Im so angry about this topic that im not going to type alot about it, this is about the Iraqi degrading that is happeneing in Iraq.......I want people to reply to me and tell me what the FUCK the americans are still doing in Iraq, why they ever went there in the first place and to explain the actions of the sick minded fuckers that call themselves heroes and what they are doing to Iraqi prisoners who are trying to deffend their country from oppressors:
1-Urintaing and shitting on prisoners.
2-Leaving them naked with their heads tied up.
3-The man that was left to stand for 2 days and was told that if he fell he would be electricuted, and he fell.
4-Fucking big piles of Iraqi Corpses, and laughing about it....
And much more, and all this is making the American soldiers happy?? how?? muslims/Iraqi would be sinning if they did not treat prisoners of war like themselves, their only right on the prisoners is to bargain with them until they reach and agreement, if at all just kill them no need for torure and terrible degrading.
My question to you is: Is that what the Iraqi people get for trying to free their country from its oppressors and occupiers???
*this argument is strictly political and there is no need to get personal, please reply proffessionaly*
This picture is not what I mean but I refuse to show the real pictures because they will be removed:.... umm to be fair, It's not only american soldiers who are doing that. British and probably other soldiers are doing it too. Those pictures are disgusting, I know. But did it surprise me? No, because it's WAR. And during war, soldiers sometimes do horrible things. Sometimes, it's because of some kind of coma...sometimes, it's because the wrong kind of people are allowed to have weapons and fight for "freedom". war IS disgusting and people forget their principles and ideals there.
What is the most horrible thing apart from that, is how the government reacted. They wanted the reporters to not show them to publicity because it would have been UNPATRIOTIC!!!:rolleyes: i heard this thing on the radio and it had this man on it who was an army expert and he was sayin that one of the pics was a fake (the one with the naked iraqi man with a bag over his head and the 2 soldiers laughing:mad: :mad: ). he said that the guns that the soldiers had were not issued to the any of the soldiers that went to iraq. he also said some other stuff that i can't remember. but this is some F****** sick s***. I don't know whether or not these pictures are authentic, but regardless, I'm sure things like this happen. And yeah, it's tragic, but in every system there's a rogue part, and if these soldiers really were going against military law and orders like their commanders were saying then the American army as a whole cannot be blamed for this. It can only be blamed if torturing like this were used as army policy, and it had not reached high enough proportions for this option to be likely. Maybe the army can be accused of being negligent, but it's important to know what you're talking about...
About the political issue, I don't know if the reason for war was justified, but now that it has been done the Americans have a duty to stay in Iraq and keep the order. It's not a colonial conquest. The Americans aren't that dumb. The American army is there to defend the Iraqi people until they are able to defend themselves and to get out now would be unreasonable of them. Killing them is unbelievably wrong. I don't think the fight against the American army is legitimate. It should be stopped immediately if Iraq wants any hope of a future, and the prisoners, though not deserving of the torture inflicted on them, were I'm sure deserving of their imprisonment.
About Muslim imprisonment... I know of a few stories where certain Muslim captors have not been so humane, but I won't get into that since it's not relevant. well when i was watching the news today 5-3-04 they had a talk with the leader of that base camp or whatever it was and he reason for not doing anything about it was that she did not know that base camp was open for work so she never went there. that is why the problem went on because no millitary leader ever went there so troops would go there to do it knowing they would not be caught. but when someone found out as we all know pictures we shown all over the world. and in my opinion it is wrong and it makes the united states army look like a weak, dumb, unminded sick fucks. we need to do something to show we still are strong and arnt doing any more of thoughs actions. Although what our soldiers did was in NO WAY right, it was a human reaction to the chaos and insanity to what's been going on over there. You have soldiers who are looking at these prisoners instead of being at home with their wife/husband/kids/family and I'd say they just want to kill all of them and go home. I'm not saying it's right but vengeance(sp?) is a human trait. I don't think it's right but I understand that war will mess with your head and push you past your breaking point when you've been away from home for far too long... Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
I suppose if we took American born civilians and captured their SUV's and burned them alive and THEN dragged there burnt charred corpses through our streets, all the while threatening to do more to any other white people, we'd be cool in your eyes. Oh wait, then we'd be Iraqis. Get off your fucking high horse. War is hell. If radical Iraqi's like plotting against U.S. civilians and want to car bomb their way to victory, that's what they get. Jesus Christ. You're indignant because it's fashionable.
