that it once again flows into homes, there isn't all that much positive in that statement. Combine that with the raw statistics telling us that, since '03, attacks from various groups have increased nearly ten-fold. I'm sorry, but a new coat of paint on a few buildings doesn't make me feel better, especially knowing that the road from Baghdad to the airport is STILL not secured...

Ah, you're assuming that they're guilty,
Is it possible these 50 veterans are all lying?
Yes it is possible. I d say 1% possibility.
.

...covering up.Is it possible the US gov would try to cover up any War crimes in Iraq?
Yes it is possible. I d say 60% possibility.

BTW I used the 1 number, because my -Vegas odds Super Computer- gave me a weird decimal number
0.00116204067267206024596672 or something like that. :D

The press always focus on the few individuals who want to make money out of a story. They never tell of our troops handing out clean water or of our Engineers building new roads and railways, it always has to be negative.

So rather than improving on the bad areas and making a military force worthy of pride, you would rather have a false reason for it?

One would assume that the veterans who are describing their eyewitness accounts would constitute evidence.

Or are you implying that these veterans are liars?

Evidently, RO hates the troops.

Told ya so. No, wait, not just me, but most of non-USA media and NGOs. The military of the USA aren't exactly known for being good guys.

And while I don't certainly condone actions against civilians, they are doing what they are told to do. Its not like many of the soldiers are blood thirsty barbarians, but rather poor 18 and 19 yr/old kids looking for a way to pay for college. they are scared shit less, and they assume that doing what ever the commanders says, is right and will help protect themselves. That being said, yes there are those in the military that do want to be there just to kill [insert group of people from country the military is attacking], but I doubt that its a large significant portion of the population.

And while I don't certainly condone actions against civilians, they are doing what they are told to do. Its not like many of the soldiers are blood thirsty barbarians, but rather poor 18 and 19 yr/old kids looking for a way to pay for college. they are scared shit less, and they assume that doing what ever the commanders says...yet..
the "justice" system in place at the US.. has been consistently telling us Most commanders (officers) are innocent of these War crimes.

Do you know about any US officers condemned to Jail for Iraq War crimes?
I dont.

And while I don't certainly condone actions against civilians, they are doing what they are told to do. Its not like many of the soldiers are blood thirsty barbarians, but rather poor 18 and 19 yr/old kids looking for a way to pay for college. they are scared shit less, and they assume that doing what ever the commanders says, is right and will help protect themselves. That being said, yes there are those in the military that do want to be there just to kill [insert group of people from country the military is attacking], but I doubt that its a large significant portion of the population.

Oh, right. "Just following orders." Poor guys, my heart goes out to them for volunteering to serve in the military. I'm sure they're weeping every time they pick up chicks in the bar and flex their muscles and brag about what they've done and where they've been. All the way through college. Where's my little violin?

...They are scared shit less, and they assume that doing what ever the commanders says, is right and will help protect themselves...

Understandable, but not an adequate excuse. It didn't work at Nuremberg, and shouldn't work anywhere else. A soldier should have the ability to discern whether or not doing a certain thing, orders or no, is right. And according to the UCMJ has the ability to disobey illegal orders.

yet..
the "justice" system in place at the US.. has been consistently telling us Most commanders (officers) are innocent of these War crimes.

Do you know about any US officers condemned to Jail for Iraq War crimes?
I dont.

This is because on "winner's side" leaders don't hang as opposed to the "loser's side"...

They never tell of our troops handing out clean water...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I

Sorry, couldn't resist.

dp
double penetration?
what, here? now?

well...I..um..barely know you OD3. I mean you seem like a nice person and all, but let's take it one step at a time, hokay?

The press always focus on the few individuals who want to make money out of a story. They never tell of our troops handing out clean water or of our Engineers building new roads and railways, it always has to be negative.

Very true. If I posted an article stating that the troops were all saints, from The Weekly Standard, let's say, I'd get skepticism. I'll take the same attitude until I see some real evidence, or something beyond an interview done by The Nation. ;)

blah blah US troops are guilty until proven innocent, and even then, they're fucking guilty no matter what... blah blah

And while I don't certainly condone actions against civilians, they are doing what they are told to do. Its not like many of the soldiers are blood thirsty barbarians, but rather poor 18 and 19 yr/old kids looking for a way to pay for college. they are scared shit less, and they assume that doing what ever the commanders says, is right and will help protect themselves. That being said, yes there are those in the military that do want to be there just to kill [insert group of people from country the military is attacking], but I doubt that its a large significant portion of the population.

That's true. Not to mention, the only 'atrocities' alleged by the article are, what exactly? Turning over furniture, raids, a traffic accident where a kid was killed (though no evidence is given to say it was intentional). I think "atrocity" is a stretch - a big one. ;)

blah blah US troops are guilty until proven innocent, and even then, they're fucking guilty no matter what... blah blah

It's The Nation, remember - not too many people really feel that way. ;)

That's true. Not to mention, the only 'atrocities' alleged by the article are, what exactly? Turning over furniture, raids, a traffic accident where a kid was killed (though no evidence is given to say it was intentional). I think "atrocity" is a stretch - a big one. ;)

[QUOTE=The OPblah blah US troops always commit atrocities, and even if you can't prove it, they did because I say so blah blah[/QUOTE]

Something like that...

Let us all remember the claims of the "veteran" Jesse MacBeth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

Really Demented, you shouldn't take these claims so seriously...

This message is hidden because Remote Observer is on your ignore list.


The ignore button. Greatest tool for protection against trolls, ignoramuses and the weaselly. *nods*

But just in case RO pulls out the usual tricks of the trade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinwar_Massacre

Culture of permission and cover up. Any crime is excusable. If convicted, you'll be pardoned or slapped on the wrist. The proper reply? If justice is failed to be served, perhaps the mass massacre of American civilians? Nah. That wouldn't really work either. American's in general are ignoramuses when it comes to their crimes against non-Americans. Or for that fact, non-white, non-rich Americans.

Americans aren't tough on crime. Especially when Americans do it.

American's in general are ignoramuses when it comes to their crimes against non-Americans. Or for that fact, non-white, non-rich Americans.

Americans aren't tough on crime. Especially when Americans do it.

As is any other nation on the planet jackass: Japan, China, Russia, Germany, etc.

War turns men into monsters, there are no exceptions based on nationality. This thread is just another Euro wank fest.

As is any other nation on the planet jackass: Japan, China, Russia, Germany, etc.

War turns men into monsters, there are no exceptions based on nationality. This thread is just another Euro wank fest.

I haven't made any exceptions yet. I don't intend to now. The only difference is that for the most part, the ones in Japan and Germany were punished. China, Russia, not so much. But that's because Japan and Germany lost, and the ones responsible for much of the misery in China and Russia are mostly mouldering in their graves.

Maybe the US needs to lose big time one day. There must be something sobering to fascist behavior when you're constantly being bombed every day for years on end.

Maybe the US needs to lose big time one day. There must be something sobering to fascist behavior when you're constantly being bombed every day for years on end.

You call RO the troll...

As is any other nation on the planet jackass: Japan, China, Russia, Germany, etc.

War turns men into monsters, there are no exceptions based on nationality. This thread is just another Euro wank fest.
Yeah, or maybe we don't present an image of our soldiers as universally fighting for 'good', or maybe even more ridiculously 'freedom', so we don't need a slap when things go pear.

Yeah, or maybe we don't present an image of our soldiers as universally fighting for 'good', or maybe even more ridiculously 'freedom', so we don't need a slap when things go pear.

When was the last time you heard a nation come out and say: "Ahaha we're the fucking bad guys!" EVERY country tries to justify the means. Just so happens our president is a monkey.

Even Germany never said that...Although they were all aware of it. ;)

You call RO the troll...

I don't call for genocide against 1.2 billion people now do I? Besides, I didn't specifically call him a troll. He could be a weasel.

But if you have some way of removing the plain silliness of Americans in general and their pseudo fascist tendencies, let me know.

I figured education might have worked at first, but that didn't work. Economics tended to slide towards mass consumerism and political awareness just didn't take.

