|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted May 22, 2004 03:48 AM |
|
|
the pics are posted for a reason lews. You question everyones purpose behind their post now? Or just those who seem to be against your opinion.
Theres reasons what those pictures are bad and good.
But you must realize this situation in metaphore.
You have a dollar and a friend. If you give half of it, the the ones around you will think of it as selfish. Even when you know they think it is selfish, you can only keep or give. And why not give?
Since we are there why not help them? Do what we can...
See, even cynicaisim is present in these moments. I dont expect a logical and real conversation now.
If I am to blame myself and feel adaquate for the blame of all haters, for the actions of all in that chain of comand.. Then I am sorry that I cant blame myself. I with bort, am not doing everything I can to fix things. Because in this formulation theres nothing I can do without giving up my life and i have no yale family, politic family, or rich family behind my back to suport my shoulders when addressing a S*** FULL WORLD OF CYNICISM.
But theres a reason alot of us cant do anything is because theres so many self assured opinions. Perhaps even the board administrations of our government are idiots. But we (the voters. or anyone who was born or raise by those who were born and raised in this portion of the earth) only elect figures. We dont know the reality of which box we vote. Except relations to a 2 party system and other misc factors of self assured assumtions
664
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 08:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, congratulations on your calculations first! But has it occured to you that the reason I concentrated on 4% of your post was that I agreed with the rest of it?! Do I have to disagree with all that you wrote and quote your entire letter in the manner of look-in-the-mirror?
Possibly, but your tone and replies tried to make it look as normal like I was making an argument I was not, namely that I thought torturing innocents was acceptable. Given that misconception it becomes hard to tell just what you did pay attention to since the bit you did respond on you didn't really understand anyway.
Quote:
You can be dead sure I read that and understood your point in that paragraph. However, the rest of it pretty much contradicts with it.
Nope. The rest clarifies when torture is necessary and not necessary.
Quote:
So, i suggest that you make up your mind in showing your opinion clearly
I did. Some forms of torture against extremists that can be shown by other evidence to be guilty is acceptable. Torture by soldiers when not sanctioned by the authorities should only reflect on the soldier. It's not "hamlet like" to recognise that in some cases extreme methods are needed and that the authorities cannot be responsible for every act by every soldier.
Quote:
Do you justify it?(as it seems with WW2 comparissons, terming brutal methods as necessary (!!!) and the notice on "heat of the moment" justification)
I never said either were justified, I said I understood why they happened. That is completely different. Take a civilian example, I can understand why a father would shoot a person who molested his 4 year old daughter, I would argue diminished responsibility or similar. I would not suggest that his actions were either wise or justice.
Quote:
Do you think Geneva convention shouldn't (this is the keyword here; not "is") be respected and enforced?
I don't think it CAN be rigidly enforced no. Against those in the front lines especially it is especially impotent due to it's tendency to believe the world is perfectly clear cut. It can be enforced in such cases where the higher command and/or politicians ordered it first. Whether it should be would depend on the reasons for the order. Specific parts of Geneva would make most of the wars since and including WWII full of warcrimes according to how you interpret them.
Quote:
And last but not least, should high-ranking officers take any actions upon hearing that one of their soldiers had tortured captured soldiers?
Depends on the situation. If done without an emotional reason yes, and specifically said soldier should be dishonourably discharged (or equivalent, thrown out) immediately. If done with an emotional reason I would suggest a lesser sentence if any depending on the severity of the torture and the severity of the stress the soldier was under.
Quote:
I made myself very clear on each and every of these questions.
So did I if you read a little and didn't assume the worse. My general rule is always seek the reasons behind the crime, not apply automatically the same yardstick to each as some would have us do.
Quote:
gave me the imression that "torturing is a common thing and we should not get too excited about it, unless it's widespread or done on innocent people
Dear dear, you do like your misconceptions. If you fail to digest what I write properly it's not always my fault.
Argument 1:
Due to an error on my part that was meant to say that it can only work if the subject matter is that the crimes are done with the consent of the government. Then geneva enters the fray to determine that the government has done wrong and should be punished depending on the situation at hand. So far it has proved hard to say that the events we have seen is the express intent of the US government.
Argument 2:
Governments often reach situations where it is impossible to enforce it. Comparing Iraq to WWII is not totally out of place, the point of it was to show that situations sometimes call for extreme responses against extremists.