How about being angry about teen suicide, or abortion, or cancer and AIDS, or how about racism, or child neglect. Quit being a fucking news whore. If anger against horeshit was cool, you'd be the first in line to bash your own post. What an idiot...
Dont call me an idiot, *Stop with the name calling please*
My point was to say that the americans should get the fuck out of Iraq, coz geuss what they arent helping Iraq, they dont give a shit about them, we all know its for the oil, and if their mission was to get rid oF Saddam well then good he's gone, thanx alot now FUCK OFF!!, why are they still there??, if the Iraqis liked them they wouldnt be resisting them would they??? and about the soldier dragging...:
1)stupid, but it was done because the Somalians had done it before to get the Americans out of their country and they did, this time however it didnt work coz the americans have gotten more arrogant.
2)the soldier is already dead, NO PAIN, NO SHAME, still a bad idea, but does not match up to what the soldiers in Iraq are doing to the Iraqis......
BSD please dont reply like an dumbass, in an intelectual thread...
Just because we allow cursing doesn't give you the right to insult people. -Val well, they are probably helping Iraq more than the Saddam regime. And we all know or should know that the reason for invading iraq was not because they wanted to liberate it. But that's also old news!
It's WAR. And as Val perfectly pointed out, that are human reactions to the current situation. I don't believe that every american soldier is such an asshole as those 6 are. Of course, there are probably even more who torment iraqi prisoners but those are definitely not the majority. You see, I have to defend the american soldiers on that issue though I still don't support the actions that are taking place in Iraq. Iraq war was wrong and those pictures will not help the iraqi people. More hate and anger will be poked which leads to more deaths on both sides. It's a hard situation. I understand what you mean S_F, but whats bothering me is the fact that everybody thinks The American, British soldiers are helping the Iraqis, if they were then the country would be at peace, there would be soldiers fighting back, no choas in the country, and order is absoloutley lost.....and BTW all the Iraqi soldiers are dead or improsined, theres is no resistance fighting back now, and you'll still see bombings and so on from the american and british soldiers, WHY??!!!.... This is not urgent...don't give it that label. If you want answers as to why Americans are still in Iraq, someone high up in the US government, don't ask random people on an internet forum. You swear we have all the answers, or even support what's going on. This thread wasn't about answers, it's about you looking for someone from America to attack. Thread Closed. DPD, I can understand you but I do believe that this thread should stay open. At least, it's a discussion about those photos that we've all seen on TV/Internet etc, which is in my opinion very interesting. Perhaps, the architect, you should change the thread title. Just a suggestion :) If they haven't been discussed in the numerous other Iraq/US/War threads that have been made or transformed into threads about such here, why not discuss there? No one's point of view on the matter will be changed, some people MIGHT (highly unlikely) come out of the discussion/debate with more respect for one another, but it really won't amount to anything other than bickering about gray area and differences in viewpoint/implementation of practice. DPD, you can't close the thread... but I will if this flaming keeps on. You're both just provoking each other with the name calling and I don't have time to prevent your all out war. It's this exact reason that you two are fighting that makes the whole world want to fight with each other and kick someone when they're down, it's survival. Everyone feels that they are right and in order for them to be right someone else has to be wrong. You're both hitting below the belt by calling each other names and not just making your arguments or allowing for communication in any way, shape, or form. That's not very manly, in fact it's downright cowardly. A few words from me. There they were. Seriously, aRcHeItEcT, dont blame the Americans for shit that they didnt start. Blame our ******ed president. You cant blame the whole tree for one bad apple. Thats almost like me blaming simth_fan for WW2, just cause she is German. Thats utter moronic, and pretty fucking ******ed.
Iraq wanted a war, we gave it to them. We won, they lost. They cant be oppressing their country from foreign oppressors, when they themselves, before America went there, were oppressing their own damn citizens. Americans had to fight many strongholds of Iraqi troops, and Im the Americans werent too happy about it. Iraq shows a video of Americn soldiers beinf burned alive, then drug down a street. We brutally slaughtered their citizens, then piled them up in the open. I think its totally fair. Its like a CHess move, you burn me, I pump 9000000 shells into you.
