The evil continues

[Elana]

I am so sick about

reading that they beheaded that poor Korean man. I watched him pleading for his life last night and I stood by the

TV and cried, praying that somehow he would be spared. What a nightmare it is for the families of these victims to

know that their loved ones were killed by such a horrible, evil, sadistic death and then to have it all captured on

film for the world to see.

It is bothering me so much. I just had to write something about it. I wish I hadn't

seen the footage of him last night just begging for them to let him live.
:( :( :(

[JustPeachy]

:mad: I didn't even watch. I

already knew they'd do it. Sick bastards. Hope we hit 'em twice as hard now. And the SK's are gonna be wanting

some, too.

[belgareth]

It almost seems like they are

trying to goad the rest of the world into joining the fray. I can't understand what they hope to accomplish by

these acts. It certainly isn't going to reduce the number of people hunting for their heads.

[Elana]

It unreal how deranged they are. I

can't even imagine why they are painting their own heads on a giant bulls eye.

[CJ01]

I heard the news earlier on on the

news,it came as a last minute sort of thing right at the end. I knew it was gonna happen sooner or later but that

doesn´t help :(


What a nightmare it is for the families of these victims to know that their loved ones

were killed by such a horrible, evil, sadistic death and then to have it all captured on film for the world to

see.

I know what you mean about the news coverage-it´s not the first time I thought that myself-it is

indeed much more cruel for friends and family when they see such a thing and knowing that the rest of the world sees

their friend or loved one in such a humiliating state (koreans are very proud you must know) and then have their

exectution broadcasted! yuck!
I often think that certain things are not in the victims interest at all, more

often than not being shown in the media when they are in a really bad state makes the person affected feel even

worse! It´s very disrespectful! It´s time the media stopped being such pigs!

Don´t really know what to say

either but these people are not doing themselves or their `cause´ a favour that´s for sure just like the soldiers

who have been torturing Iraqui prisoners. All these things simply fuel the fire of hatred and violence.
Our

species is just a disgrace a lot of the time.

:(

CJ

[tallmacky]

I am surprised that for once we

don't have to hear the endless whinning and babble of the Abu Grahib prison "scandal".....Whatever disposition, its

as plain as daylight to see who harbors the more evil, even if one wanted to make a argument based on

that.

This reminds me of the Israeli and Palestinian issue. As if when a Palestinian makes a "mistake" we are

quickly told that not all are like this, that it is just a seperate incident and that it was for a "cause", then if

a Israeli makes a "mistake" its the evil empiror hurting the innocent.

Point is I don't care or want to hear

about their "cause", chopping off a civilians head does not validate a great cause, either does attacking 3,000 plus

innocent civilians via 9/11. So go fuck any of that "cause" and "right" talk. Before anyone gets all uppity I was

not directing that directly.

[tallmacky]

I don't like Bush nor do I

particularly hate him, or get into all of the drama. One guy who took a lot of shit, and came above more intelligent

and understanding is Tony Blair, that is one cool Mofo.

No one knows what to do with the media at all, things

have been tried in the past but leaving it open has problems but is the best policy. Truth is other humans are

giving you the News you get, and humans have a tendency to tell you what they want you to hear, I am sure there is

stuff going on behind the scenes that would shock anyone, both past and pressent.

............and if you did

hear their actual cause I doubt you would like it very much. :D

[CJ01]

I am surprised that for once we

don't have to hear the endless whinning and babble of the Abu Grahib prison "scandal"..... I´m not

surprised but I am a bit dissappointed.

It´s not a `scandal´-it IS a SCANDAL :mad: :mad:

[franki]

I am surprised

that for once we don't have to hear the endless whinning and babble of the Abu Grahib prison "scandal".....Whatever

disposition, its as plain as daylight to see who harbors the more evil, even if one wanted to make a argument based

on that.

This reminds me of the Israeli and Palestinian issue. As if when a Palestinian makes a "mistake" we

are quickly told that not all are like this, that it is just a seperate incident and that it was for a "cause", then

if a Israeli makes a "mistake" its the evil empiror hurting the innocent.

Point is I don't care or want to

hear about their "cause", chopping off a civilians head does not validate a great cause, either does attacking 3,000

plus innocent civilians via 9/11. So go fuck any of that "cause" and "right" talk. Before anyone gets all uppity I

was not directing that directly. Tallmacky, of course the Americans are fighting for a good cause, but you

only make things (the image of the States) worse, if you try to justify the mistakes they made in Abu Ghraib like

this.

[tallmacky]

I´m not surprised

but I am a bit dissappointed.

It´s not a `scandal´-it IS a SCANDAL :mad: :mad:

When

considering that we are at war, and considering what usually happens in wars in all its gruesome, the Abu Ghraib

incident seems like a Fraternity prank. Yes, in comparison it does. It was just a stepping ground for more violence

and thus became a great excuse and way to justify what has gone on after.

I didn't say it was right, but

when considering war it comes off almost passive. I don't know who that short cropped hair cut dumb bitch is in the

photos and no I don't like her, what a dumb little shit.

Considering all of the world's history I don't

think its a "SCANDAL!". To that high of a degree. There is some evil on both sides, there is partial "evil" in

everyone and everything. It is to what degree that I am concerned with. No, I would never rationalize what happen

there to what is happening ot civilians in Iraq, but I will compare the two situations and make my choice on

which is worse. And no I am not some sort of big Bush supporter, at all. I don't even regard him highly and its

hard to find much I do like in general.

[Elana]

I think the point he is making (I

could be wrong) is that American's were outraged by the behavior of those stupid soldiers. We don't agree with

that kind of treatment.

[tallmacky]

My point is everyone was so

outraged and pissed at what the actions of the soliders, but when it comes to how the "extremist" are logging off

people's heads, people immediately try to jump on board and tell us all how it is a seperate incident and not to

judge. That is my point! How many threads and or discussion about the prison scandal vs. the beheadings?

I

don't care what image I portray about the "states" besides I am almost Canadian? :D I don't care for the current

administration and I have apathy for politics. You think I do worse for the image of the states, how are the French

doing with the image of Europe during this time? :D I also said I don't care much at all for Bush, and in general

much more.

[tallmacky]

Plus isn't it best to be a

individualist vs. a collectivist, which most people are. Judge person by person, not country by country or group by

group. Which I may sound as if I did, but in general one should have a mixture of both, eh?

[Elana]

besides I am almost

Canadian?
LMAO :D :D

[CJ01]

When considering that we are

at war, and considering what usually happens in wars in all its gruesome really? I thought the war was

officially over according to Bush... :p
But war or not it´s not excuse.

I think the point is being missed by a

while. By doing the sh*t tortures in that prison they are not making a wrong right, those people I believe obviously

do not realize that their actions are not only hurting the overall cause of them being in Iraq ie bringing peace and

ending terror in the country which was ruled by a =?"("&%§( dictator but also making everything worse. I think

they´re too dumb to realize the political consequences of what they do!
They´re betraying their own nation(s) ,

making their already unpopular governments look even worse and simply adding fuel to the fire.