When was the last time you heard a nation come out and say: "Ahaha we're the fucking bad guys!" EVERY country tries to justify the means. Just so happens our president is a monkey.

Even Germany never said that...Although they were all aware of it. ;)

Nah, Germany never went about saying what they were doing was for the good of the conquered. They pretty much went about saying that they were doing it for themselves. "We are the Aryan, your lands are ours". That sort of thing.

Japan on the other hand. Yeah, the whole co-prosperity thing was a sham.

US Soldiers committing atrocities?!? unthinkable....

All invading armies commit atrocities...get used to it..i stand by Caesar and his quote of "War gives the right of the conquerors to impose any conditions they please upon the vanquished"..Ancient people knew how to stamp out insurrection..just lob off a few heads...everyone will comply...

I don't call for genocide against 1.2 billion people now do I?

Never said you were anywhere near as bad. Bombing America for a war we always knew was bunk... nevermind feel free to bomb the piss out of the midwest.

But if you have some way of removing the plain silliness of generic Americans and their pseudo fascist tendencies, let me know.

Again the Holy Republican Empire of the Midwest.

I figured education might have worked at first, but that didn't work. Economics tended to slide towards mass consumerism and political awareness just didn't take.

Education didn't take because thanks to the Kansas Board of Education everything must be taught via a puppet Jesus.

When was the last time you heard a nation come out and say: "Ahaha we're the fucking bad guys!" EVERY country tries to justify the means. Just so happens our president is a monkey.

Even Germany never said that...Although they were all aware of it. ;)
It's not that your president is especially foolish.

More that your media (or the actually popular end - Fox and CNN) gives a lot of 'wahey' and not a lot of 'nay', really.

More that your media (or the actually popular end - Fox and CNN) gives a lot of 'wahey' and not a lot of 'nay', really.

I don't watch the news. Occassionally I'll pick up a NY Times after class just to make sure I don't miss anything especially important.

Other than that I'm content in my own little world. Everything outside is very angry and explody.

All invading armies commit atrocities...get used to it..i stand by Caesar and his quote of "War gives the right of the conquerors to impose any conditions they please upon the vanquished"..Ancient people knew how to stamp out insurrection..just lob off a few heads...everyone will comply...

That didn't work in Vietnam, it's not going to work now. Ancient people also didn't have means for creating explosive booby traps, or ways of generating mass support by media coverage.

But then again, you seem stuck in the ancient past, so I expect you might not have updated your tactics of late.

Never said you were anywhere near as bad. Bombing America for a war we always knew was bunk... nevermind feel free to bomb the piss out of the midwest.

Again the Holy Republican Empire of the Midwest.

See? It's not like I didn't try other alternatives.


Education didn't take because thanks to the Kansas Board of Education everything must be taught via a puppet Jesus.

Well, that brings to mind one last alternative. Reprogramming. Start with adults, work your way down to kids. By the next generation, things should be changed a bit.

Although something will have to be done about neo-fascist media and political groups.

I don't watch the news. Occassionally I'll pick up a NY Times after class just to make sure I don't miss anything especially important.

Other than that I'm content in my own little world. Everything outside is very angry and explody.
Ah, blissful ignorance.

Well, that brings to mind one last alternative. Reprogramming. Start with adults, work your way down to kids. By the next generation, things should be changed a bit.

Although something will have to be done about neo-fascist media and political groups.

The Khmer Rouge's method was pretty effective.

Reprogram the children, work the adults to death. Year 0. Despite some ethical obstructions it was a pretty clever plan.

I need to take a shower now. So dirty.

The Khmer Rouge's method was pretty effective.

Reprogram the children, work the adults to death. Year 0. Despite some ethical obstructions it was a pretty clever plan.

I need to take a shower now. So dirty.

Ehh, working people to death didn't really work. We all know how well that went in Mao's time. Better to do top down reprogramming. The reprogrammed adults will help reprogram the kids.

Let us all remember the claims of the "veteran" Jesse MacBeth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

Really Demented, you shouldn't take these claims so seriously...
And you really should look to improve your reading comprehension:

To verify their military service, when possible we obtained a copy of each interviewee's DD Form 214, or the Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, and in all cases confirmed their service with the branch of the military in which they were enlisted.
Of those interviewed, fourteen served in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, twenty from 2004 to 2005 and two from 2005 to 2006. Of the eleven veterans whose tours lasted less than one year, nine served in 2003, while the others served in 2004 and 2005.

The ranks of the veterans we interviewed ranged from private to captain, though only a handful were officers. The veterans served throughout Iraq, but mostly in the country's most volatile areas, such as Baghdad, Tikrit, Mosul, Falluja and Samarra.

It's funny how people demand "poof" when it pertains to something rather obvious yet distasteful to them. But, are totally absorbed by anecdotal "evidence" when it comes to talking shit about things they don't like, such as universal healthcare, global warming, etc...

Uh... I think you mean proof.
The press always focus on the few individuals who want to make money out of a story. They never tell of our troops handing out clean water or of our Engineers building new roads and railways, it always has to be negative.

Well, DUH! The press is biased against the US military and dedicated to destroying it in any way possible, and by any means necessary, because they (the press) want the USA to surrender its sovereignty and become a powerless puppet of the United Nations. What'd you expect, a headline saying "Hurrah For Our Troops!"?

Civilians dying in a war? Crazy talk.

*Looks at precedent.*

Civilians dying in a war? Crazy talk.

*Looks at precedent.*
It's 'president'. You're welcome.

well interesting but really you do have to have more proof. eye witness accounts are well known to be "not necessarily 100% accurate". is it possible that very bad things have happend, yes. is it likely that they are rampant, not likely. as to the example,you call that attrocity. when have american soldiers ever video-taped themselves hacking the heads off of journalists, soldiers,or anyone else. give it a break already,america isn't always the bad guy. soldiers are not monsters, i have known quite a few. just a point though you really should go after the officers not the enlisted, if and i do mean if anything is going on its them you should be looking at.
also given the constant attacks upon american soldiers every day, you really gotta expect a few to go nuts sometimes. think of it like this, you have a group of friends. you have been friends for years. then some wacko's start killing your friends off, usually in a brutal manner. now these wacko's just happen to look like everyone around you. you cannot tell who is the good guy or the bad. you cannot tell which of them has straped bombs to their kids or given their kids live granades to turn them into little walking bombs. you live with this day in and day out for well over a year. just how long do you think that you could stay sane under those circumstances. now imagine that the only reason you are even there is because you were told that you were helping out the other good people,and daily you see those same "good people" killing your friends. tell me just how sane you would remain, just how nice you would be. but of course some of you would reather sit and complain about things that you don't know one thing about. you would reather sit and let someone else go off and die while you sit and write blithering nonsense to other people who have exactily the same attitude as you,while others go off and fight so that you can sit on the couch,eating BK, doing whatever it is that you do. thank you, some of those "evil americans" were my friends. some of them have died. so please unless you have a real idea as to how to fix this situation without getting more people killed in the process, please just shut up. even if this war is wrong, even if all of the reasons for this war are lies. that doesn't mean that those soldiers over there are "evil". I hate this whole war,especially because its fought in the name of ingrates like you. so go ahead continue with bashing these guys and anyone who defends them. thats your right paid for with the blood of my friends,and my family going back to the begining of this country.

sorry if this offends anyone, but its the truth as i see it.

It's 'president'. You're welcome.Snarky comments weren't enough to put out the fires in Tokyo or Dresden. ;)

Ah, you're assuming that they're guilty, and someone is either failing to investigate, or covering up.

Where's your proof?
Ah, you are tugging at my heart strings. You quickly come to the defense of your army buddies, but you would wipe out the lives of a Billion Muslims whether they were guilty of anything or not.

Ah, you are tugging at my heart strings. You quickly come to the defense of your army buddies, but you would wipe out the lives of a Billion Muslims whether they were guilty of anything or not.
great innit?
He won't have a word said against the army and it's soldiers. They above reproach and totally honourable.
He takes their word as gospel.
If they say they didn't do anything bad, that's good enough for him.
However if they admit to doing bad things, well...then he demands specific instances, proof, evidence, independent investigations,...
He goes so far as insinuating that these people aren't even army and just a pack of liars, he's that desperate to ignore their claims.


sniff sniff...who else can smell that rancid ordour of hypocrisy coming from RO?