EDIT: Dont blame me for possibly starting something up again, I never got to put my input into this thread until everyone else was done putting thiers in. Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
^ See what I mean?... ^
See, your trolling me into repsonding badly to you, well Im not going to. You probably have something better to do then this. Val, I wasn't trying to close the thread, I was interjecting my opinion on it, but I do see how it was taken as such. Didn't want to sound like I was stealing anyone's power or anything, but I'm probably done here anyways. Yeah, I dunno, er, have a nice day? This is getting gay from BOTH sides... DPD, shut up. ;) Just stay here and post when you can. I'm not accusing you of anything, simply stating that you can't close the thread but you posted 'thread closed' like you did it or something. Which was weird. But basically, can you PM me with the address for your forum, I've been to it but don't remember the address. Wait, I think it's in your sig, nevermind. It's so late I can't think straight... If it's not in your sig, then PM me. aRcHiTeCt-
Honestly, I try to avoid all forms of the media whenever possible, for personal reasons (aka I dont' know how much of that crap they claim happens is true and would rather not sift through it). Upon reading this, however, I couldn't help but cry. I'm sorry to anyone who has to be exposed to this garbage and I'm sorry that I'm even associated with a country which would pull this crap. Further proof that America needs to learn its lesson (sorry if I offended anyone here, but it's what I believe).
It's absolute crap that needs to be stopped. Does anyone know of anything we can honestly DO about it aside from spreading the word? I don't want to stand by idly while this kind of garbage is going on in the name of "freedom" and "justice" :mad:
arrgg...!!!! BiggStankDogg, whether or not the Iraqis have killed US citizens is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant however, is that these terrible crimes are occuring, and that, instead of sending these soldiers to the Hague, they are protected by their government to keep up the appearance that the US is being the goodguy in Iraq.
Archeitect, what you state is not only uninteresting, it is also wellknown. Everyone knows that the US is doing some bad stuff there, that is, if they haven't lived in a pod for the last year. What is more interesting, is what Smith_Fan (I think) stated, that the government is trying to cover it up.
This, I think is a lot worse. Sure, the crimes are bad, but what is worse, the crimes, or the lack of justice. Now, I hold no illusions that justice is always done in the Hague, but by keeping the Hague out of it, it also excludes justice.
What we need is the UN as a 'police officer' who keeps both the European Union. and the United States in line. The US may believe itself to be the cop of the world, but it is not.
Whether the UN is capable of such policing is another issue, and one that should be addressed.
BSD, although this post is more directed at your opinion, not on your person, you have seem to forgotten that the dragging of charred corpses only happens to Americans. The british have seen little or no casualties (I believe 0 casualties since february). Although this is partly due to the fact that they have less people in Iraq, it is also due, I believe, to the fact that they treat the population in a more friendly manner.
The problem in this manner is that this is a childish battle. We have a lot of fingerpointing here, the Iraqis drag out the corpses, so the Americans piss on the prisoners, so the Iraqis start dragging corpses.
Someone, and who better to suit the role that than the United States of Freedom and Independence, has to stop this and start treating the population better, no matter what the grudges are. Tention makes people twitchy, and twitchy fingers get people killed.
We need to find the cause of this problem, and eliminate it. Why are the Iraqis killing US soldiers? Why are the Americans killing Iraqis? I'm not saying kill the US soldiers, but rather eliminate the reason behind it.
What's with the flaming, surely a subject of this calibre can easily be resolved without fighting ;).
Mr U 1) A mod can change the thread title to one that is more suitable.
2) I found a better site to discuss poltics so there is no need to dicuss it here.
3) I'm happy I pissed off BSD without even replying to him.
4) I never whined behind your back, so stop making up shit.
5)Thank you for those who replied to this thread.
6) And to Small Stink Dogg get a life!..... Originally posted by tHe aRcHeItEcT
1) A mod can change the thread title to one that is more suitable.
ok, is there any proposal you wanna make?