All these

arguments about 9)/11 have no place here at all, not because what happened does not matter but because they´re based

on emotion and not intelligence and objectivity which would be better imho. What I mean is by being scums those

scums are no better than the ones they call scums know what I mean? Even if a number from that òther side´ acts

like bloody sadistic monsters it´s no excuse for the rest to behave that way.
erm, I hope I´m making myself clear

enough so there´s no misunderstandings :D


besides I am almost Canadian? so How close are you

to the border now do you have a valid passport? :p

[Red Stripe]

I don't think the Abu Ghraib

thing qualified as torture. Hazing is more the word I'd use. But yes these people are demented the worst

way...Brainwashed from when they were still in the womb(literally).

What really sickens me is how the media

hold _us_ to a higher standard than the terrorists. They almost seem to be trying to incite some of the hatred just

for a compelling story. CNN and the BBC might as well adopt the Al-Jazeera logo, because their stories arent much

less biased.

[Elana]

Good post, Red Stripe. I agree

100%!

[CJ01]

I don't think the Abu Ghraib

thing qualified as torture. what word would you use then?

I prefer BBC to CNN but I don´t really watch

CNN anymore. the beep is not as influenced by the government as the US media imo.
You´re right, the mdia picks

whatever they want, may that be some big brother bollocks or a political issue.
The media today is so low in

quality it´s disgraceful and insulting.

[Elana]

The people in the Abu Ghraib prison

were not put there because they drove through a stop sign or played their music too loud. These are hard core

prisoners. There is a big difference between them and the innocent people that these monsters are killing on tape.

[franki]

The people in the Abu

Ghraib prison were not put there because they drove through a stop sign or played their music too loud. These are

hard core prisoners.
According to some of the media that is not true. But then, it's hard to find out

what's true.

[Elana]

According to some of

the media that is not true. But then, it's hard to find out what's true.
Al-Jazeera? :D

[franki]

I believe i read it on Yahoo ;)

[Elana]

Yahoo Saudi version :D

[CJ01]

The people in the Abu Ghraib

prison were not put there because they drove through a stop sign or played their music too loud. These are hard core

prisoners. In some cases it is not known why they are in prison or how they got there and it is irrelevant

in this case. Even if they´re not harmless as such they still have human rights like the prisoners in our western

countries.

[franki]

What makes me angry, is that things

like this happen every day in turkish prisons, yet some european politicians (and also american ones) want Turkey in

the EU! That's the double standard I have a problem with: For the USA it's wrong to treat it's prisoners like

that (I agree), but for Turkey it's ok.

[CJ01]

I know! Turkey´s a sort of bermuda

triangle-they´re middle-east -their religion,mentality etc and from what I can tell the population feels like

they´re more middle-east but also european. But they´ve been taking part in the eurovision song contest since.. I

don´t know :D

I think if Turkey actually became part of the EU some things might change however they need to get

off their asses and actually do something to prove they are willling to change certain things first!

It´s not

okay for the USA (although they would disagree) nor is it okay for Turkey. I know exactly what you´re saying and I

totally agree on this. :)

[Elana]

It´s not okay for the USA

(although they would disagree) nor is it okay for Turkey
No...we wouldn't disagree either.
The US was

not defending their actions in the slightest

[JustPeachy]

The problem I have with this

whole mess is with the publication of all this tripe in the first place. In U.S. prisons, prisoners become jailhouse

lawyers and regularly sue the government over using the wrong brand of peanut butter and not supplying enough fabric

softener in the prison laundry - and other big stuff like that, on accounta we're such vicious people over here.

But the media whores can and will sensationalize the happenings at Abu Graib and then pretend deep shock at the

results - not once, not twice, but three times now, and that doesn't even include the attacks on coalition forces!

That disgusts me far more than the ignorant, benighted heaps of dung who do these beheadings of innocent civilians,

the traitors! I'm not defending them, but at least the terrorists are honest enough to walk their talk. It's time

to just kick ass and take names. Call and raise.

[Red Stripe]

Exactly...there are bad apples

everywhere. Give any soldier too much time, a camera, and a few dozen bad guys under their control, and thats what

can happen.

Like I said in my previous post, franki, I'd call it more *hazing* than torture. Torture is

cutting peoples toes off. Dripping acid on people. Raping women in front of their loved ones...all of which happened

regularly in Saddam's Iraq. Taking pictures with someone in a dog collar and a black sash over their head, and in

humiliating sexual positions...while *completely wrong*, is not torture. Its hazing.

I hope those soldiers

get max time in prison, I am not defending them...just making a _very_ distinct comparison.

[tounge]

The people in the Abu

Ghraib prison were not put there because they drove through a stop sign or played their music too loud. These are

hard core prisoners. There is a big difference between them and the innocent people that these monsters are killing

on tape.


Good post Elana. I agree 101%

I also am a Bush supporter. He has a much better

understanding of what this war is about than 90% of the media. And for you other people of civilized nations, you

are already in the war. You think your cities are safe from the crazed evil bastards. THINK AGAIN! It is only a

matter of time.

[EXIT63]

These beheadings may

all seem rather shocking now. But don't worry. You'll get used to it. After all, eventually there will be

thousands of heads being lopped off daily. As they become more and more frequent, I'm sure the media will help us

to understand and embrace this wonderful culture and religion. So different from our own. They'll point out how

we must not be bigoted. How we must tolerate, accept and welcome this diverse culture. After all, how could people

who have chosen to live in the seventh century possibly be inferior to people who live in the 21st century? They

cannot be. They're just wonderful people. Islam is a peaceful religion. We're the ones who don't understand.

But we will understand one day. It won't happen over night. But it will happen.











Unless we WAKE the F@#K UP

already!!!



sheesh!

[Red Stripe]

It also erks me that you

don't see more Muslim Americans out there vehimately standing against whats going on over there...and what these

people are doing in their name. In fact, you don't see any at all. And don't tell me its because they're afraid

of backlash...the relatively minor backlash coming to them is because they are NOT out there trying to ease tension.

Silence is the sound of support in my book. Of course, I'm probably being 'ethnocentric'.

http://66.45.239.227/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Elana]

Yep! Even after 9/11 they said

nothing! Well.....with the exception of place the blame on us. "Hey...If the US didn't support Israel none of this

would have happened."
They took/take no responsibility.

[DrSmellThis]

The beheadings are the work of

Al-Q associates. They're playing to the worst Western images of horror, thus getting the most reaction per murder.

Al-Q are equating these with Abu-G abuses and presence of peacekeeping forces, to confuse people morally and short

circuit their indignation. If we play our cards right in negating these factors, this "clever stupidity" should

backfire. Certainly the prison abuses now look like adolescent stupidity and hazing by comparison, though they are

not comparable, except for both playing into horrible images (i.e., sexual humiliation, Freddy movies, etc.) from

the others' culture. So a thing Westerners can do is, rather than indulge our horror, let it turn to indignation.

Conversely, it would be playing into their hands to let this become a Judeo-Christian vs. Muslim thing, or

even a non-muslim vs. Muslim thing, for us. They desperately want us to be playing the role of crusader and for

everyone to tell the story their way, so they can rally "all Muslims everywhere" (and there are quite a few of

them). That is why Bush would do well to tone down the religious rhetoric right now where international politics are

concerned. But his "we will not be intimidated" reaction to this was well to the point.