Schwullunde;12870164']
sorry if this offends anyone, but its the truth as i see it.

Job stress and work related deaths in high risk environments are not legitimate arguments for murder.

And it isn't fought for anything other than the enrichment and personal crusades of the elite. Thinking that it's for the people is nothing but naivety.

great innit?
He won't have a word said against the army and it's soldiers. They above reproach and totally honourable.
He takes their word as gospel.
If they say they didn't do anything bad, that's good enough for him.
However if they admit to doing bad things, well...then he demands specific instances, proof, evidence, independent investigations,...
He goes so far as insinuating that these people aren't even army and just a pack of liars, he's that desperate to ignore their claims.


sniff sniff...who else can smell that rancid ordour of hypocrisy coming from RO?
Lack of credibility comes to mind.

Told ya so. No, wait, not just me, but most of non-USA media and NGOs. The military of the USA aren't exactly known for being good guys.

Fuck off.

okay it's true. There are brutalities, however not every U.S soldier is brutal like that.

okay it's true. There are brutalities, however not every U.S soldier is brutal like that.

This isn't about every US soldier. This is about the culture of permissiveness in the US military for crimes while in uniform.

This isn't about every US soldier. This is about the culture of permissiveness in the US military for crimes while in uniform.
quite right. That's why I posted the bit about the Pentagon study that found 60% of marines would not report a fellow marine injuring or killing a civilian. If that's not a result of a culture of permissiveness, then what is?

To be honest, you don’t get to be a superpower by handing out candy and flowers. As top world superpowers go America has been pretty benevolent. Sure this last decade has been a bit of a WTF! but otherwise it hasn’t been as bad as it could have been. I mean they’ve done some pretty despicable acts and crapped on a lot of developing nations, but compared to the British Empire and other historical superpowers, they’re practically saints.

Can you imagine what the Soviets or Chinese would have been like if they came out of the Cold War as the big bad. You’d all be crapping in your pants, wondering if you were going to see another day. Now those are some brutal world powers you wouldn’t want to see strutting their stuff.

That doesn’t mean we should let every atrocity slide and pat the US on the back for not being quite as bad as the worst empires in history. It just means it could have been much worse.

The whole Iraq mission has been managed like an outhouse without a hole. It just keeps filling up with crap and first nobody was allowed to clean it up, and now it’s such a horror that it’s beyond cleaning. Time to toss a match in and walk away.

The troops did their job, but they were never given the direction they needed to do the mission that they should have been doing. From planning, to deployment, to operational planning it was a top down screw fest. It’s only because the other side was even more screwed up that there weren’t more casualties. During the invasion soldiers were often forced to take the initiative away from incompetent planners.

After Saddam toppled there was squat for direction and divisional generals were pretty much making it up as they went along. Some divisional commanders were great, but there were enough terrible ones to ensure that anytime someone did it right, the next rotation would bring in a dumb thug. If Patreaus has been in charge from the start you wouldn’t be seeing the mess you have now, but it’s probably too late for him to fix it. I don’t think he’s getting the help from on high he needs, because this Surge is a bad joke. Give him one hundred thousand more troops and it still might not work, but twenty thousand is a drop in the bucket in Iraq, for a force that's already seriously under garrisoned. The US and their allies didn’t have enough troops to secure Iraq. The army asked for the numbers and were turned down. They didn’t want a Bosnia style peacekeeping force with numbers. They wanted to do it like Afghanistan, on the cheap.

If they hadn’t kept finding a way to put the wrong people in the wrong place to make the wrong decisions all the time, even with all the previous screw ups they still might have muddled their way through. But when they purged the army and civil service, the US finally screwed any possible positive outcome in Iraq. You don’t dump a million odd angry young men on the street into a shattered economy and have a happy ending.

All those dumb mistakes from on top and the troopy on the ground is taking it in the teeth. The frustration level on the ground must be enormous. You'd have to be some kind of true believer to not suspect something wasn't quiet right with whoever was calling the shots. You’ve got contracted mercenaries tearing around like cowboys, doing whatever they want and getting paid ten times what you’re getting to risk your neck on patrol. Civilian contractors are ripping you off with substandard and overpriced services. The Iraqi government itself is the most corrupt on the planet. And because you’re military has never valued peacekeeping missions, Johnny on the spot isn’t doing a great job at it. Add to that tossing in huge numbers of National Guardsmen and admin companies made into combat units and you’re going to have problems. The US train their troops to fight wars. Except for special forces they don’t get a whole lot of training on working with native populations in war zones. It doesn't help when the propaganda machine is whipping up anti-Arab sentiment, when you're mission should have been winning over the people of Iraq, instead of generally pissing them off.

That doesn’t mean we should let every atrocity slide and pat the US on the back for not being quite as bad as the worst empires in history. It just means it could have been much worse.

So what is the point of that thinking in regards to this? I don't understand what this adds to the debate

quite right. That's why I posted the bit about the Pentagon study that found 60% of marines would not report a fellow marine injuring or killing a civilian. If that's not a result of a culture of permissiveness, then what is?

Most US citizens won't report their neighbors committing a crime. That's the explicit reason why murders are rarely solved in Washington DC - people just won't talk.

The military is merely a microcosm of the society it serves.

Want the culture in the military to change? Turn the rest of society into people who will rat each other out over pocket change.

Most US citizens won't report their neighbors committing a crime. That's the explicit reason why murders are rarely solved in Washington DC - people just won't talk.

The military is merely a microcosm of the society it serves.

Want the culture in the military to change? Turn the rest of society into people who will rat each other out over pocket change.

There's a slight difference between ratting someone out over pocket change and ratting them out over abuse against innocents

Most US citizens won't report their neighbors committing a crime. That's the explicit reason why murders are rarely solved in Washington DC - people just won't talk.

The military is merely a microcosm of the society it serves.

Want the culture in the military to change? Turn the rest of society into people who will rat each other out over pocket change.

re you honestly trying to say that the majority of unsolved murders go unsolved because witnesses won't talk?

cough *bullshit* cough

Fuck off.

You wish, twinky, with emphasis on the fuck. The truth about the USA's military and its atrocities and crimes against humanity will come out (and does, on an almost daily basis), no matter what, despite your "lalala, I can't hear you - we is good people, we is!" routine, which you may resume now like a good "patriot".

There's a slight difference between ratting someone out over pocket change and ratting them out over abuse against innocents

Also note that he compares murder to pocket change. I've got a couple of bucks in my pocket. Think that will buy RO's life? It's not like he's got room to complain after all.

Even if those 50 guys are talking out their asses this:
Much of the resentment toward Iraqis described to The Nation by veterans was confirmed in a report released May 4 by the Pentagon. According to the survey, conducted by the Office of the Surgeon General of the US Army Medical Command, just 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of marines agreed that civilians should be treated with dignity and respect. Only 55 percent of soldiers and 40 percent of marines said they would report a unit member who had killed or injured "an innocent noncombatant."
is just ridiculous. If the majority of soldiers and marines don't think civilians should be treated with dignity and respect and a majority of marines and significant minority of soldiers will cover up when they injure of kill a noncombatant then atrocities are inevitable.
Fuck off.

Wow, you sure showed him. Turn off the internet, you win.

Fuck off.

Great argument. Truly thought provoking and inciteful.

I'll hold you to the same standard that you hold me -

when they've proven it in a court of law, it's proof.

Otherwise, these are allegations.

Of course, these are allegations. Since these people are claiming THEMSELVES guilty by making such allegations, I'd say that these allegation are somewhat more believable than other allegations (like "Iraq has WMD! Iraq has WMD!", as the US State Department used to claim).