2) I found a better site to discuss poltics so there is no need to dicuss it here.
ok, but if you've got something interesting to say I would like to see you posting here. :)
6) And to Small Stink Dogg get a life!.....
please BSD and the architect, stop bashing each other :) Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
BiggStankDogg, whether or not the Iraqis have killed US citizens is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant however, is that these terrible crimes are occuring, and that, instead of sending these soldiers to the Hague, they are protected by their government to keep up the appearance that the US is being the goodguy in Iraq.
You sure about that? I was under the impression that these soldiers are going to be prosecuted, but I guess only time will tell...
Archeitect, what you state is not only uninteresting, it is also wellknown. Everyone knows that the US is doing some bad stuff there, that is, if they haven't lived in a pod for the last year. What is more interesting, is what Smith_Fan (I think) stated, that the government is trying to cover it up.
I dunno if I agree. I don't know that the US is there for oil or colonial goals. I have my doubts as to whether the real reason the US launched the war was to protect the world. But still, to actually know anything, you'd have to be there - you'd have to experience it. Until you do that, all you've got to base your knowledge on is the sources that you have access too - and even now in the age of the internet, I think that a person's perspective is still somewhat biased by his surroundings. If you had lived in the US all your life and BSD had lived his in Holland, then you might both have been now singing to different tunes. I'm not saying this is definately the case, I'm just saying that this is a possibility, and one that should be considered when you talk about knowing what's going on anywhere outside your own neighbourhood. Personally I think everything should be up to discussion :)
This, I think is a lot worse. Sure, the crimes are bad, but what is worse, the crimes, or the lack of justice. Now, I hold no illusions that justice is always done in the Hague, but by keeping the Hague out of it, it also excludes justice.
I'm not getting what you're saying here. Why the Hague? Is it wrong to judge these soldiers under the American law system? Or do you have reason to believe this is not being done?
What we need is the UN as a 'police officer' who keeps both the European Union. and the United States in line. The US may believe itself to be the cop of the world, but it is not.
Whether the UN is capable of such policing is another issue, and one that should be addressed.
Wow, a point I agree with completely. I didn't think we would see the day. The only thing is that indeed the UN has proved itself to be rather useless and irrelevant over the years. I think that if the UN were doing its job properly then it should have probably made war on Iraq ages ago... or at least properly assess their threat. It seems things only started to move over there when the US made their move...
BSD, although this post is more directed at your opinion, not on your person, you have seem to forgotten that the dragging of charred corpses only happens to Americans. The british have seen little or no casualties (I believe 0 casualties since february). Although this is partly due to the fact that they have less people in Iraq, it is also due, I believe, to the fact that they treat the population in a more friendly manner.
I'm sorry, but I've gotta say that's a very foolish comment. You also have nothing solid to base it on. You've just decided point blank that all American soldiers (or most) treat Iraqis like scum.
If the Americans truly are targeted, which I don't know if they are, then it is morel likely because the US is leading the occupying forces of Iraq. Terrorist acts are symbolic... anyway, the charred corpses, if I'm not much mistaken, didn't belong to military but to civilians... or am I thinking of something else?
The problem in this manner is that this is a childish battle. We have a lot of fingerpointing here, the Iraqis drag out the corpses, so the Americans piss on the prisoners, so the Iraqis start dragging corpses.
I think that statement would only mean anything if the pissing on prisoners were a policy. Actually, the dragging of bodies wasn't a policy either I think. They were both horrible acts commited by sadistic bastards. I'm not at all sure there is anything else more to it...
Someone, and who better to suit the role that than the United States of Freedom and Independence, has to stop this and start treating the population better, no matter what the grudges are. Tention makes people twitchy, and twitchy fingers get people killed.
Again, you're going on the assumption that the torturing of prisoners is a policy. I don't know where you get that from...
I'm sorry but I'm really not updated on the Iraqi situation. What is the US doing to the population that you think is wrong? Or are you still talking about the prisoners' torture?
We need to find the cause of this problem, and eliminate it. Why are the Iraqis killing US soldiers? Why are the Americans killing Iraqis? I'm not saying kill the US soldiers, but rather eliminate the reason behind it.
What's with the flaming, surely a subject of this calibre can easily be resolved without fighting ;).