Again, no-one's calling every incident acceptable but if justice is blind, your argument would be to arrest those involved, unless you think justice can be thrown out the window in extreme cases, then you have to determine if Iraq is such an extreme case. Sometimes it is, to label every incident there as a warcrime seems a little generalised. Also bear in mind here that you previously argued that America looks like the Nazis, now you argue that comparing WWII and Iraq is impossible.
Quote:
Before you make a mess out of your keyboard (and particularly the letters Q, U, O, T and E), I suggest that you think about how much we agree and just give a clear stance on the questions I asked you up there; and save everybody here time and energy form reading annoying comments directed against me (just childish comments and insults), because of our (oh, how absurdly does it sound) agreement on many of the issues discussed.
You could have saved time saying you agreed rather than taken a confrontational tone that as usual attempted to make me look like I supported some barbaric ideals on the spurious reason of finding out what I already made clear. I don't appreciate the way you try and discredit me with remarks that border on alleging I support warcrimes (without reason) and therefore must be some sort of psycopath. Of course you're merely "clarifying things" naturally, perhaps then a questioning tone from the begining would serve for better responses than the accusational tone you do put forward.
Dunno why I bother sometimes frankly, I could be (and have been) accused of many things but none so ludicrous and ill-informed as the ones I get here...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 09:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Argument 1:
Quote:
Geneva is theory that only works if the government is sanctioning the crimes in the first place. Outside of this it’s use is severely limited and rarely enforceable.
Lol. And now what? We all know that it works only if it is enforced by the government. And only because it has to be enforced by the government, that makes Geneva "useless".
Look, Geneva is not a Godly Code or some seperate element which influences the war. It is a set of laws which governments can choose to implement and enforce or not.
What the problem with USA now, is that they claim to respect it (which if they were, would bring the moral to their side), but at the same time they break it with their leaders applouding on the side, and that portrays them (rightfully) as brutal invaders and killers.
Argument 2:
Quote:
Perfect for peacetime and set-piece examples, next to useless in the real world.
Again, I can't see why it is useless, if it is enforced by the government.
There is actually a meaningful function that helps you win the war alot easier if you follow the geneva convention, although I doubt most of the warmongering "d00ds" would understand it, because it requires thought and education.
Sun Tzu wrote in the "Art of war" that there are 5 constant factors that decides the outcome of any battle: The moral law, heaven, earth, the commander, and discipline.
The moral law
Causes the people to be in complete accordance with their ruler, so that they will follow him.
Heaven
Signifies Night & day, cold & heat, seasons and cycles of the moon. Some think this means the changes in the environment surrounding the war.
Earth
Distanses and the terrain.
The commander
Virtues like wisdom and courage among the leaders.
Discipline
Most ppl know what this is.
The side that knows these constants and adhere to them will be victorious. The side that doesnt - will not.
By not following the Geneva convention, The USA lost the moral law. Even its own people are now not in support of their actions. This affects their chances for victory tremendously, and negatively. If they had the moral law on their side still, we wouldnt even be having this conversation. We would be out in the sun cheering and talking about how brave the USA is to save us all like that. We all know that our current reality is completely different, and USA doesnt get as much support.
Such is the power of the moral law.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 09:10 AM |
|
|
Ok heres a small thought for all of you.
An entity sometimes apears no stronger than its weakest link.
Unfortunatly we here citizens on this carved portion of earth, are many many many links affected by that particular one. The military of USA has (i presume), shifted into investigations for any similar acts. I almost say of course they have!
If anything else goes on fox news at 6, it should be us cracking down or the fact that all other chains apear to be clean, and cleaner..
I would be surprised if president bush or any representatice of one carved portion of this america, had ever called a black flag in the shadows ordering secret attacks on the likes of oposing infantry.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 09:17 AM |
|
|
Still, no matter the reason, the World doesn't really support the actions of USA in this matter. The moral law is not on their side. USA failed somehow with that.
It's a bit weird too, because Colin Powel has read the Art of War. Im guessing he didnt understand it. Imagine how good it would have been for the USA if the world and the UN supported their war 100%, and sent troops and aid and praised the USA?.. It's not like that, because the USA failed with keeping the moral law on their side. If they would have been more skilled in warfare, maybe they would have found a way to succeed instead of failing.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 09:23 AM |
|
|
plz give a list of the times usa failed to comply with moral laws -defined by men, aparantly-
Ok so theres wrong actions made by men. USA was the first target so somehow we also become the main assosiates of the situation of 1000s of innocent deaths by black flag killers.