Neh?

re you honestly trying to say that the majority of unsolved murders go unsolved because witnesses won't talk?

cough *bullshit* cough

Looks like Sicily and the Godfather managed to teach something to the Americans... minchia!
Mind your own business, this is an offer you can't refuse.;)

Of course, these are allegations. Since these people are claiming THEMSELVES guilty by making such allegations, I'd say that these allegation are somewhat more believable than other allegations (like "Iraq has WMD! Iraq has WMD!", as the US State Department used to claim).

Neh?

No, because some "veterans" who have made these claims before have proven to be fakers - people who either never were in the military, or if in the military, had never been to Iraq.

Like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

The left and the media bought his story hook, line, and sinker.

Never bothered to check him out - just assumed he was telling the truth.

It wasn't until some right wing blogs and real military people outed him, that they retracted his shit.

So, I'm not impressed by stories of "veterans" especially when touted by the left and the mainstream media - unless I can see proof that they were where they said they were - DD214 and the statements of other proven soldiers around them at that time of service will do.

Fuck off.
dearie - Fass would only follow your advice if 'Off' was the name of some chiselled hard body with model good looks and a huge libido.

dearie - Fass would only follow your advice if 'Off' was the name of some chiselled hard body with model good looks and a huge libido.

Technically, he would fuck in that case, but not "fuck off".

No, because some "veterans" who have made these claims before have proven to be fakers - people who either never were in the military, or if in the military, had never been to Iraq.

Like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

The left and the media bought his story hook, line, and sinker.

Never bothered to check him out - just assumed he was telling the truth.

It wasn't until some right wing blogs and real military people outed him, that they retracted his shit.

So, I'm not impressed by stories of "veterans" especially when touted by the left and the mainstream media - unless I can see proof that they were where they said they were - DD214 and the statements of other proven soldiers around them at that time of service will do.
I see your reading comprehension skills are still lacking:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12870123&postcount=51

I'll give you it is a valid point you raise, but twould seem they have done their homework in this case.

Technically, he would fuck in that case, but not "fuck off".
depends on if you view it as an imperative command, as in "Fass, I demand that you go and fuck Off".

I see your reading comprehension skills are still lacking:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12870123&postcount=51

I'll give you it is a valid point you raise, but twould seem they have done their homework in this case.

If it's the mainstream media, I doubt it. If it's the left, I know they don't check shit.

They can't even get proper photographs of US soldiers on the Democratic Party website, for Christ's sake. Always a foreign army...

depends on if you view it as an imperative command, as in "Fass, I demand that you go and fuck Off".

I'm not sure that he would limit it to "fucking" if the person was that hot.

If it's the mainstream media, I doubt it. If it's the left, I know they don't check shit.

They can't even get proper photographs of US soldiers on the Democratic Party website, for Christ's sake. Always a foreign army...

If it was the mainstream media you would probably accuse them of lkiberal bias....

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2758829.ece
"A lot of guys really supported that whole concept that if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want."

Specialist Josh Middleton, 23, of New York City, 2nd Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division. Four-month tour in Baghdad and Mosul beginning December 2004

how wonderful...

If it was the mainstream media you would probably accuse them of lkiberal bias....

Nope. The main problem I have with the mainstream media these days is:

1. Allowing people like Judith Miller, and Jayson Blair (and I forgot the CNN guy) who peddle completely fake stories.
2. People like Reuters and AP who let stringers post photos and unverified crap to suit the stringer's political whims
3. The general atmosphere of 'entertainment as news'.

Great argument. Truly thought provoking and inciteful.

Was that intentional?

If it was it was good and I intend to steal it either way.

Iraq is like a broken vase and America must pay up for that broken vase. You can’t just create problems and walk away when the tough gets going.

Iraq is like a broken vase and America must pay up for that broken vase. You can’t just create problems and walk away when the tough gets going.

The problem is that they're not trying to fix it. They're hitting the shards with a sledgehammer.

If it's the mainstream media, I doubt it. If it's the left, I know they don't check shit.

They can't even get proper photographs of US soldiers on the Democratic Party website, for Christ's sake. Always a foreign army...
Dismissing facts you don't like out of hand is always a good way to look like you are always in the right and simultaneously insult the Democrats for no related reason. Good job.


Nope. The main problem I have with the mainstream media these days is:

1. Allowing people like Judith Miller, and Jayson Blair (and I forgot the CNN guy) who peddle completely fake stories.
Or Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, or Bill O'Reilly. I can go on.

3. The general atmosphere of 'entertainment as news'.
FOX News. What do I win?

None of these are remotely liberal or pro-Democratic yet your "problems with mainstream media" easily and readily apply to the rightwing "the liberal control the mainstream media!" group and yet your opposition is laid out in such a way to insinuate that it is only the 'liberals' doing this.
Crystal clear.

Dismissing facts you don't like out of hand is always a good way to look like you are always in the right and simultaneously insult the Democrats for no related reason. Good job.

I seem to recall that you insist that the residents of Guantanamo are innocent until proven guilty, no matter what any of them or their brethren still about might say or admit to.

You seem to have the same cavalier attitude about dismissing "facts".

There are no facts in the OP to be seen, other than allegations.

I seem to recall that you insist that the residents of Guantanamo are innocent until proven guilty, no matter what any of them or their brethren still about might say or admit to.

You seem to have the same cavalier attitude about dismissing "facts".

There are no facts in the OP to be seen, other than allegations.

See, once again, you fail.

"Innoncent until proven guilty" is a claim in regards to criminal acts. Nobody is being charged with anything that these men are saying. No criminal charges are brought, nothing has been files. No arrests, subpoenas or warrants issued.

Likewise this is not a court room and we are not a jury. We are free to have any personal opinions we wish. I am in no way bound to any standard of "innocent until proven guilty" when forming my private opinions.

now, of course, should anyone be charged with a crime as a result of these allegations then of course they should be afforded a belief of innocence until guilt is proven...by the jury assigned to their case.

I am in no way obligated to force my own private opinions to conform to such a standard, I am not a juror, and I do not have hold of their fate. While I may hold a private opinion one way or the other, that doesn't change the fact that no one should be held without first a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The people at gitmo are, however, being held without first a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

There's the tiny difference.

No, because some "veterans" who have made these claims before have proven to be fakers - people who either never were in the military, or if in the military, had never been to Iraq....DD214 and the statements of other proven soldiers around them at that time of service will do.

Demented Hamsters has already shown that the authors of this article have seen those forms and independently corroborated them.

I seem to recall that you insist that the residents of Guantanamo are innocent until proven guilty, no matter what any of them or their brethren still about might say or admit to.

You seem to have the same cavalier attitude about dismissing "facts".

There are no facts in the OP to be seen, other than allegations.

Yes, they are allegations. Allegations made by veterans who were involved in these acts, witnessed them first hand, or heard accounts from other veterans.

I think that what they are doing is a noble thing. Atrocities have been committed by all armies in all wars. Admitting that such things happen and trying to find a way to reduce such things is a noble gesture on the part of these veterans that reflects well on the rest of the US military, in my opinion.

See, once again, you fail.

"Innoncent until proven guilty" is a claim in regards to criminal acts. Nobody is being charged with anything that these men are saying. No criminal charges are brought, nothing has been files. No arrests, subpoenas or warrants issued.

Likewise this is not a court room and we are not a jury. We are free to have any personal opinions we wish. I am in no way bound to any standard of "innocent until proven guilty" when forming my private opinions.

Oh, so you can form your private opinions, but here on this forum, in many posts I'm held to the standard of ,"well if they're not convicted terrorists in an international court, they're fucking innocent".

Sorry, I won't swallow your double standard - so you fail at trying to push it down my throat.

I seem to recall that you insist that the residents of Guantanamo are innocent until proven guilty, no matter what any of them or their brethren still about might say or admit to.
I seem to recall no such thing, not that I wouldn't make that claim considering the US can't prove them guilty or they would actually try them. Picking up any idiot off the road or handed over to you by a local warlord and manipulating them to a point where they would say anything you want does not add up to guilt.

You seem to have the same cavalier attitude about dismissing "facts".
You have provided no facts and as a matter of fact dismissed the fact that the news did check up on these people and because you didn't like it, you dismissed it with a wave of your hand. As much as you seem to delude yourself, you are not the king of what-is-factual-and-what-isn't land and will be called out when you disagree with reality just like those twits of FOX News. Also, you will be called out on dodging the issue like you are now.