[DrSmellThis]

Yep! Even after

9/11 they said nothing! Well.....with the exception of place the blame on us. "Hey...If the US didn't support

Israel none of this would have happened."
They took/take no responsibility.I agree Western muslims would do

well to stand in condemnation more vociferously. They do indeed have a special responsibility there, which should

transcend American politics.

I am also puzzled (and shocked) by the amnesty Saudi Arabia has offered to

terrorists. What the hell kind of timing is that, the day after the beheading? When they took out most of the big

Al-Q cell I hoped they were maybe headed in a better direction.

[Elana]

I am also puzzled by the

amnesty Saudi Arabia has offered to terrorists. What the hell kind of timing is that, the day after the beheading?

When they took out most of the big Al-Q cell I hoped they were maybe headed in a better direction.


I

wouldn't expect anything better from the Saudi's. The Saudi Royalty is being looked at as possibly providing the

terrorists responsible for the beheadings, with police cars and uniforms.

[DrSmellThis]

I knew some Saudi security

people were accused of providing the uniforms and being terrorist infiltrators, but hadn't heard the Royalty link.

Saudi's are saying they could have bought the uniforms at a surplus store, and that they don't want the West to

think they're being infiltrated like that. That is not to say I trust them, given their history of terrorist

support.

[EXIT63]

They're next.

[tounge]

The Saudis are playing both sides

against the middle. They despise the nation of Israel. Therefore they really dislike the USA because of our support

for Israel. On the other hand they tolerate us,because if it wasn't for Uncle Sucker, the Royal Saudi family would

be a thing of the past. Saudi money is behind a lot of the Al-Q funding.

And it doesn't hurt that AL-Q has

a butt buddy in the Western Media. They play our media like a fine violin.

[metroman]

The only thing Bush has

accomplished with the Iraqi conflagration is to "stir up a hornets nest"...If you thought the radical elements of

Islam hated us before you dont want to know what they think of us now. As despicable & abhorrent as the beheadings

are they pale in comparison to what the US has wrought against many innocent Iraqi civilians: men, women & children.

To attack a sovereign country without provocation has to be a new low in American Foreign policy. As a result I'm

afraid the national security of the US has been greatly compromised.

Other events of note: The Supreme

Court rules that Cheney doesn't have to reveal the details of his secret energy task force for now; certainly not

before the election (they rigged the last one)...and they make a ruling curtailing the power of judges in

sentencing...Someone asked me what I was smoking when I compared the Supreme Court to a military

Junta...Heellllooooo!!!

"Fahrenheit 9/11" came out today so there is some hope...Finally we have some

objective analysis...

[xxxPantero]

DAMMIT!

This

beheading shit just sickens me. It also pisses me off.

Wait, maybe that's what they wanted. I don't like

Bush, either, but so far, Kerry looks like too indecisive for me. What we need to do is kill every last one of those

fucking terrorists. Hopefully Bush won't put us out of the frying pan, only to end up in a fire.

I don't

know what's happening, only what I see on TV and in the newspapers. But cutting off a persons head to make a

display is just sickening. But wait, this is war, it's not supposed to be civil. But to keep peace with other

countries, it's just supposed to LOOK civil, as if there were rules. But there are no rules, except to look good.

Don't want to seem evil for killing civilians, but dammit, if it will strike a big enough blow to certain groups,

we may as well. Isn't that what they're doing? Why don't we beat them at their own fucking game.

What the

hell are we all talking about, anyway? All that we've known is our life. None of us has been a soldier in this war.

None of us has watched our loved ones slain, none of us make the decisions for the armed forces. All we know is this

freaking computer screen where we can rant on about the theory of war. We know nothing, I know nothing.

Maybe

the publicising of the beheading was meant to force the U.S. into a blind attack, instead of a well thought-out

plan. Sometimes I just can't stand it any longer, and feel like joining up. But to me, there's no such thing as a

part time soldier. It's something that lasts a lifetime, and I don't want to commit myself to that. I don't want

that to become my life.

I don't know what to think. It's easier to not think about it until it affects me.

I'd rather be busy worrying about what seems now to be petty. I don't want to be in the position to change the

world, and I don't want to try. I just want to believe that what I'm doing is right. I just want the army to

capture the bad guys, and for the rest of the bad guys to say "Hey let's not mess with America." Then I want to

live my life the way I want to live it and not be afraid that either another country or our own president is going

to say that I am not free to be a certain way - when that way harms NO

ONE.

AGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

[belgareth]

DAMMIT!



This beheading shit just sickens me. It also pisses me off.

Wait, maybe that's what they wanted. I don't

like Bush, either, but so far, Kerry looks like too indecisive for me. What we need to do is kill every last one of

those fucking terrorists. Hopefully Bush won't put us out of the frying pan, only to end up in a fire.

I don't

know what's happening, only what I see on TV and in the newspapers. But cutting off a persons head to make a

display is just sickening. But wait, this is war, it's not supposed to be civil. But to keep peace with other

countries, it's just supposed to LOOK civil, as if there were rules. But there are no rules, except to look good.

Don't want to seem evil for killing civilians, but dammit, if it will strike a big enough blow to certain groups,

we may as well. Isn't that what they're doing? Why don't we beat them at their own fucking game.

What the

hell are we all talking about, anyway? All that we've known is our life. None of us has been a soldier in this war.

None of us has watched our loved ones slain, none of us make the decisions for the armed forces. All we know is this

freaking computer screen where we can rant on about the theory of war. We know nothing, I know nothing.

Maybe

the publicising of the beheading was meant to force the U.S. into a blind attack, instead of a well thought-out

plan. Sometimes I just can't stand it any longer, and feel like joining up. But to me, there's no such thing as a

part time soldier. It's something that lasts a lifetime, and I don't want to commit myself to that. I don't want

that to become my life.

I don't know what to think. It's easier to not think about it until it affects me.

I'd rather be busy worrying about what seems now to be petty. I don't want to be in the position to change the

world, and I don't want to try. I just want to believe that what I'm doing is right. I just want the army to

capture the bad guys, and for the rest of the bad guys to say "Hey let's not mess with America." Then I want to

live my life the way I want to live it and not be afraid that either another country or our own president is going

to say that I am not free to be a certain way - when that way harms NO ONE.



AGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Amen! Well said.

[Red Stripe]

To attack a

sovereign country without provocation has to be a new low in American Foreign policy. As a result I'm afraid the

national security of the US has been greatly compromised.


http://66.45.239.227/forum/images/smilies/ls/icon_lol.gif

[DrSmellThis]

I agree it is a new low.



On the other hand Iraquis did want Saddham out, and can understand that war is "messy" (i.e., innocents always

die) more than we give them credit for. We went to war on a mistaken premise, but given that "we" believed the

premise and drove out a murderous tyrant, we sort of "got lucky," as badly as it turned out. Now we have a

responsibility to clean up the mess, which sucks for our economy. I hope the UN will help.