I imagine there, perhaps some other man told a man backed behind many men, that they should or shouldnt do a particular thing, and the other menb said were goining to stay with you on many degrees as we've not intentionaly brought harm to innocents, but we cannot let them roam freely with harmful intentions and drastic capabilities.
Anyways.. I know America isnt perfect. I'm sort of sorry because people against people tend to keep anothers nationality (place born in the carved earth) and stuff like that in mind sometimes. So I'm .. sorry
not in someways, but in others i can only apologize so much just for where i was born.
|
|
Killa_Bee
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 11:02 AM |
|
|
There were too many posts to read so I'm just throwing in my 2 cents on the issue without reading anyone else's.
The way I see it... I see it as a bunch of soldiers that probably had their friend's die from arabs such as the ones featured in the photographs. Noone is perfect and sometimes people get blinded by their own emotions of sadness, anger and vengeance that they do things they normally wouldn't do. Do I think they were wrong for what they did? I guess so... Would I have done the same if I saw my friends die from one of their bullets? Probably... Do I think the soldiers should be punished? Not really... they're still risking their lives to protect our civilian asses back in the states... give'em a break boys will be boys... screw the iraqis
____________
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 02:59 PM |
|
|
lol
just wanted to say thank you to americans like bort.
Its people like you that makes us think that not all americans has your head stuck up where the sun doesnt shine.
Some of the posts here just scare me.
Are you so easily manipulated or are you set to defend your country no matter what?
Its like this, do 100 torturing bad things and then you show off a girl that has gotten a wheelchair and some of you will only notice the wheelchair story.
What kind of propaganda does that remind me of? oh yes thats true, the saddam hussein one...
And its believing that kind of stupidity that makes many of us from the rest of the world to judge all americans like this. Thats why im as stated happy too see people like bort prove the opposite.
Thnx again bud.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 03:28 PM |
|
|
Dear Private Hudson
Oh my god, PH! I was so wrong! We do not agree. The ambiguity in your intitial post is after all for what it stands - a justification of War Crimes in, as you term it, "extreme" circumstances.
Quote:
Some forms of torture against extremists that can be shown by other evidence to be guilty is acceptable.
Ok, first proof: Torture against people proven as guilty is acceptable. Back to the Dark Ages.
Need I say I completely disagree here.
Quote:
Torture by soldiers when not sanctioned by the authorities should only reflect on the soldier.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree here. It should only reflect on the soldier if the authorities knew nothing about it (which is NOT the case in Iraq). If the authorities knew about it and did nothing to stop it or even encouraged it (which IS the case in Iraq; one of those two), authorities should be held responsible also. The question only is what is the highest government instance that knew about it (imho the highest, for what i don't have proofs).
Quote:
I don't think it CAN be rigidly enforced no. Against those in the front lines especially it is especially impotent due to it's tendency to believe the world is perfectly clear cut. It can be enforced in such cases where the higher command and/or politicians ordered it first. Whether it should be would depend on the reasons for the order.
Ok, second proof: It can't be enforced against ordinary soldiers. It can be enforced against officers and politicians (and even in these cases, it should depend on the reasons for the order). These are your words. Again, I strongly disagree.
War Crimes are never justified. NEVER, do you read me PH? Never! In all cases someone has to be held accountable by law (by moral, it is discussable). That is why they are called Crimes, PH, and not occurances that you can choose to justify or not. I too would say that depending on distinctive situation (which will be dealt with in court), a lesser or higher sentence can be given, but the legal responsibility has to be undertaken by someone.
Quote:
So far it has proved hard to say that the events we have seen is the express intent of the US government.
On the concrete example about Iraq. One thing for there are surely proofs, is that the man responsible for the prison should be punished, along with all the soldiers participating in the atrocity. Same would go for all the other prisons in Iraq where such brutal methods are practiced. (and there are many) Even more, it is hard to believe that some very high ranking officials knew nothing about it, and that is evident in the case of Guantanamo Bay, for which the whole world knows, what kind of brutal treatment they use there.
This is the legal side of the problem. The moral is even worse and obvious, that I'm not going to talk about it.