I'm sure you will rebut some claim or other with an editorial because you take them to be of far higher merit than actual news articles.

I seem to recall no such thing, not that I wouldn't make that claim considering the US can't prove them guilty or they would actually try them. Picking up any idiot off the road or handed over to you by a local warlord and manipulating them to a point where they would say anything you want does not add up to guilt.

Sorry - where's your proof that all of them fit that category?

You know what? Official orders in Afghanistan now read that when Taliban engage you, and then try to flee, instead of letting them run away, or capturing them, you just hunt them down and kill them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LGIQUVKA0CIF3QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg29.xml

Caught in the middle of the Helmand river, the fleeing Taliban were paddling their boat back to shore for dear life.

Smoke from the ambush they had just sprung on American special forces still hung in the air, but their attention was fixed on the two helicopter gunships that had appeared above them as their leader, the tallest man in the group, struggled to pull what appeared to be a burqa over his head.

An Apache gunship, US aircrews show Taliban no mercy
Strike force: An Apache gunship on patrol in Afghanistan

As the boat reached the shore, Captain Larry Staley tilted the nose of the lead Apache gunship downwards into a dive. One of the men turned to face the helicopter and sank to his knees. Capt Staley's gunner pressed the trigger and the man disappeared in a cloud of smoke and dust.

By the time the gunships had finished, 21 minutes later, military officials say 14 Taliban were confirmed dead, including one of their key commanders in Helmand.

The mission is typical of a new, aggressive, approach adopted by American forces in southern Afghanistan and particularly in Helmand, where British troops last year bore the brunt of some of the heaviest fighting since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.

No trial, No Guantanamo, No Abu Gharib. Just rotting meat.

Sorry - where's your proof that all of them fit that category?

You know what? Official orders in Afghanistan now read that when Taliban engage you, and then try to flee, instead of letting them run away, or capturing them, you just hunt them down and kill them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LGIQUVKA0CIF3QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg29.xml



No trial, No Guantanamo, No Abu Gharib. Just rotting meat.
I don't disagree with the practice, however....

You do realize that that has nothing to do with the people in Guantanamo right? It does not prove people in Guantanamo are guilty; and what's more, it does not disprove what I said.

Not only that, but it can easily be construed as to make the point for the topic of this thread. How do we know they are actually Taliban? Or actually attacked anyone else? Are you asserting the US doesn't screw up and cover it up? Besides the news article that started this thread, there are well documented incidents of that happening.

You know what? Official orders in Afghanistan now read that when Taliban engage you, and then try to flee, instead of letting them run away, or capturing them, you just hunt them down and kill them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LGIQUVKA0CIF3QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg29.xml



No trial, No Guantanamo, No Abu Gharib. Just rotting meat.

And that makes you cream your jeans, does it?

I don't disagree with the practice, however....

You do realize that that has nothing to do with the people in Guantanamo right? It does not prove people in Guantanamo are guilty; and what's more, it does not disprove what I said.

Not only that, but it can easily be construed as to make the point for the topic of this thread. How do we know they are actually Taliban? Or actually attacked anyone else? Are you asserting the US doesn't screw up and cover it up? Besides the news article that started this thread, there are well documented incidents of that happening.

It means that if people shoot at you, you don't hold a trial for them. Or capture them. You just kill them.

It's not even a violation of the rules of war.

And that makes you cream your jeans, does it?

If I get to go home in one piece, and they never come back to shoot at me again, it certainly does.

See? If we had done it this way from the start, there would have been no need for a Guantanamo, or an Abu Gharib.

No problems with public relations.

By then, most of the men were ashore, walking quickly towards the tree line. They appeared to be pulling clothing over their heads - burqas, Capt Staley thought, and Lt Denton concurred. As the helicopters came in to attack, Lt Denton said, one of the men turned to face him and dropped to his knees. "I think he knew that there was no hope," he said. "He was making his peace."

Capt Staley's helicopter hit them with its rockets while Lt Denton, the gunner in the other helicopter, opened up with his 30mm cannon. Three or four of the Taliban died where they stood and the rest made a dash for the trees. "They were trying to get to their bunkers," Capt Staley said. "We started a diving run and destroyed four of the six people we could see, including the Taliban commander."

From 500ft up, Lt Denton said: "You can see the person but you can't see the features of his face. The 30mm explode when they hit and kick up smoke and dust. You just see a big dust cloud where the person used to be."

All the problems reduced to a dust cloud.

It means that if people shoot at you, you don't hold a trial for them. Or capture them. You just kill them.

It's not even a violation of the rules of war.
Except I'm not disagreeing with you.
And yet you still avoided the point. Is this like Oblivion where you get stat points for doing certain things? Do you get to work on FOX News if you become a Master "Dodger of the Issues"?

Except I'm not disagreeing with you.
And yet you still avoided the point. Is this like Oblivion where you get stat points for doing certain things? Do you get to work on FOX News if you become a Master "Dodger of the Issues"?

Someone brought up the terrible things the US has done, Guantanamo, et al, as evidence of how bad we are.

I'm not dodging anything.

I already said you have no proof the allegations are real.

And since I've been held to the "so-called terrorists are innocent until proven guilty in an international court of law..." standard, I hold you, and everyone else on this forum, to the exact same standard.

So all US troops are innocent. See any international court trials of US troops recently?

So all US troops are innocent.

Is anyone holding them in a detention camp without trial?

No?

Then your analogy doesn't really work, does it?

Is anyone holding them in a detention camp without trial?

No?

Then your analogy doesn't really work, does it?

Sure it does.

If you want to say they're guilty, then I hold you to the same standard that I've been held to on this forum.

Call me when the Hague finds them guilty.

Otherwise, they're all innocent.

Someone brought up the terrible things the US has done, Guantanamo, et al, as evidence of how bad we are.

I'm not dodging anything.

I already said you have no proof the allegations are real.
The allegations in the topic? Oh, so military people are always right whenever they are pro-military but always wrong when they speak out? This kind of stupid-think is why there are whistle-blower protection laws (who knows for how much longer under the current USSC).

And since I've been held to the "so-called terrorists are innocent until proven guilty in an international court of law..." standard,
We can't even find them guilty in US military tribunals. And as Groucho Marx said "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music."

I hold you, and everyone else on this forum, to the exact same standard.

So all US troops are innocent. See any international court trials of US troops recently?
OK, to meet the standard I provide the information in the topic. Now you provide likewise arbitrary eyewitnesses from Iraq/Afghanistan to confirm these people are terrorists.*

*Those who have nothing to gain by supporting the US' version of events.

The allegations in the topic? Oh, so military people are always right whenever they are pro-military but always wrong when they speak out? This kind of stupid-think is why there are whistle-blower protection laws (who knows for how much longer under the current USSC).


We can't even find them guilty in US military tribunals. And as Groucho Marx said "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music."


OK, to meet the standard I provide the information in the topic. Now you provide likewise arbitrary eyewitness from Iraq/Afghanistan to confirm these people are terrorists.*

*Those who have nothing to gain by supporting the US' version of events.

No, you're moving the goal posts now.

The standard I have been held to on this forum is "the terrorists are innocent until tried in an international court and found guilty there".

So.

Meet the standard. Don't change it.

No, you're moving the goal posts now.

The standard I have been held to on this forum is "the terrorists are innocent until tried in an international court and found guilty there".
I can move the goal posts wherever I like them to be when you are pulling them out of your ass and setting them up by yourself.
Unless you are now making the assertion that it would be harder to prove them guilty in international court than in US military tribunals.

I've realized how DK gets so many posts so fast. He either doesn't know how to use multi-quote, or just feels like making a new post every time he has a new thought.

I can move the goal posts wherever I like them to be when you are pulling them out of your ass and setting them up by yourself.
Unless you are now making the assertion that it would be harder to prove them guilty in international court than in US military tribunals.

Nope. The goal posts about guilt were set here on the forum.

I was held to them COUNTLESS times.

So, they're not guilty.