Mr U[/color]
Firstly, yeah, I don't know what started the mass flaming in here. Let's hope it's over.
Secondly, about the process I agree with you, I think it's very important to strike problems at their root. But when I answer these questions to myself I still don't get a worthwhile answer...
Why are Iraqis killing US soldiers? 1)because they think the Americans are intending to stay in Iraq forever and are threatening their sovereignity. 2)because they're fundamentalist Muslims that want to kill all non Muslims. 3)they want the occupation to end now no matter the consequences.
That's all I can think of now. To 1) I'd say if the Americans have any plans on settling permanently, which i don't think they do, that they should reconsider, and regardless they need to find a way to explain their aims better somehow... or maybe let a different peace-keeping force come in... 2) defeat them through any and all military methods. Kill them or imprison them. 3) I guess they'd just have to be ignored, since most of Iraq wants and needs peace-keeping and are owed it by America. This is probably the real cause of terrorism, and here I don't have any solid answers...
As to why Americans kill Iraqis, if you're talking about the rogue soldiers then because their sick bastards and need to be locked up, but if you're talking about American policy then it is so that the soldiers and civilians of Iraq are safe. Maybe they go in to strong. I don't know, but I've heard big numbers on collateral damage, so if that's the case then I guess be more cautious with attack?
What do you think are the causes and answers? 1) A mod can change the thread title to one that is more suitable.
So it's your call to tell the mods what to do?
2) I found a better site to discuss poltics so there is no need to dicuss it here.
Bye.
3) I'm happy I pissed off BSD without even replying to him.
Awesome. I'm happy you won't make unnecessary threads here anymore.
4) I never whined behind your back, so stop making up shit.
Who's whining now? Cry me a river princess.
5)Thank you for those who replied to this thread.
I love you too.
6) And to Small Stink Dogg get a life!.....
Oh ouch...flaming has no place in this forum, if you wanna get served, try the Pepper Shack.
7) ACCESS DENIED Sorry if someone already mentioned this, but if the Iraqis don't follow the geneva convention, then why should anyone else? Ok, chill a little on the names ladies, apart from that keep going as I like healthy and open discussion with weight. And ftr, I'm keeping one eye on this thread for the little 'just in case' I never like to use. Enjoy and please continue. Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
My problem with the lame flamer is that he didn't give two shits about the Iraqi people when they were being persecuted by their own government. He wasn't OUTRAGED or thousght it URGENT when Iraqi women were being raped, or when those that opposed Saddam were slaughtered. He didn't give a FUCK about America's occupation until everyone ELSE gave a fuck. Why else would he post this tired shit AFTER people like HU, who could actually bring FACT to the table, had argued this point time and time again.
It's just said that tHe aRcHeItEcT used the humiliation of the Iraqi people to gratuitously use the word fuck. I use it, but I'm not posting old shit with tags like URGENT. I guess that's because I'm not a complete boner like him. But that's my opinion.
And yeah, Suxxor told me that you were whining about how "mean" I was. But you called me Small Stink Dogg. THAT was mean. Oh, wait... I meant to say lame.
BTW - Could you hand me my coat? It's in the closet next to you...
Bullet points seem to work with you.
1-Purpose of thread was to try and see if western media showed what was really happenening in Iraq.
2-I do hate Saddam and his actions, what would be the point of making a thread about him if we all say the same thing.
3-If a mod reads this you can change the thread title to -Iraq War-
4-You started this flaming Barney, and only ppl who cant respond properly try and scare their oppenents. Im sorry it didnt work though. and who's Suxxer??
5-Do you and DPD discuss your "cool" insults and what your going to say before you post.
6-If you used your brain you can tell I stop replying to this topic, why dont you?
And 'Yogohashasmida' on being a very good peice of shit that can type. Feel free to flame back As I wont even read it.... Originally posted by tHe aRcHeItEcT
6-If you used your brain you can tell I stop replying to this topic, why dont you?
And 'Yogohashasmida' on being a very good peice of shit that can type. Feel free to flame back As I wont even read it....
Ladies and gentlemen...2 or 3 of the funniest and most stupid sentences I've ever had the pleasure of reading on this website.
Congratulations, you win today's award for 'The Best Impression of a Sulking Adolescent'.