Quote:
Again, no-one's calling every incident acceptable but if justice is blind, your argument would be to arrest those involved, unless you think justice can be thrown out the window in extreme cases, then you have to determine if Iraq is such an extreme case.
I might agree that justice can be neglected in extremely extreme circumstances. (For instance if someone had had the chance to kill Hitler or the like). But the situation in Iraq is light years distant from that. In the Iraq tortures, there is absolutely no reason for that, except the psychopatic intentions of the soldiers involved (and officers alike).
Quote:
Also bear in mind here that you previously argued that America looks like the Nazis, now you argue that comparing WWII and Iraq is impossible.
You tried to justify USA by portraying them as the Allies fighting against the Nazis, which I find quite funny. I tried to compare the bare facts with the methods the Nazis used, which I find quite logical.
Quote:
I don't appreciate the way you try and discredit me with remarks that border on alleging I support warcrimes (without reason) and therefore must be some sort of psycopath.
This would imply that you only don't support War Crimes that are without reason, but when there's reason (for which there isn't in Iraq), it can be discussed. And that, my friend, is the whole disagreement we're having. AND the reason I quoted you in my first post.
Yours friendly,
Svarog
And another question for you Americans: How do you explain the fact that there is not a single person outside the USA that supports the War in Iraq, or much less the torturing?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 03:39 PM |
|
|
Who supports the torturing?
And why do you think no one outside the US supports the action against Saddam?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 05:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh my god, PH! I was so wrong! We do not agree. The ambiguity in your intitial post is after all for what it stands - a justification of War Crimes in, as you term it, "extreme" circumstances.
Since you will note I possibly do not subsribe to your defenition of warcrime, nor have I said what forms of torture are acceptable, your assumptions stretch beyond the evidence I have so far offered. Again you attempt to discredit based on assumption rather than proof.
Quote:
Ok, first proof: Torture against people proven as guilty is acceptable. Back to the Dark Ages.
Need I say I completely disagree here.
I note you've not asked for which forms I was referring to prior to making such an eloquent but entirely unsupported assumption. I further note that you failed to add "extremists" to your remark which is an interesting way of trying to sidestep my point and make me look like I would do it against anyone guilty.
If the authorities knew about it and did nothing to stop it or even encouraged it (which IS the case in Iraq; one of those two), authorities should be held responsible also. The question only is what is the highest government instance that knew about it (imho the highest, for what i don't have proofs).
I agree that the Iraq case is a definate one of the authorities knowing about some torture occurring. My reaction to them knowing depends on what they knew and their response. I'll clarify in simple terms, if they knew about "heat of the moment" (HOM from now on) events then their reaction was quite justified in dealing with the issue quietly (but I would expect firmly also) if they knew about "cold blooded" (CB from now on) events I would expect them to have acted straight away and made an example of said officers. In either case though I would not expect them to broadcast the facts to the media due to the volatile situation in the country.
Quote:
These are your words
Yes, I'm still awaiting you digesting them properly though.
Quote:
Again, I strongly disagree.
War Crimes are never justified. NEVER, do you read me PH?
Uhmmm, hang on a moment, I said they were hard to enforce, I did not say the event was justified. I further said that soldiers should be court-martialed (even in HOM cases) and taught the error of their ways, and that CB cases should be thrown out altogether dishonourably.I have also said I understand some of the cases (namely the HOM ones), not that they should be dissolved of all responsiblity. ALSO I said that the authorities should be made to pay if they ordered the events first.
Remind me how you managed to go from that to suggesting I justify warcrimes? Perhaps the difference between "justify" and "understand" is one you have not learnt yet?
And just in case you missed it, I even made an example for you, and just because I'm nice like that, I've highlighted something you may want to take note of.
I never said either were justified, I said I understood why they happened. That is completely different. Take a civilian example, I can understand why a father would shoot a person who molested his 4 year old daughter, I would argue diminished responsibility or similar. I would not suggest that his actions were either wise or justice.
Ring any bells?
Quote:
In all cases someone has to be held accountable by law
Funny, I seem to recall saying this... how strange, you must have agreed with what I said since you chose not to quote it... And before you remark about my solution being to throw them out and not law courts, I don't see a need to try every last person. Dishonourbale discharge or similar is military law and justice.