I agree with much of

your post Metro, but not the part about the beheadings being small evils in comparison. It is not so simple to

measure evils against each other as you seem to suppose. Our evil at least has some grey moral areas (given our

mistaken assumptions, especially) and areas open to debate. In other words, you can't measure degrees of evil by

just counting bodies. "Destruction" is not exactly the same thing as "evil". That is not to say that what we did is

excusable in any way. But if you were right in your measurements of the evils, Metro, then terrorism could be seen

as just a small, necessary evil, and we should maybe feel just fine setting off bombs in DC or on Wall

Street. I don't know you, but I doubt you come from that place. That seems like dangerous thinking. It plays well

for progressive American politics, but not for the bigger picture and world IMO, which desperately needs to

elimenate terrorists and terrorism. On the other hand, "think globally" is good progressive politics and good

international philosophy.

I too am looking forward to Moore's movie, as I know he'll have some points to make

that need making; though I don't know if even Moore would claim it as objective and unbiased.

[metroman]

We went to

war on a mistaken premise

This is key...Were the neocons put up by Ahmad Chalabi & the I.N.C (Iraqi

National Congress) or did the neocons, led by Cheney, allow themselves to be ostensibly used by Chalabi to provide a

convenient rationalization for invasion?

I agree Iraq is better off without Saddam...(Why the hell didn't

they finish the job in 1991 during Desert Storm, when a lot of courageous Iraqi resistance fighters that were

helping our cause, were left to perish at the hands of Saddam? )...now the question is: "Is Iraq better off without

the US..." I think a lot of their people would answer in the affirmative. Of course you have to ask yourself that

whatever ends up filling the power vacuum over there, will it be better or worse than Saddam.

[Red Stripe]

I too agree that the

ungrateful little bastards are better off without us there. Of course leaving prematurely would have resulted in an

even bigger bloodbath and a gigantic power vacuum. This is also, to answer your question about '91, the reason we

did not help the resistance. Doing that would have created a huge civil war, all three sects -Sunni, Shiite, and

Kurd would have been struggling for control of the country and its enormous wealth. Now they all have equal

representation, and a true democracy is about to emerge smack dab in the middle of those who would love to tear it

down.

But yea basically their sentiment is like.."OK thanks now get the #@% out!". Oh well...We absorb the

harsh words of the complacent, free world and move along, asking for nothing in return. (as always)

[jo23er]

Do you really think that Iraq and

Hussein has anything to do with terrorists? Cant you really see that this whole war is done only for Iraq's oil?

How about all the revenue that the weapon manufacturers are making now to whom Bush is so much commited to? I agreed

with Bush - to some point - when he assaulted Afganistan because at least you could see terrorists based

there.

But what is going on with this new war is outrageous. You really cant blame the extremists if they

behave the way they behave. How would you react if your country was invaded and occupied by foreign

forces?

9/11 was a terrible tragedy but its up to us (and i mean the whole world) to make sure that such a

thing will not happen again. BUT making wars is not the way to do it. Extremists react when there is an equal

action. It is a vicious cycle.

[koolking1]

None of this crap would be

happening if we, the USA as I'm a citizen, had spent all that Iraq money, time, and military might going after Al

Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden instead of Saddam Hussein who posed little threat and had not been involved in 9/11.

Now, we have certainly created a whole new set of enemies and the stage is set for more and more of this same sort

of gruesomely evil behavior. Well, now we have to keep the fight going and I'm wondering who's next - Saudia

Arabia seems likely, perhaps North Korea, hopefully in my own mind - Iran (we just can't allow them to have nukes -

no way). This whole war is going to go on for a very very long time and we better get used to it - remember

Vietnam, that war was on TV for 10 years and we're still not really over it. And, like in Vietnam, we really only

have a handful of supporting countries (countries willing to use their own soldiers to help our cause). Al-Quaeda

likely has had "agents" in-place all over the world, including the USA for some 20 odd years and they are damn smart

and will strike again. I have nothing personally against our President but unfortunately his government does give

off the impression of being very willing to be war-profiteers and this isn't good but if he isn't reelected,

nothing will change anyways. We better get real used to this stuff. Tonight Sue and I are going to be with this

other couple, very lovely people, we'll smoke some weed, have a few drinks, and make love all night - we'll

momentarily forget all this crap. But, come Monday, it will come back again and, sadly, that's just the way it's

gonna be.

[a.k.a.]

I feel sorry for Kim Sun Il’s

mother. From what I’ve read she’s a simple old country woman with no knowledge of world politics. One day she’s

proud of her boy that got himself a good education and is working for an important international firm. The next day

she sees him broken, pleading desperately for his life. And on the next day he’s dead.
How is the poor

woman going to make any sense out of this? Her whole world must be upside down.

But there are hundreds of

Iraqis under detention simply because some snitch said they might have some information on who knows what (WMD? Al

Qaida cells? One of the jokers in the 52 card pack of Most Wanted?). They’re not charged with any crime. They’re not

captured in any battles. They’re just dragged off the street or rousted out of their homes and locked away for who

knows how long.
And they have mothers too. And their worlds are turning upside down.

Why is one

mother’s suffering worth less than another’s? And if it’s not, how can anybody claim the moral high

ground?




if he isn't reelected, nothing will change anyways

This

is what worries me the most. The Bush administration has dug our country so deeply into this vicious cycle of

violence that I can barely see daylight. Evil is not a corporeal being that can be killed or eliminated. Terrorism

is not an international conspiracy that can be “smoked out”. And, even if you want to be totally cynical about this

thing, the oil being pumped out of that country isn’t even going to make a dent in the national debt that the

Bushies have created.

[metroman]

I feel sorry for

Kim Sun Il’s mother. From what I’ve read she’s a simple old country woman with no knowledge of world politics. One

day she’s proud of her boy that got himself a good education and is working for an important international firm.

The next day she sees him broken, pleading desperately for his life. And on the next day he’s dead.
How is the

poor woman going to make any sense out of this? Her whole world must be upside down.

But there are

hundreds of Iraqis under detention simply because some snitch said they might have some information on who knows

what (WMD? Al Qaida cells? One of the jokers in the 52 card pack of Most Wanted?). They’re not charged with any

crime. They’re not captured in any battles. They’re just dragged off the street or rousted out of their homes and

locked away for who knows how long.
And they have mothers too. And their worlds are turning upside down.



Why is one mother’s suffering worth less than another’s? And if it’s not, how can anybody claim the moral high

ground?





This is what worries me the most. The Bush administration has dug our country so

deeply into this vicious cycle of violence that I can barely see daylight. Evil is not a corporeal being that can be

killed or eliminated. Terrorism is not an international conspiracy that can be “smoked out”. And, even if you want

to be totally cynical about this thing, the oil being pumped out of that country isn’t even going to make a dent in

the national debt that the Bushies have created.

Thumbs up! Great post...:):)

[DrSmellThis]

It's not necessary to claim

high moral ground, except in choosing to move forward in one way, instead of another which would put one on lower

ground. So implicit in anyone doing anything consciously or non-randomly is some sort of moral claim.