My 2cents...the treatment of those prisoners is bad, but everyone knew that kind of stuff goes on...it's just that it's only now being published. One question though...Why were the soldiers stupid enough to take photos of the events with them in it?!?!?! Crazy world... ^^Last off-topic post. Any more Off-topic posts will be deleted.
A small comment to Freeyourmind, if you agree with the fact that the UN should gain more power, I assumed you would also agree that you would want warcriminals to be charged in the Hague, after all, it is the international court...
US policy is not working, as obviously US soldiers are still committing the war crimes. The US should make sure that stuff did not happen if they do not support it. Soldiers should be trained to know that they can't just urinate on prisoners.
The British could be considered an occupational force as well, as they were equally responsible for the war in Iraq. They didn't just stand by Bush, they supported him in 'gaining evidence'. In any case, just stating that because the British aren't the primary force doesn't cut it for me. Dutch soldiers are making progress with the local population and there is 0 hostility, the same for other countries. You can't just tell me that the US is suffering because they are leading the attack.
What would you rather act upon, someone pissing on a family member, or someone occupying your country, or someone who does both. Remember, that Iraqis see the US as enemies (or they would not be attacking...) and that they will see torturing enemies as a US policy, something they are willing to act upon.
Mr U Originally posted by tHe aRcHeItEcT
and who's Suxxer??
That would be BSD reffering to me. :up: Im kinda taking a liking to that name, since it rhymes with Haxxor. Although I dont remember telling him anything about you whining about him, but then again, my memory as of late, has been shitty. Furthermore, like BSD told me in another thread, if you aren't going to post in here anymore, then why are you, dont say you aren't, just dont.
I am just wondering, why is it that the Iraqi citizens are just attacking the American soldiers, and not the other countries soldiers? I mean, they are a part of the same coalition. And 'Yogohashasmida' on being a very good peice of shit that can type. Feel free to flame back As I wont even read it....
No I don't think it's warrented here TA, and as HU stated one more post of this nature will be deleted. What I find ironic is that Americans wanted to bring democracy to Iraq, but instead some soldiers torment iraqis, they piss on them and they rape prisoners (according to some news reports) and take photos of that, which reminds Iraqis of the Hussein era. How will Iraqis and the whole world react? More terror, war etc.
You can't justify treatments like what we've seen with the bad iraqi boys and that there is a reason they are in prison. That's just an excuse.
And I do also believe that there is a reason for the many american deaths and the comparatively low death rates of other occupation forces, so I agree with Mr U. Do any of you know the real reason we're in Iraq? It's not that hard to figure out. When we went to the middle east originally to help Kuwait (sp?) and then pulled out it pissed Osama Bin Laden off. When he knocked our towers down Bush said, "OH YEAH!? You want to do that to me, then here's what I'll do to your precious Iraq..." I don't know all the smallest connections, but I do feel this whole thing is a personal feud and one of the quickest and most effective ways to stop the terrorists, at a belief level, to what they hold most valuable. Iraq may not be the only country we invade, but it's the only one thus far that is not an ally and refused to cooperate, besides Afghanistan.
So now you've got some stupid American sorority brats in the military taking funny photos of Iraq prisoners very sarcastically but still degrading them to the very core of their beliefs, which is sexually degrading to them, and yes we should be taking this very seriously, even though to these dumb kids it was just a way to blow off some steam. Because of what they did, there will be consequences. You know that our american captives are going to be sexually tortured now as a result, and that's only the beginning. CNN never should have released the photos, this shouldn't be happening. But what can you do? What's done is done. Now Bush has to do damage control, but no message is more powerful to the Iraqis than images of their men being sexually degraded. I found his apology rather weak, and it didn't suit him, nevertheless, it is good that he did. God, I loved it when he didn't fire Rumsfeld: It supports my Illuminati theories ;).