Quote:
I might agree that justice can be neglected in extremely extreme circumstances. (For instance if someone had had the chance to kill Hitler or the like). But the situation in Iraq is light years distant from that. In the Iraq tortures, there is absolutely no reason for that, except the psychopatic intentions of the soldiers involved (and officers alike).
As I said, depends on if you consider Iraq extreme, note I did not say AS extreme, just extreme. It is my opinion that sometimes extreme repsonses are needed depending on the situation. Again, I would not reccomend the torture used, but labelling all forms of torture alongside the events in Iraq is over-simplification to prove a tenuous point.
Quote:
You tried to justify USA by portraying them as the Allies fighting against the Nazis, which I find quite funny
Really? It amuses you to misunderstand me then does it? I used WWII as a good example of an extreme situation, I could have used others, Northern Ireland for example. I did not compare the allies and the coallition at any point, nor did I say the coallition are facing a situation as extreme as WWII. I did say that IMO they do face an extreme situation.
Quote:
I tried to compare the bare facts with the methods the Nazis used, which I find quite logical.
The nazis gassed 6 million people and bombed cities indiscriminantly, often without defences amongst other things the Coallition are NOT doing. Isolated cases of torture whilst horrible and wrong are not the holocaust. You went for a sensationalist remark, yes being "not as bad as the nazis" isn't good, but comparing what Bush is doing to what Hitler did is nothing more than smear tactics and sensationalism.
Quote:
but when there's reason (for which there isn't in Iraq), it can be discussed.
Ahhh, the old "The reason doesn't exist because I say it doesn't" style of argument. People have different perceptions, if I say the reason does exist, am I more right than you?
Quote:
And another question for you Americans: How do you explain the fact that there is not a single person outside the USA that supports the War in Iraq, or much less the torturing
Well hang on a moment, I'm British, and though I don't (or to be precise didn't at the time) support the war as such,
there are many here that do. Interesting how you came to this conclusion also. In fact the general thing seems to be that you jump to conclusions based on what you believe you know about someone or somewhere before asking and then twist that reply into what you wish it to say or mean.
God help your area if you ever became a policeman...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 05:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why did you post those pictures in this thread? Did they torture the girl afterwards?
no they are gay they can only fak 15 years old boys...
____________
quoting my post = bullet in your head
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 05:58 PM |
|
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted May 22, 2004 06:33 PM |
|
|
Of the ostrich and the chameleon
Ok, whatever PH. I'm tired of requoting your previous statements about what you meant and their opposite interpretations you made afterwards. People read and they will see for themselves (if anyone at all reads what you and me are discussing). I can only say I'm glad we almost came to the same conclusion in the end, in spite of your amazing chameleonical nature.
Some final remarks:
Quote:
Quote:
Torture against people proven as guilty is acceptable. Back to the Dark Ages.
I note you've not asked for which forms I was referring to prior to making such an eloquent but entirely unsupported assumption. I further note that you failed to add "extremists" to your remark which is an interesting way of trying to sidestep my point and make me look like I would do it against anyone guilty.
OK, then: "Some forms of torture against extremists proven as guilty is acceptable. Back to the Middle Ages this time." How much different is that from what I concluded? Bug difference, huh?! 
You would cut across a hair if you could, wouldn't you?
Still, it doesn't make any difference. I continue to deisagree with the "revised" statement also.
Quote:
I did not compare the allies and the coallition at any point, nor did I say the coallition are facing a situation as extreme as WWII. I did say that IMO they do face an extreme situation.
If you don't want to make any connection, then why did you mention it? If Iraq has nothing to do with the extremeness of WW2, which I wholeheartedly agree, and if it does not require any consessions from the "usual" war-time treatment of prisoners (which should be in accordance with the Geneva Convention) then why do you bring it in the debate?
I agree that the direct comparisson between the Nazis and USA is too far-streched, but if you look at the bare facts (as i said) - invasion (without international consent), occupation, brutal treatment of prisoners, of who 90% are innocents, the elements are there.
Quote:
Ahhh, the old "The reason doesn't exist because I say it doesn't" style of argument. People have different perceptions, if I say the reason does exist, am I more right than you?
Then you'll have to at least name the reason (for the torture) and prove that it exists. I don't have the burden of proof on my side. You do, and it's not a burden, it's a whole mountain of proof, that you have to convince us.