Everyone

sane agrees we need to be out of Iraq, I think. People pretend there is huge disagreement here for political

purposes. This is a boring issue, per se, as its already been decided. We will leave as fast as we can, given safety

and infrastructure obligations. The only unresolved questions are around details of how we leave. By and

large, even those relatively few Iraquis who want us out immediately are those who want to take over by force

themselves, especially those with international terrorist (e.g., Al Quaeda) links. We can't fall for their BS when

they claim to be speaking for average Iraquis.

The fact that there is now a war is "spilled milk". Logically, if

you are going to fight a war, which we for the present have no choice about -- until things settle to the point

where the Iraquis and UN can completely take over -- you have to fight it well. To fight it well you have to take

suspected enemies as prisoners. There is no way to avoid this, no matter how much we empathize with prisoners'

families. Again, this is a boring issue. How we do this is interesting, however. There needs to be

some sort of "due cause" documented on each prisoner and subject to oversight scrutiny, for example. Has there

been?

The above coalition acts, then, do not qualify as being comparable to the Al-Queda beheadings. To do that

confuses the issue even more, as Al Q is currently marginalized within the Muslim world. There aren't a lot of

reasonable people defending them (Surveys indicate a lot of Muslims agree with Bin Laden's general political

analyses, but that relatively few agree with his actions.) So why give so much attention to the relatively

few that are?

It's good to stay centered when thinking about such serious things, unless you're running for

office and just want to talk trash about the other side as much as possible, like Bush, Kerry and Nader are doing.



BTW, AKA, I empathize with many of your points.

[DrSmellThis]

An interesting link, relevant

to the terrorism discussions on the L-S board:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/26/beheadin

g.backlash.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/26/beheading.backlash.ap/index.html)

[a.k.a.]

It's not

necessary to claim high moral ground, except in choosing to move forward in one way, instead of another which would

put one on lower ground. So implicit in anyone doing anything consciously or non-randomly is some sort of moral

claim.
Huh???


Everyone sane agrees we need to be out of Iraq, I think. People

pretend there is huge disagreement here for political purposes. This is a boring issue, per se, as its already been

decided. We will leave as fast as we can, given safety and infrastructure obligations.
By "infrastructure

obligations" do you mean all the contracts which the Coalition Provisional Authority granted to mostly US

firms?
Some of those projects will take years, even if everything stays on

schedule.


The only unresolved questions are around details of how we leave. By and

large, even those relatively few Iraquis who want us out immediately are those who want to take over by force

themselves, especially those with international terrorist (e.g., Al Quaeda) links. We can't fall for their BS when

they claim to be speaking for average Iraquis.

What is your source? According to a May poll

comissioned by the CPA 55% of Iraqi's would feel safer if the US left immediately.

"The poll, requested by

the Coalition Provisional Authority last month but not released to the American public, found more than half of

Iraqis surveyed believed both that they'd be safer without U.S. forces and that all Americans behave like the

military prison guards pictured in the Abu Ghraib abuse

photos."

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/ap/654779841.html?did=654779841&FMT=ABS&FMTS=&date=Jun+16%2C+2004&a

uthor=JOHN+SOLOMON&desc=U.S.+poll+of+Iraqis+finds+widespread+anger+at +prison+abuse%2C+worries+about+safety


(poll results can be found at http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/cpapoll_files/v3_document.htm

)


The fact that there is now a war is "spilled milk". Logically, if you are going to fight

a war, which we for the present have no choice about

Which “war” are you talking about?
The

“preemptive war to protect us from WMD” turns out to have been a ruse. The “war to topple Saddam” has already been

won. The “war over Iraqi oil” is at a stalemate, and we do have the choice of giving up and letting the Iraqis fight

over it. The “war on terrorism” is a ubiquitous sort of thing. Per se (Check it out. i can use Latin too.) it is an

impossibility. Terrorism is a tactic, and wars can only be fought against specific forces. In the case of Iraq, the

“war on terrorism” is directed against people that blow things up and kidnap folks in order to get the US out of

their country. And we have the choice of getting out or maintaining a permanent occupation

army.


-- until things settle to the point where the Iraquis and UN can completely take

over
You are implying that the US is some sort of stabilizing force. All evidence points to the

contrary. The occupation forces can’t even protect their own people much less the Iraqi population. Kidnappings

have risen to the point where parents are afraid to send their kids to school. More and more people don’t dare to do

business with us. And just being in the vicinity of occupation forces could get you blown

up.


-- you have to fight it well. To fight it well you have to take suspected enemies as

prisoners. There is no way to avoid this, no matter how much we empathize with prisoners' families. Again, this is

a boring issue. How we do this is interesting, however. There needs to be some sort of "due cause"

documented on each prisoner and subject to oversight scrutiny, for example. Has there been?
According to

Amnesty International, there has not:
"Incommunicado detention
People held in prisons and detention centres

run by Coalition forces – such as Camp Cropper in Baghdad International Airport (which closed in October), Abu

Ghraib Prison and the detention centres in Habbaniya Airport and Um Qasr – were invariably denied access to family

or lawyers and any form of judicial review of their detention. Some were held for weeks or months; others appeared

to be held indefinitely."
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/irq-summary-eng




The above coalition acts, then, do not qualify as being comparable to the Al-Queda

beheadings.
Maybe not. I guess it depends on your criteria. My criteria is the amount of suffering

caused. And my conclusion was that the suffering caused by terrorists AND the suffering caused by coalition forces

is immeasurable. Therefore neither the terrorists nor the occupation forces can claim moral superiority.
I

don’t understand what your criteria is, otherwise I might be able to empathize with it.

To do

that confuses the issue even more, as Al Q is currently marginalized within the Muslim world. There aren't a lot of

reasonable people defending them
How many reasonable people are defending the US occupation?




(Surveys indicate a lot of Muslims agree with Bin Laden's general political analyses, but that

relatively few agree with his actions.) So why give so much attention to the relatively few that

are?

BTW, AKA, I empathize with many of your points.

[DrSmellThis]

Did you have a specific

question in mind when you said "huh???" So far all I can say is that your retort would have been more effective with

four question marks. :rolleyes:

I am not trying to argue so much about "facts" just yet, but to find

some basic areas of agreement on a philosophical level. Some of the larger discussion needs to happen on this level.

So I could care less for the moment what "all the contracts" are. Whatever the crucial and urgently needed systems

are for water and basic energy needs, by some minimal compromise of a definition; most can agree we have an

obligation to make sure they are up and running, or at least limping along, inasmuch as they still need our help.

Not having basic services is one of the things the Iraqi people are the most upset about. I'm fine with others

debating which projects are and are not crucial and urgent. Although it has made sense for us to help materially and

financially with the rebuilding, of course it will be best when they are able to finish the rest themselves. I

don't agree with taking reconstruction jobs from them for purely selfish economic reasons, but if we are

paying for a job it makes sense that we award the job to a competitive bidder, or at least turn over lump sums

based on competitive estimates and guarantees of a job's completion.