Nope. The goal posts about guilt were set here on the forum.
Quote it then.
Also, where is your arbitrary eyewitness testimony that those in Guantanamo are terrorists.
I'm holding you to the standard set in the topic of this thread alone. Can you meet it?

I was held to them COUNTLESS times.

So, they're not guilty.
So you agree you are making the assertion that it is harder to prove terrorists guilty in international court than a US military tribunal.

I've realized how DK gets so many posts so fast. He either doesn't know how to use multi-quote, or just feels like making a new post every time he has a new thought.

Gee, 2500 some posts in seven months...

Quote it then.
Also, where is your arbitrary eyewitness testimony that those in Guantanamo are terrorists.
I'm holding you to the standard set in the topic of this thread alone. Can you meet it?


I'm holding to the forum standard. You aren't, because you'll lose.

So you agree you are making the assertion that it is harder to prove terrorists guilty in international court than a US military tribunal.

Nope. Just saying that the forum standard excludes a US military tribunal. Apparently, the military tribunal is teh 3bil, and full of Bush.

I'm holding to the forum standard. You aren't, because you'll lose.
I'm holding you to a simple standard of just 50 independent eyewitnesses to people in Guantanamo being terrorists.

Ah yes, fine, let me address that then. It is impossible for the US army to be found guilty in international court because the US refuses to let any members be tried. You like winning on your little technicalities while dodging the issue huh?


Nope. Just saying that the forum standard excludes a US military tribunal. Apparently, the military tribunal is teh 3bil, and full of Bush.
But your continued pushing of the argument can only lead one to conclude you believe it is harder to convict a Guantanamo detainee of terrorism in international court than in a US military tribunal. If that isn't true, you already proved the board standard for me and I win.

I'm holding you to a simple standard of just 50 independent eyewitnesses to people in Guantanamo being terrorists.

Ah yes, fine, let me address that then. It is impossible for the US army to be found guilty in international court because the US refuses to let any members be tried. You like winning on your little technicalities while dodging the issue huh?

But your continued pushing of the argument can only lead one to conclude you believe it is harder to convict a Guantanamo detainee of terrorism in international court than in a US military tribunal. If that isn't true, you already proved the board standard for me and I win.

No, I don't believe any such thing.

So you can stop trying to pull an argument out of your rectum.

Many, many people have insisted that the only fair trial for a war criminal or suspected terrorist (on THIS forum) can be had at the Hague.

Nowhere else.

So that's the standard. I don't think a trial is necessary. Just a change to the rules of engagement.

If we had the current rules of engagement at the start, there would never have been a Guantanamo or an Abu Gharib. None.

No, I don't believe any such thing.

So you can stop trying to pull an argument out of your rectum.
Then I meet the board standard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002473.html
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/us-military-judge-drops-charges-against_05.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/us-military-judge-drops-charges-against.php

Then I meet the board standard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002473.html
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/us-military-judge-drops-charges-against_05.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/us-military-judge-drops-charges-against.php

No, you don't.

If you're going to insist that US soldiers are guilty of anything, you have to show me where they were found guilty at the Hague.

Same for terrorists.

Apparently, if I insist that anyone who ever shot at US troops is guilty of something (or should be suspected of anything), the "standard" is trotted out, and the people who trot that out claim pwnage.

So, you haven't met the standard.

So, I claim you pwned.

If we had the current rules of engagement at the start, there would never have been a Guantanamo or an Abu Gharib. None.

So how would the current rules of engagement have changed the fate of somebody grabbed by an Aghan tribesman and handed over to the CIA for USD, or lifted from (eg)Italy and taken to various detention centres before being ditched in Guantanamo?

Abu Ghraib - Army launches sweeps and picks up dozens at a time in raids and throws them inside. They werent captured in, during or after combat either, so whats that got to do with it?

No, you don't.

*omg I'm wrong*
If it is easier to convict them in military tribunals than in the Hague, I meet the standard based on those links.

So, I claim you pwned.
I claim I'm the King of Switzerland, doesn't mean I am.

So, I claim you pwned.


Yeah, we'll add that to the list.

So how would the current rules of engagement have changed the fate of somebody grabbed by an Aghan tribesman and handed over to the CIA for USD, or lifted from (eg)Italy and taken to various detention centres before being ditched in Guantanamo?

Abu Ghraib - Army launches sweeps and picks up dozens at a time in raids and throws them inside. They werent captured in, during or after combat either, so whats that got to do with it?

A. We wouldn't have offered a reward program, so the people wouldn't have been grabbed and turned over.

B. We wouldn't have done the sweeps to pick people up. We would have just shot them on the street, and written it up as combat action.

If it is easier to convict them in military tribunals than in the Hague, I meet the standard based on those links.


Nope - it doesn't matter whether it's easier or harder. You don't get it - the Hague is the gold standard.

A. We wouldn't have offered a reward program, so the people wouldn't have been grabbed and turned over..

But the CIA did it, not the US army. So again.... whats that got to do with it? And then there were the ones grabbed by US personnell - the CIA again, not US army.


We wouldn't have done the sweeps to pick people up. We would have just shot them on the street, and written it up as combat action.

But that would result in armed patrols going through the streets of baghdad killing everything, as these were generalised sweeps.

What are the precise adjustments to the rules of enagement that enable one to shoot down civillians and have it "written up as a combat action"? Isn't this just a cover up that evades whatever procedure there might be regardless?

But the CIA did it, not the US army. So again.... whats that got to do with it? And then there were the ones grabbed by US personnell - the CIA again, not US army.


The CIA would not have done that in my scenario.

But that would result in armed patrols going through the streets of baghdad killing everything, as these were generalised sweeps.

What are the precise adjustments to the rules of enagement that enable one to shoot down civillians and have it "written up as a combat action"? Isn't this just a cover up that evades whatever procedure there might be regardless?

No. There must have been something that made the soldiers pick certain people up. Just write the rules of engagement to make the soldiers engage them as targets. Simple.

Nope - it doesn't matter whether it's easier or harder. You don't get it - the Hague is the gold standard.
If A < B AND B < C Then A < C

Basic logic.

The CIA would not have done that in my scenario..

So in your "scenario" the CIA obey the rules of enagement for the Infantry?

Do tanks have tracks in your "scenario" or would they have big mech legs for walking up hills in Pakistan after the bad people?

The
No. There must have been something that made the soldiers pick certain people up. Just write the rules of engagement to make the soldiers engage them as targets. Simple.

"There must have been"? They did sweeps of areas and picked up who was there...

Why would you want to have soldiers shooting people on sight because the military decided to launch a sweep of an area?

B. We wouldn't have done the sweeps to pick people up. We would have just shot them on the street, and written it up as combat action.

That is the exact attitude that is the problem :rolleyes:
Thanks for proving the "allegations" right. Not that you havn't done it a hundred times before.

"I claim you pwned."

That is the exact attitude that is the problem :rolleyes:
Thanks for proving the "allegations" right. Not that you havn't done it a hundred times before.

"I claim you pwned."

It would have worked out much better than Guantanamo and Abu Gharib.

No naked homoerotic human pyramids...

That is the exact attitude that is the problem :rolleyes:
Thanks for proving the "allegations" right. Not that you havn't done it a hundred times before.

"I claim you pwned."

Wow, he walked right into that one.

Doesn't prove the allegations.

I'm just saying that none of this would have come up if we had done it that was from the start.


"If we killed everyone there'd be no prisoners". Great thinkin.

Whats that got to do with the current rules of engagement?

Wow, he walked right into that one.

Doesn't prove the allegations.

I'm just saying that none of this would have come up if we had done it that was from the start.

Gee, 2500 some posts in seven months...
Ummm, your math sucks. 2596 posts in 3 months and 4 days. Perhaps you added the 3 months and 4 days to come up with 7 months?

It is sad that you would like to change the ROE just so that these crimes that have been claimed would never see the light of day.

Too much baggage....just shoot them and move on....sad indeed.

It would have worked out much better than Guantanamo and Abu Gharib.