Quote:
God help your area if you ever became a policeman...
lol. I won't. But who will help the world with such superpowers as are in charge today and such ill interpretations of their actions as i see on this forum?
And a note for all other "there are other people outside USA that support bush" guys: I didn't mean in the world, but on this forum. And if you take the precent of those who do support The War "against" Terror in the world, it is miniscule compared to those who don't.
And what especially annoys me is that in a time that requires a complete unilateral condemnation of the brutal torturing of the Iraqi prisoners from all parties (being supportive of the war or not), you stubbornly try to find a way to justify the atrocity that has happened in Iraq. The statements in the manner "give'em a break, boys will be boys" and "screw the iraqis" are like disguisting scars on the ugly face of morality America already enjoys around the world.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 07:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok, whatever PH. I'm tired of requoting your previous statements about what you meant and their opposite interpretations you made afterwards.
If you failed to understand them in the first instance when I have made the point clear that is YOUR problem, not mine. I have not once changed my opinion, I have though been forced to respond to you blatantly assuming wrong things about what I say, often to a quite insulting degree. Nothing has changed but your understanding of what I said which is now corrected.
Quote:
OK, then: "Some forms of torture against extremists proven as guilty is acceptable. Back to the Middle Ages this time." How much different is that from what I concluded? Bug difference, huh?!
If you want to be that idealistic yes. My point was in addtion to others that some cases call for extreme measures, you may if you wish disagree, but I do take objection to being called (or you insinuating) that I support warcrimes of vile nature without any logical reason.
Quote:
You would cut across a hair if you could, wouldn't you?
No, I'm trying to get you to understand something without having to explain it in simple terms and about 5 times. It helps when you don't assume things about me or my replies before you read them or blatantly ignore parts of them only to later claim I have changed my attitude.
Quote:
If you don't want to make any connection, then why did you mention it?
As an example, and as I said I could have offered many others, that was the first to spring to mind and most obvious.
Quote:
but if you look at the bare facts (as i said) - invasion (without international consent), occupation, brutal treatment of prisoners, of who 90% are innocents, the elements are there.
Now I see where the ostrich comes into play. Bare facts hmmm? How about comparing the number of totally innocent civilians Hitler etc killed on purpose to the number the coallition have killed on purpose. There's a bare fact for you. How about noting that Hitler carried out a large number of invasions against Neutrals and in defiance of existing treaties at the time whereas there is some weak claim the allies acted on existing treaties? How about the fact that the Germans did almost nothing to try and rebuild the countries they occupied compared to what the coallition is doing? How about noting that the US, for all it's faults is a democracy unlike Nazi Germany? Putting it bluntly, your comparison sucks and has far more not in common with hitler than it does in common.
Quote:
Then you'll have to at least name the reason (for the torture) and prove that it exists
That would depend on the situation at hand, and since neither you nor I am party to the exact situations it's somewhat interesting to assume there can never be a reason to try say sleep deprivation to get vital information that could save lives. Why should I have to prove it exists considering I have usually been speaking generally? How do we know that reasons don't exist or do since we both sit in the comfort of our homes whilst soldiers and civilians out there go through hell. I'm sure they'd be bemused to know there could "never" be a situation in which some torture is applied. Somehow, idealism just doesn't work in that kind of situation.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
LordZXZX
Famous Hero
Overfished
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 10:21 PM |
|
|
Worst than 9/11? Surely that's exaggerating?
Too lazy to read most of the long arguments and reqoutes, so here's from my point of view:
Anyway, IMO, it is normal that the prisoners are tortured. Some soldiers get blinded by emotions and they torture the prisoners. I'm not saying it's good, torture of course is bad, some of the torture methods certainly have gone overboard. Why rape the female prisoners?
Then again, would the Iraqi PoW tell anything if you treat them normally? They obviously don't respect the Americans, so the soldiers' behaviour towards them is expected.
As mentioned, I don't like seeing other human beings subject to extreme torture, but the abuse is unavoidable.
Those were just my opinion on this prisoner abuse issue. You all can choose to respond to it, or ignore it, I don't really care.
____________
...
|
|
dEth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 10:34 PM |
|
|
Lews, I usually do appreciate your thinking. Often it has become awash with serious bias that only builds on top of itself, nevertheless I do apprecaite your ability to reason.