RE: my "source": You pointed out one

survey, (which I now remember seeing) and seem to be suggesting they all just hate everything about us, want us out

yesterday, and wish we never showed up. If the vast majority of them, including their government and most

knowledgeable citizens, felt that way, I'd want us out yesterday too. I'd happily agree with you. I wish we never

went, myself, and wish we could have left as soon as the statue fell. But here is a detailed BBC survey of 2500

Iraquis that says some very different things.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm



Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. Also, most of their provisional government members want us there

for a while longer, according to recent news reports I've seen. Yeah, we appointed them, which everyone agrees is

not as good as the upcoming elections, but their opinions count for something too, as they are sort of

representative of different camps.

Why are you taking a contentious tone about an ordinary use of the word

"war"? Of course, you don't just tip over the statue and call the war "over". No war is over until a reasonable

amount of peace or safety ensues. We could have left, but the war we started would not have been over.

The

survery I just posted suggests that security is by far the biggest concern for Iraqis. No one is saying our

forces are some perfect stabilizing force, but your pointing out unprevented violence is not proof that they aren't

significantly stabilizing. Everyone agrees there are disadvantages to our providing the security, which is why we

have to turn it over ASAP. The question is whether Iraquis were immediately ready to provide all their own security

needs (is there any remotely compelling argument that they were?), and prevent a civil war which we would have been

partly (largely?)responsible for had we just bolted. We don't want to be there, by and large, we just got ourselves

into a mess. Tell me your plan for security in Iraq. What would you have done, and what would you do now? As of

yesterday, the Iraquis have sovereignty, and if they tell us to leave we will leave.

Again, I don't

quantitatively compare terrorism and/or its sadistic beheadings of innocents with the Iraq war we mistakenly

started, so of course I have no criteria for measuring one against the other in the one dimensional way you are

attempting. Both originated from mistakes. Our armies caused more physical damage during the last two years, theirs

over the course of time. Their intentions, sadism, and achievement of cruel horror are worse. Both sides have

hypocrisy, theirs is more poignant due to the constant Koran thumping while, say, plowing airplanes into buildings,

intending to take out as many innocents as possible.

Regarding your last question, lots of reasonable

people, most of both Democrats and Republicans, are defending our forces being there for the time being, given that

it's too late to "take back" the war, just as lots of reasonable people also believe we went there on a false

premise. On the other hand, people who believe we should have just tipped the statue and bolted are a very small

minority, whether among Democrats, Republicans or Iraqis.

[a.k.a.]

I am not trying

to argue so much about "facts" just yet, but to find some basic areas of agreement on a philosophical level.


That sounds like a good idea. The problem is philosophical generalizations are useless if they don't

pertain to the facts at hand. For example...

Whatever the crucial and urgently needed systems

are for water and basic energy needs, by some minimal compromise of a definition; most can agree we have an

obligation to make sure they are up and running, or at least limping along, inasmuch as they still need our help.

Not having basic services is one of the things the Iraqi people are the most upset about. I'm fine with others

debating which projects are and are not crucial and urgent. Although it has made sense for us to help materially and

financially with the rebuilding, of course it will be best when they are able to finish the rest themselves. I

don't agree with taking reconstruction jobs from them for purely selfish economic reasons, but if we are

paying for a job it makes sense that we award the job to a competitive bidder, or at least turn over lump sums

based on competitive estimates and guarantees of a job's completion.
....this seems like a noble

philosophy but...With all the billions of dollars being pumped out of our national treasury, these corporations’

record at rebuilding Iraq is worse than Saddam’s record of rebuilding after the first Gulf War — under international

sanctions.
The contracts I speak of are legally binding documents drawn up by the CPA and guaranteeing

specified payments. There are no such documents guaranteeing that any of the Iraqi's infrastructural needs will be

met.
Reconstruction is a good thing, “per se”. But, under the circumstances, is it unreasonable to

question whether the actually existing reconstruction projects are more likely to enrich corporations than to meet

the needs of Iraqi people? Given our current budget deficit, are they a sound investment? Are they worth keeping

our troops in harm’s way?

The poll you linked us to was interesting but I fail to see how it reflects

either a broad base of support or a marginalized opposition.
Of course, in this poll, only 15% of Iraqis

wanted the troops to leave Iraq IMMEDIATELY, whereas 36% wanted them to leave after an Iraqi government was in

place. (I wasn’t sure if this meant the Iraqi governing council that will be installed in June, or the one that

will presumably be elected in January.)

But did you consider the bigger picture?
In response to the

question, “Do you support the presence of the coalition forces in Iraq?” 13.2% strongly support, 26.3% somewhat

support, 19.6% somewhat oppose and 31.3% strongly oppose. So you had roughly the same percentage of people opposed

to the coalition forces as in the CPA poll. The difference is that by March (when the BBC poll was published) Iraqis

where not as adamant about getting the troops out as they were in May (when the CPA poll was taken).

The

Abu Ghraib photos came out in April. Coincidence? Maybe. But a legitimate hypothesis would be that opposition became

more emphatic and support grew weaker.
Did you also notice that, in the BBC poll, more than 40% of Iraqis

had no confidence in US/UK occupation forces and that — in response to the question “Who should take care of

regaining public security in Iraq?” only 7.3% said the US and only 5.3% said coalition forces?

Once again,

looking for common ground between us and the Iraqi people is a noble philosophy. But is the presence of US/UK

“security” forces a legitimate basis for such a thing.


Why are you taking a contentious

tone about an ordinary use of the word "war"?
I would describe my tone as “incredulous” but that’s

besides the point. In ordinary usage “war” pertains to some form of armed conflict, such as the current conflict

over Iraqi sovereignty — which we do not need to be involved in. But you refer to a “war” that we have no choice BUT

to be involved in. As far as I can see, the only type of conflict that falls under this category is a struggle for

survival. So I asked for clarification.
What does does my tone have to do with your capacity to answer a

legitimate question?


The survery I just posted suggests that security is by far

the biggest concern for Iraqis.
True. But did you notice that they have more confidence in their own

ability to meet their security needs than in the coalition forces?


No one is saying our

forces are some perfect stabilizing force, but your pointing out unprevented violence is not proof that they aren't

significantly stabilizing.
Perhaps this is where some philosophical agreement would help iron this

argument out.
Where does the burden of proof lie in legitimizing the presence of occupation forces? I

don’t know what would constitute “proof” in your philosophy. But I’ve offered examples of the in-securities which

coalition forces create for the Iraqis. Are there ANY examples of coalition forces protecting Iraqi citizens from

anything?

Everyone agrees there are disadvantages to our providing the security, which is why

we have to turn it over ASAP. The question is whether Iraquis were immediately ready to provide all their own

security needs (is there any remotely compelling argument that they were?), and prevent a civil war which we would

have been partly (largely?)responsible for had we just bolted.
Once again, security is a rational goal,

per se. But there is no evidence that the coalition forces can play this role. And the entire premise of your

argument is paternalistic. The coalition is an occupation army, for God's sake. When the Soviets occupied

Afghanistan, nobody took their claims of protecting the people seriously. Why should the US claims be taken any more

seriously.

We don't want to be there, by and large, we just got ourselves into a mess. Tell

me your plan for security in Iraq.
I'm not an Iraqi. I'm an American, and this is my plan for American

security: Let's get the hell out of there while the getting's good.