No naked homoerotic human pyramids...
Did you read the topic or did you come in here shooting off your mouth? Not that I see how you can be in here saying these allegations are wrong and slanderous when you have said you would do or believe the same things yourself that these soldiers "allege" their fellow soldiers have done or believe.

Preaching hate and destruction while denouncing those who say you or anyone else are preaching hate and destruction as liars.

Did you read the topic or did you come in here shooting off your mouth? Not that I see how you can be in here saying these allegations are wrong and slanderous when you have said you would do or believe the same things yourself that these soldiers "allege" their fellow soldiers have done or believe.

Preaching hate and destruction while denouncing those who say you or anyone else are preaching hate and destruction are liars.

I am holding you to the same standard that I've been held to.

It's not my standard.

What I would do really has nothing to do with the forum standard of guilt and innocence. I would think you're intelligent enough to figure that out.

Show me where the US soldiers have been convicted in the Hague, and I'll concede that they are guilty.

I am holding you to the same standard that I've been held to.

It's not my standard.

What I would do really has nothing to do with the forum standard of guilt and innocence. I would think you're intelligent enough to figure that out.

Show me where the US soldiers have been convicted in the Hague, and I'll concede that they are guilty.
So you chose the shooting your mouth off option. Ok fine, your replies in this thread arn't worth a hill of beans.

So you chose the shooting your mouth off option. Ok fine, your replies in this thread arn't worth a hill of beans.

No, it's not the shooting your mouth option, either.

You really don't get it. You can't posit only two options, and then say, "well if it isn't this one, it's that one".

Especially when those aren't even close to what I'm talking about.

You lose again!

Show me where the US soldiers have been convicted in the Hague, and I'll concede that they are guilty.

Why do you care anyway? Wouldn't it be consistent with your views to applaud the fact that the military isn't coddling the enemy?

Plus, I don't think US citizens can be tried at the Hague.

No, it's not the shooting your mouth option, either.

You really don't get it. You can't posit only two options, and then say, "well if it isn't this one, it's that one".

Especially when those aren't even close to what I'm talking about.

You lose again!
It really takes 5 people to come up with these posts?!?

It really takes 5 people to come up with these posts?!?

Five little people. To be fair at least 3 have a future in Fantasy/Science Fiction and at least one may go on to write readers letters for porno mags.

It really takes 5 people to come up with these posts?!?

What about five people?

No, it's not the shooting your mouth option, either.

You really don't get it. You can't posit only two options, and then say, "well if it isn't this one, it's that one".

Especially when those aren't even close to what I'm talking about.

You lose again!
Lose at what? Showing you up? Nope, won that.
Here is the conversation with you.
Us: "Hey, those soldiers are accusing other soldiers of treating Iraqis inhumanely and planting guns on dead Iraqis to cover up killing innocents."
You: "Show me that they are soldiers."
Us: "The media independently verified they are soldiers."
You: "The mainstream media is liberal and therefore hates soldiers. I hate the mainstream media because it is about lying and entertainment, not news."
Us: "But all your rightwing media is about lying and entertainment, not news."
You: "Prove the soldiers are guilty using the forum standard."
Us: "What the hell are you talking about?"
You: "Prove the soldiers are guilty in international court since the terrorists have to be proven guilty there."
Us: "The military tribunals can't even prove them guilty."
You: "Those don't count because they arn't international court."
Us: "That doesn't make sense."
You: "What doesn't make sense is capturing them in the first place. If I was doing it we would have killed them on the street and called it a 'combat action'."
Us: "That's what the people in the topic are accusing other soldiers of."
You: "I've never said that, they are liars, I win."
Us: "WTF was that?"

Five little people. To be fair at least 3 have a future in Fantasy/Science Fiction and at least one may go on to write readers letters for porno mags.
You're a liar and a liberal. Prove your point.

I figured they must get paid for doing that shit, and I want a piece of it. So TG me RO. I'm ready to whore for the right too!

Lose at what? Showing you up? Nope, won that.
Here is the conversation with you.
Us: "Hey, those soldiers are accusing other soldiers of treating Iraqis inhumanely and planting guns on dead Iraqis to cover up killing innocents."
You: "Show me that they are soldiers."
Us: "The media independently verified they are soldiers."
You: "The mainstream media is liberal and therefore hates soldiers. I hate the mainstream media because it is about lying and entertainment, not news."
Us: "But all your rightwing media is about lying and entertainment, not news."
You: "Prove the soldiers are guilty using the forum standard."
Us: "What the hell are you talking about?"
You: "Prove the soldiers are guilty in international court since the terrorists have to be proven guilty there."
Us: "The military tribunals can't even prove them guilty."
You: "Those don't count because they arn't international court."
Us: "That doesn't make sense."
You: "What doesn't make sense is capturing them in the first place. If I was doing it we would have killed them on the street and called it a 'combat action'."
Us: "That's what the people in the topic are accusing other soldiers of."
You: "I've never said that, they are liars, I win."
Us: "WTF was that?"

That was beautiful. Absolutley beautiful. I haven't had this much fun at RO's expense since he called me a man-hating lesbian.

Sweet.

You're a liar and a liberal. Prove your point.

I figured they must get paid for doing that shit, and I want a piece of it. So TG me RO. I'm ready to whore for the right too!
*sighs*

No problems with public relations.
By then, most of the men were ashore, walking quickly towards the tree line. They appeared to be pulling clothing over their heads - burqas, Capt Staley thought, and Lt Denton concurred. As the helicopters came in to attack, Lt Denton said, one of the men turned to face him and dropped to his knees. "I think he knew that there was no hope," he said. "He was making his peace."
All the problems reduced to a dust cloud.
It means that if people shoot at you, you don't hold a trial for them. Or capture them. You just kill them.
It's not even a violation of the rules of war.
Under the definition of war crimes, as defined by the International Criminal Court, killing a surrendered combatant is indeed in violation of the rules of war.
Further a surrendered combatant can defined not just as a combatant who is waving a white flag, but also one who dropped their weapon and making no attempt to flee.
in their words,"Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion"
In other words, much like someone turning to face the enemy and dropping to their knees.

So here we have a US soldier actually admitting to a war crime, as defined by the International Criminal Court and being lauded for it through the US media.

what was that someone said earlier about a 'culture of permissiveness'?

Imagine a US soldier dropping their weapon, turning to face an insurgent dropping to his knees and then having his head blown off.
Think RO would say he was' just rotting meat' and then agree that reading about it makes him 'cream his jeans'?

Why do you hate America?

Sorry--someone was going to say it, so I decided to act pre-emptively. ;)

If NSG couldn't bash America there wouldn't be 1/2 of the threads.

what was that someone said earlier about a 'culture of permissiveness'?


I would really appreciate that culture being extended to trolls, weasels and criminals in uniforms though. Poetic justice.

But seriously, why isn't RO on your ignore list? He's the equivalent of NSGs Ann Coulter. Ignore the idiot and consign him to the trash heap of history.

But seriously, why isn't RO on your ignore list? you know, I tg'ed exactly the same sentiment to another NS'er earlier today,

My brother's a marine, and somehow whatever outfit he's in is always getting shipped off. He doesn't go because he's a student and he's in some sort of officer program I don't know and I really don't care. Anyway every so often there's these big meetings of all the troops in the area, and he comes home with stories and everything. According to the people he knows who've been over, everybody over there knows who's placing the IEDs. Whether they condone it or not I guess they don't know, but everybody knows, and even if they don't know, they "know."

And by the way "atrocity" carries heavy connotation. As in, two atomic bombs on Japan and the Holocaust. as in, not running over a kid and three goats.

My brother's a marine, and somehow whatever outfit he's in is always getting shipped off. He doesn't go because he's a student and he's in some sort of officer program I don't know and I really don't care. Anyway every so often there's these big meetings of all the troops in the area, and he comes home with stories and everything. According to the people he knows who've been over, everybody over there knows who's placing the IEDs. Whether they condone it or not I guess they don't know, but everybody knows, and even if they don't know, they "know."

And by the way "atrocity" carries heavy connotation. As in, two atomic bombs on Japan and the Holocaust. as in, not running over a kid and three goats.