What I do find absolutely amazing is how the liberal press and your thinking as well coincide in terms of the resent footage from captives. When I compare the American Berg images with those of the Iraqi's I find a pretty big dicotomy. It just amazes me that the focus of Berg's beheading is but instantly cast aside and then "on with the show" proceeds the liberal press. You seem to be drinking of their soup as well Lews.
Incidentally incredibly sad, some teenagers have been noted to say the beheading looks like just another movie.
I do not negate that the soldiers who were out of line humiliating a prisoner need be dealt with, but that in light of other situations I find it pretty telling that focus is still more on whatever the US soldiers were doing compared to what the Iragi terrorists are doing to their prisoners. I have yet to see anyone Americans being given hotdogs, but yet the Iragi's are being given ethnic meals? Even the night of the Berg beheading the news in my area spent more focus on reshowing of the US soldiers problem then the Iragi prisoner situation. Not to mention the difference in who is being targeted in this imprisonations.
Well, on it goes?.....
I guess graphically lines this up in a comparisson might add food for thought?
http://www.drudgereport.com/iiraq3.htm
http://www.washblade.com/2004/5-7/news/national/iraq.cfm
Apparently the homophobia of an iraqi is more serious an issue then a beheading and torture of an innocent civilian??
okay.. really done I suppose. Take care all.
|
|
deth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 10:40 PM |
|
|
Btw.... can any Russians please detail the events of a recent situations where some Terorrists had taken over a building with strapped explosives on women?
I heard about this incident and didn't listen well enough, but I do consider the method I heard of how this was taken care of very reasonable, and think the rest of the world would agree in general too..... (in any country as long as the USA is not involved, cause if they are then they are merely bigotted, unjustifiable, power mongers).
Please recount if you know of this situation.
|
|
LordZXZX
Famous Hero
Overfished
|
|
posted May 22, 2004 10:54 PM |
|
|
As for the Berg beheading issue, that is just sick and disgusting. Those people are no better than the soldiers who torture the priosners.
It's ironic that when we say inhuman, we are referring to another human.
____________
...
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2004 01:09 AM |
|
|
Hello Deth,
thank you for your feedback. It actually is my opinion that this "liberal media bias" that you mention is a bias in itself - in the US, like in Germany, there´s certainly nothing wrong with the balance of the media. You for example have Rupert Murdoch, we Leo Kirch´s successors and the Springer press, all of them very big and very well known to have a strong tendency towards right-wing opinions.
I think that during the election in 2000, Bush had considerably more TV presence than Al Gore. My view is that "liberal media bias" is nothing but a cheap excuse for ignoring the other side´s arguments. Just like labeling critics of neo-conservative policy "anti-american".
You do have a point though, when you call most of the western European press "liberal", from the perspective of a republican American. This is because in my part of the world, the US democrats would be considered to be a conservative party. The republicans on the other hand would only be votable for a very small and very extreme minority here. Your country has a strong "bias" to the right, just like my country has a strong "bias" to the left - it´s just a matter of perspective. For this reason, I usually try to avoid the use of this and other 4-letter words in my discussions.
Regarding the matter of Berg´s decapitation, I find the pictures that I´ve seen of it no less disturbing than the ones from Abu Ghureib. But in my view there´s a large difference between them: On the one hand, I do have respect for American soldiers - even more so since I´ve read many of Khayman´s and The Gootch´s postings here. Even though I strongly disagreed with this war, I expected them to act in the name of our culture, which is based on democracy and human rights. I would not have thought it possible that they would take part in organised and systematic torture and murder against prisoners.
On the other hand, this Al Sarkawi guy who is suspected to have killed Nick Berg is one of the top Al Quaeda terrorists.
Do you really find such a comparison sensible? Your soldiers and this murderer?
And it´s even much worse. Aside from the aspects of moral and suffering, can you imagine the effect of those pictures in the Arab part of the world? Those people feel more and more humilated, become more and more radicalised. Someone said it before, this is "better" than the "best" recruitment video that Al Quaeda could ever dream of. The so-called "war on terror" does nothing but fuel and feed extremism and terrorism.
You consider me to be biased, the silly boy dismissed everything I wrote in this thread with the two words "Bush bashing", but maybe, just maybe, there´s a possibility that I am seriously concerned about what´s going on in the world, and what´s awaiting us in the future.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