What would you have

done,
I'm not an imperialist, but if I was, I would have tried to buy the Ba'athist leadership. The

Ba'ath party is the only secular force left in that country, with a history of opposition to Al Qaida and other

Islamicist groups.

and what would you do now?
Rather than try to ferret out the

Republican guard elemnts, through illegal detentions and unethical interogations, I would be trying to lure them in

with promises of power and money.

As of yesterday, the Iraquis have sovereignty, and if they

tell us to leave we will leave.
????

Again, I don't quantitatively compare

terrorism and/or its sadistic beheadings of innocents with the Iraq war we mistakenly

started,
“Mistakenly started”? As in “Oops, we didn’t mean to invade their country?” or as in “Oops, we

didn’t think these suckers would fight back so hard?”

so of course I have no criteria for

measuring one against the other in the one dimensional way you are attempting. Both originated from mistakes. Our

armies caused more physical damage during the last two years, theirs over the course of time.
The Iraqi

death toll is estimated at over 10,000. Which course of time are you talking about?

Their

intentions, sadism, and achievement of cruel horror are worse.
If you have no way of measuring this in my

“one dimensional” way, how do you make this determination in whatever dimension you operate in?



Both sides have hypocrisy, theirs is more poignant due to the constant Koran

thumping
So thumping the Koran is more hypocritical than pretending to be the

liberators?

while, say, plowing airplanes into buildings, intending to take out as many

innocents as possible.
There were no Iraqis on those planes.


Regarding your

last question, lots of reasonable people, most of both Democrats and Republicans, are defending our forces

being there for the time being, given that it's too late to "take back" the war, just as lots of reasonable people

also believe we went there on a false premise. On the other hand, people who believe we should have just tipped the

statue and bolted are a very small minority, whether among Democrats, Republicans or Iraqis.
Would world

opinion polls sway your opinion on this?

Sorry. I'm tired. You can win the bloody debate. You certainly

deserve it for holding your own while defending such an untenable position.
The only reason any of this is

"interesting" is that people's lives are at stake. You seemed like somebody that could be reasoned with. Obviously,

at least one of us is not up to that task.

[DrSmellThis]

Survey

finds hope in occupied Iraq

An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the

war in Iraq began about a year ago.

The survey, carried out for the BBC and other broadcasters, also

suggests many are optimistic about the next 12 months and opposed to violence.

But of the 2,500 people

questioned, 85% said the restoration of public security must be a major priority.

Opinion was split about who

should be responsible, with an Iraqi government scoring highest.

Creating job opportunities was rated more

likely to improve security effectively than hiring more police.

However on various issues, there were stark

differences of opinion according to region or ethnic group.

About 6,000 interviews were carried out in total,

half in Autumn last year and half this Spring, in a project run by Oxford Research International.

Seventy per

cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.



And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war.

The poll company's director Dr

Christoph Sahm, said Iraqis trained as interviewers travelled around the country to speak to randomly selected

people in their homes.

The survey reflected Iraq's distribution of population, balance between men and women,

and religious and ethnic mix.

In the poll of Iraqis, nearly 80% favoured a unified state with a central

government in Baghdad; only 14% opted for a system of regional governments combined with a federal authority.



The majority was even bigger among Iraqi Arabs, but for the Kurdish minority, the situation was reversed, with

more than 70% backing a federal system.

There is an existing Kurdish regional government in the north, the

powers of which were recognised by Iraq's interim constitution, signed last week.

BBC diplomatic correspondent

Barnaby Mason says the American and British governments will take some comfort from the results.

The survey

shows overwhelming disapproval of political violence, especially of attacks on the Iraqi police but also on American

and other coalition forces.

But among Arabs, nearly one in five told the pollsters that attacks on coalition

forces were acceptable.

About 15% say foreign forces should leave Iraq now, but many more say they should stay

until an Iraqi government is in place or security is restored.

Looking back, more Iraqis think the invasion was

right than wrong, although 41% felt that the invasion "humiliated Iraq".

But by ethnicity, only one in three

Arabs believed their country was liberated - compared to four out of five Kurds.

Safety conscious



Dan Plesch, a security expert at Birkbeck college in London said that the poll was good news for the leaders of

countries who began the invasion a year ago this week.

"This poll indicates that Iraqis strongly support a

unified country with strong leadership. They don't want to see the country divided up and they don't want to see

an Islamic government."

Regaining security is rated as by far the highest priority at 85%, followed by holding

elections for a national government (30%), ensuring the majority of Iraqis can make a decent living (30%) and

reviving the economy (28%).

And only just over a third of people report that their electricity supply is good.



A key concern for the Americans as they prepare to hand over power in June is the unpopularity of the people

they are putting in place.

Leaders unloved

Their favoured son Ahmed Chalabi had no support at all,

while Saddam Hussein remains one of the six most popular politicians in the country.

(note: Chalabi has since

fallen out of favor with the U.S. as well.)

Dr Mustafa Alani of the Royal United Services Institute said that

the Iraqis wanted a strong leader, but had not found one yet.

"The main point is that the Iraqis are now

looking for a strong leader who can save the day. "As long as the governing council is considered illegitimate and

illegal in Iraq, I think they will have to work hard to find something more legitimate and more legal before they

disengage from the country."

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28

/iraq.handover/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/index.html)



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/

iraq.allawi/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.allawi/index.html)

[DrSmellThis]

AKA, I thought I implicitly or

explicitly addressed most of your remarks in previous posts, (of course, I would expect you to disagree) which

suggests we might have been starting to go in circles, and that our respective positions are clear enough for

consideration. We apparently agree (again, implicitly or explicitly) on some things, and I'm satisfied with

that for now. I appreciate your input.

So I just posted some news items to ground things in current events.

We'll just have to see how the "handover" unfolds over the next 9 months or so, heading toward the Iraqi elections,

to really understand the extent and manner in which things are changing.

[metroman]

It's not

necessary to claim high moral ground, except in choosing to move forward in one way, instead of another which would

put one on lower ground. So implicit in anyone doing anything consciously or non-randomly is some sort of moral

claim.


I believe the high moral ground was taken by France & Germany...not the US and the UK

with the exception of the Spanish who did eventually do the right thing when they elected a new leader & immediately

withdrew their troops.

[DAdams91982]

When

considering that we are at war, and considering what usually happens in wars in all its gruesome, the Abu Ghraib

incident seems like a Fraternity prank. Yes, in comparison it does. It was just a stepping ground for more violence

and thus became a great excuse and way to justify what has gone on after.

I didn't say it was right, but when

considering war it comes off almost passive. I don't know who that short cropped hair cut dumb bitch is in the

photos and no I don't like her, what a dumb little shit.

Considering all of the world's history I don't think

its a "SCANDAL!". To that high of a degree. There is some evil on both sides, there is partial "evil" in everyone

and everything. It is to what degree that I am concerned with. No, I would never rationalize what happen there to

what is happening ot civilians in Iraq, but I will compare the two situations and make my choice on which is

worse. And no I am not some sort of big Bush supporter, at all. I don't even regard him highly and its hard to find

much I do like in general.
Both acts are completely horrible, and By the "Law Of Armed Conflict" totally

illegal. POW's are to be treated with fairness. Im sorry, but it is wrong to say one is more okay than the other,

when both acts were completely uncalled for. And what happened at Abu completely brought a disrepectful light to US

Armed Forces.