So what you're saying is that they don't know but they can guess and a guess is all that is needed?


the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane
an act of atrocious cruelty


wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Funny looks pretty much like it can be used

An atrocity (from the Latin atrox, "atrocious", from Latin ater = "matte black" (as distinct from niger = "shiny black")) is a term used to describe crimes ranging from an act committed against a single person to one committed against a population or ethnic group.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity

And again even more clearly

My brother's a marine, and somehow whatever outfit he's in is always getting shipped off. He doesn't go because he's a student and he's in some sort of officer program I don't know and I really don't care. Anyway every so often there's these big meetings of all the troops in the area, and he comes home with stories and everything. According to the people he knows who've been over, everybody over there knows who's placing the IEDs. Whether they condone it or not I guess they don't know, but everybody knows, and even if they don't know, they "know."
Just like Remote Observers knows all Muslims are terrorists.
A general drilled in hatred reinforced by combating an insurgent guerrilla force which doesn't differentiate itself from the populace that the military isn't trained to combat is not going to lead to anything but generalizations and a feeling that everyone is out to get them.

The press always focus on the few individuals who want to make money out of a story. They never tell of our troops handing out clean water or of our Engineers building new roads and railways, it always has to be negative.

Oh, FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!! I listen to NPR almost daily. I hear lots and lots and LOTS about the good things that are happening in Iraq. I know that we are doing good there. We'd fucking well better do good, since we, you know, screwed their country in every possible way! But the bad things need to be reported, too. We give those in the military a sacred trust - the ability to kill almost with impunity - but they need to follow the rules of war. If these guys didn't (not saying guilty or not), they need to be punished and we need to amke good with the victims families.

In response to another part of the article in question, no good cop carries a "throw away". A GOOD cop doesn't need one, only a dirty cop.

And while I don't certainly condone actions against civilians, they are doing what they are told to do. Its not like many of the soldiers are blood thirsty barbarians, but rather poor 18 and 19 yr/old kids looking for a way to pay for college. they are scared shit less, and they assume that doing what ever the commanders says, is right and will help protect themselves. That being said, yes there are those in the military that do want to be there just to kill [insert group of people from country the military is attacking], but I doubt that its a large significant portion of the population.

Sorry, the defense didn't work in Germany and it doesn't work here and now either.

Wow, he walked right into that one.

He always does.

Imagine a US soldier dropping their weapon, turning to face an insurgent dropping to his knees and then having his head blown off.
Think RO would say he was' just rotting meat' and then agree that reading about it makes him 'cream his jeans'?

Only if the soldier in question was a Muslim. We all know DK thinks killing Muslims is better than sex . . .

No shit these atrocities happen.

It's a fucking guerilla war.

No shit these atrocities happen.

It's a fucking guerilla war.

That's an excuse? It's a guerrilla war, so it's suddenly okay to kill people because they look like they might be terrorists? It's guerrilla was, so it's okay to detain people indefinitely on US soil because we think they might have done something naughty? Why is okay to ignore the rule of law, the Geneva Convention, and everything this country is supposed to stand for, just because our opponents are bad guys? Could someone please explain this?

That's an excuse? It's a guerrilla war, so it's suddenly okay to kill people because they look like they might be terrorists? It's guerrilla was, so it's okay to detain people indefinitely on US soil because we think they might have done something naughty? Why is okay to ignore the rule of law, the Geneva Convention, and everything this country is supposed to stand for, just because our opponents are bad guys? Could someone please explain this?

Because their skin is a different color than ours.

I mean honestly, Duh!

That's an excuse? It's a guerrilla war, so it's suddenly okay to kill people because they look like they might be terrorists? It's guerrilla was, so it's okay to detain people indefinitely on US soil because we think they might have done something naughty? Why is okay to ignore the rule of law, the Geneva Convention, and everything this country is supposed to stand for, just because our opponents are bad guys? Could someone please explain this?

It's not okay, in fact, the actions that are carried out are down right disgusting and heinous. There's no arguing that.

It doesn't matter how "okay" it is.

Ever since... uh, the formation of the USA, our army has been designed and developed to fight a full scale war against another nation. I.E. get in, kill off the other army, get out. See, in these wars, we fight a definate army in a more or less uniform fasion.

A good example of this is every single war except Vietnam and the one we're fighting right now.

However, when an army designed to fight a full scale war winds up in a guerilla war, everything goes to shit. The soldiers have to become diplomats to people who speak an entirely different language, have an almost entirely different culture and a very different way of going about life.

On top of this, the enemy will never engage directly. Instead, hit and run attacks are carried out, there are booby traps, IEDs, etc.

Essentially, the enemy is rarely battled face to face. It's more like fighting an army of phantoms.

Then eventually, after being shot at by these seemingly invisible soldiers, being nearly killed by unseen booby traps, and watching your friends and comrades slowly but surely being picked off, you realize that it is a far better idea to shoot first and ask questions later.

Try reading A Rumor of War by Phillip Caputo. Or any other single book on Vietnam or Iraq.

Then, and only then will you come to understand why acts this awful are carried out.

Most US citizens won't report their neighbors committing a crime. That's the explicit reason why murders are rarely solved in Washington DC - people just won't talk.

The military is merely a microcosm of the society it serves.

Want the culture in the military to change? Turn the rest of society into people who will rat each other out over pocket change.

So.... the military shouldn't be held to a higher standard?

It's not okay, in fact, the actions that are carried out are down right disgusting and heinous. There's no arguing that.

It doesn't matter how "okay" it is.

Ever since... uh, the formation of the USA, our army has been designed and developed to fight a full scale war against another nation. I.E. get in, kill off the other army, get out. See, in these wars, we fight a definate army in a more or less uniform fasion.

A good example of this is every single war except Vietnam and the one we're fighting right now.

However, when an army designed to fight a full scale war winds up in a guerilla war, everything goes to shit. The soldiers have to become diplomats to people who speak an entirely different language, have an almost entirely different culture and a very different way of going about life.

On top of this, the enemy will never engage directly. Instead, hit and run attacks are carried out, there are booby traps, IEDs, etc.

Essentially, the enemy is rarely battled face to face. It's more like fighting an army of phantoms.

Then eventually, after being shot at by these seemingly invisible soldiers, being nearly killed by unseen booby traps, and watching your friends and comrades slowly but surely being picked off, you realize that it is a far better idea to shoot first and ask questions later.

Try reading A Rumor of War by Phillip Caputo. Or any other single book on Vietnam or Iraq.

Then, and only then will you come to understand why acts this awful are carried out.

Will it also explain why such people, who have failed at being human, get excuses made for them more often than they get punished?

Will it also explain why such people, who have failed at being human, get excuses made for them more often than they get punished?

Yes my ignorant smartass friend, yes it certainly does.

Yes my ignorant smartass friend, yes it certainly does.

And job stress suddenly becomes a legitimate excuse to bring guns and bombs to the workplace and kill everyone...

Maybe the Nuremberg trials were a sham eh?

When you start throwing out rule of law just because "it's understandable why they did it", you might as well throw out law altogether.

And job stress suddenly becomes a legitimate excuse to bring guns and bombs to the workplace and kill everyone...

Maybe the Nuremberg trials were a sham eh?

When you start throwing out rule of law just because "it's understandable why they did it", you might as well throw out law altogether.

And if you had bothered to read someone's experience during the Vietnam War, you would realize that eventually instinct kicks in, and if I'm not mistaken, self-preservation is very high on the list.

If I get to go home in one piece, and they never come back to shoot at me again, it certainly does.

Oh, so you just defend yourself and want to go home again. How quaint!

You forgot you already mentioned how much you ENJOY KILLING. Stop trying to spin it; you failed, it's not working, no one believes you.

And if you had bothered to read someone's experience during the Vietnam War, you would realize that eventually instinct kicks in, and if I'm not mistaken, self-preservation is very high on the list.

I'm sorry, but whether you revert to instinctual behavior or not, you don't get excused from the application of law unless you renounce your humanity.

In which case, like a rabid animal, you get shot.

I don't allow excuses making violent crimes of any sort legitimate.