A1C Adams

[DAdams91982]

Wow.. I came in to this

convo... WAY LATE.


A1C Adams

[metroman]

Both acts are

completely horrible, and By the "Law Of Armed Conflict" totally illegal. POW's are to be treated with fairness.

Im sorry, but it is wrong to say one is more okay than the other, when both acts were completely uncalled for. And

what happened at Abu completely brought a disrepectful light to US Armed Forces.

A1C

Adams

And also again I just want to add; we the "dumb gullible american public" were presented with

the sanitized version of events from Abu Ghraib...there were photos that depicted acts a lot more heinous than what

was shown in the conventional media. As usual only Senators & Congress people were allowed to view these. There were

deaths at Abu Ghraib. To term these events as an innocent fraternity prank is an insult to the victims who had to

endure the real horror of what went on there. Also the real story of the so called "enemy combatants" (which is

just the US's way of circumventing the Geneva Convention) being incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay has not come to

light yet. Although it has been acknowledged that most of the detainees have no valid intelligence contributions to

make.

[DrSmellThis]

Agreed. :eek: This is mostly

Rumsfeld, by most all accounts. He personally OK'd quite a bit of it, and set the tone for it all. I'm suprised he

hasn't been forced out by Bush for PR reasons alone. What Bush apparently did on that, however, is "kept his nose

clean" by asking them vaguely to "keep it legal", but then turning the other way. Then he acts pissed that no one

brought it to his attention.

Only morons think these were really like fraternity pranks. In comparison to the

beheadings, most of it was "like pranks", speaking metaphorically, but that is just valid as a backlash

statement to the overreaction by some, who wanted to lump us in with the worst evil (Humans in crisis tend to think

in extremes, or black/white, as it is way easier and more comfortable. The rest of us need to think responsibly!).

The scenes the congress people saw will come out if and only if the public furor continues, which is looking

unlikely at the moment, with so much else in the news. Bipartisan reports have it that it was some very disturbing

stuff in its variety, but of the same general degree as the other images and other verbal reports. There were a few

deaths, however. Some of it crossed the lines into torture, especially if you allow psychological torture in your

definition, but not only if.

Another extremely disturbing element is that so many (over half?) of the

imprisonments appear to be unjustified and frivolous. This is made worse by the fact that so many of the frivolous

arrestees are held for several months. Besides being cruel and hypocritical, this is extremely stupid due to the

amount of bad will, mistrust and confusion this creates. The "tuna net" approach to arresting and imprisoning might

work in the very short term, but not in the medium or long term. Most of what turns up in the net are dolphins. And

yesterday's medium term has already become today's short term!

You have to treat Iraqi citizens as citizens

of a free Iraq now, not enemy combatants. Of course, our Supreme Court just ruled that we treat far too many of

our own citizens as enemy combatants. To put it mildly, Bush is really milking that "things are different when

you have a ("multigenerational"!) war on terrorism" thing for all it's freedom-crushing worth!

The necessary

oversight for stemming unnecesary arrests is complex, but that's the only way it can work. Foreign terrorists in

Iraq, who are among the worst perpetrators and supporters of the violence now, are a different story. It will be

much better when the Iraqis can take over security and answer to themselves.

[Kari]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-et-behead30jun30,1,699309.story?coll=la-headlines-world

[Kari]

According to some of

the media that is not true. But then, it's hard to find out what's true.

According to Gen. Taquba,

more than 60% of the Abu Griab detainees were detained by "mistake."

Agree that terrorists just need to be

f*cking KILLED.

But, the army seems to have made a passel of mistakes re: who's a terrorist, and who

happened to be outside during a general roundup. So, now, as a result of the scandal, they are reviewing all the

cases, and letting a lot of people out,, who shouldn't have been there to begin with.

Also... we are a

Geneva Convention signator.. that means we are bound by law.

And...... we've been leaving it to the Chief

Executive, and his handlers, to determine who is/is not a terrorist, based, per the Supremes, on little or no

evidence, their political bent, and their limited I.Q.s. We've not only been detaining some innocents, but

Ashcroft is on the carpet, because we've just let a REALLY bad one, a PROVEN terorist GO!

Soooo.. it's just

a bad situation, all around. But, I don't think the current admin can fix it, because they are more political and

power-mad than they are intelligent.

And, it's very dangerous to let the executive branch usurp the powers

of the other two branches-- which the Supremes just kiboshed.

If the executive branch can detain American

citizens, or any people, for that matter, based on their definition of cupability, without counsel and indefinately,

we are ALL in danger.

[a.k.a.]

Upsurge in the insurrection,

assassination threats by various militias, rumors of hidden arms caches, introduction of more security contractors,

Allawi’s history, the need to “keep a lid” on the situation until the US elections, frustration among the general

population all add up to a very poor prognosis for human rights. Now that Bremer’s gone, Negroponte will be calling

the shots. Judging from his record in Central America, the “abuses” at Abu Ghraib will be remembered as relatively

lightweight.
Security contractors working in conjunction with Mr. Allawi’s militia will dispense with the

niceties of detention centers. Those who aren’t tortured and executed on the spot will be hidden away in

unspecified locations. We should expect fewer reports of “abuses” because fewer people will survive them. On the

other hand we can expect an increase in missing persons.
Naturally the insurrection will go after “soft

targets”, so we can also expect more civilian deaths and beheadings.
Just as naturally, the only

explanations the American public will receive is endless pontification on the moral depravity of “those crazy

Muslims”.

[Kari]

[QUOTE=Red Stripe]It also erks me

that you don't see more Muslim Americans out there vehimately standing against whats going on over

there...

No, honey.. actually, a number of mosques and Muslim political groups have come out against this

nightmare in the very strongest terms. Many of them cite the Koran, which pretty much forbids beheading, anyway.



This isn't really about religion. It's geopolitics and economics.

[a.k.a.]

[QUOTE=Red

Stripe]
No, honey.. actually, a number of mosques and Muslim political groups have come out against this

nightmare in the very strongest terms.
Even Fox reported

this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119872,00.html

[DrSmellThis]

"Those Crazy Muslims" sounds

like a new sitcom idea for the fall.

[Kari]

[There were deaths at Abu Ghraib.

To term these events as an innocent fraternity prank is an insult to the victims who had to endure the real horror

of what went on there.

Even the Rummy said there were murders and rapes. He admitted that we haven't seen

the worst of it, by far.

AND, don't forget.. Congress lined up to give its war powers to Dubya.. which is

unconsitutional. Now, they are getting their noses rubbed in it. The Bill of Rights took a beating, here.

[Gossamer_2701]

The Bill of Rights

took a beating, here.

The Bill of Rights got sucker punched the moment Dubya was "elected" :blink:



Our votes really do count :think: .... MY A$$!!!!