The starting of this war is obviously very complex. Iraq has been a thorn in the US' side since Gulf war 1. After all, it couldn't feel good to Bush to know that pops failed. Secondly, oil :). The Bush, and the Laden family (who have proven connections with the infamous Osama) are shareholders in a lot of businesses that profit both from the war (think media coverage, ammunitions, American flags, body bags...) and from the occupation itself. When Iraq was first colonized by the English and they installed a monarch, they put up oil-contracts. Oil, these days is a vital source of energy these days, as we have grown extremely dependent of it. And since Texas doesn't have any oil (despite of what Bush tried to find earlier in his carreer LOL), it's only logical that they try to find it elsewhere, since the reserves in Alaska are hardly enough.
In any case, I have this confirmed rumor (well, I saw it on the Dutch news :)) that the new Iraqi constitution will not acknowledge female rights (the right to vote, etcetera)... What the fuck is up with that? Anyways, I'll try to find a newsarticle about that :).
Mr U Originally posted by Valasher
Osama Bin Laden off. When he knocked our towers down Bush said, "OH YEAH!? You want to do that to me, then here's what I'll do to your precious Iraq..."
I just had to ask this, What does Iraq have to do with Osama Bin Laden, Im sure you know he's from Saudi Arabia so what did you mean by that??..... First off, I thought this kid^^ wasn't going to post here anymore...anyway...
I totally reject the idea that the actions of those idiots is acceptable in times of war. War is hell, but surely humanity should prevail. Especially in light of how they found themselves in this situation in the first place, ie. an illegal invasion of a soverign country...actually fuck that...the very nature of the invasion shows how much they care about humanity when they go against every international treaty in current existence.
Also, how suprising is it really when the US is already flouting international law with it's human rights abuses in Guantanomo Bay? Even if the actions of those fools wasn't supported directly by the official US military code of conduct, it is quite obviously supported unoffically in light of my previous statement.
As for the link between Bin Laden and Iraq; It's about as tenuous as a radio presenter going from talking about frozen water to introducing a song by Ice Cube. Another case of Bush talking from the Oval Office via his most southern orifice...he's cultivated quite a talent at it...
He really must be one of the stupidest presidents to ever hold office! I mean, come on! How long did it take him to realise that the world was looking for an apology about the treatment of those Iraqis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah, I don't think anything could justify what those soldiers did, but in saying it wasn't an American policy I was not allieviating the leadership of any responsibility... I was just making a point that it was a long way between accusing the leadership of not doing enough to prevent war crimes and of accusing it of using torture as a tactic...
Even if these actions are unofficially supported, there's no way for us to know or to prove this, so it doesn't make sense to blame the government of war crimes against inmates of either Guantanomo bay or the Iraqis...
BSD, even in times of war, and even when it's between two sides that really don't like eachother, which is more often than not the case, there are certain rules which are just not broken. There was some sort of international agreement on that somewhere I don't remember. Geneva was it?
I agree with you however that the situation is tougher for Americans than people generally believe. But it's simply not a good enough excuse...
S_F, I agree with you that torturing the Iraqis didn't do anyone but the terrorist propagandists any good. And perhaps a case like this would indeed make the US more hateful to the Iraqis, but before this happened I think it was unreasonable to assume that the terrorists targeted American because they treated them worse... I that in general it is misguided to pin the blame for terrorism on the victims. The blame belongs to the perpetrators and to the people who put them up to it. The victims of an attack are to blame only if the attack is justified, which I don't think is what you're suggesting...
Besides, when Iraqis are being treated badly be any given soldier I find it hard to believe that they can tell according to the accent or tanks where the soldier came from. More likely that they regard any and every soldier as American, since that country has been leading the effort and has been the most outspoken about since it's begun. I think that the inhumanity being attributed to random American soldeirs has more to do with racism than real fact (that is racism against Americans. I'm getting my wording all mixed up and jumbled :p).
HU, I may be wrong, but my impression was that the cases discussed in the Hague were ones of leaders commiting war crimes, not of rogue soldiers... rogue soldiers can be found anywhere, and I'm pretty sure it's standard procedure to have them judged by their military court system.
The conspiracy theories I'm not even going to get into, but just for general knowledge, the US actually contains more oil than Iraq... :p
But I still believe that the real reasoning behind the war was self-defense in the long run. Though I really have no idea and therefore don't really get into a lot of arguments about it. HU, I may be wrong, but my impression was that the cases discussed in the Hague were ones of leaders commiting war crimes, not of rogue soldiers... rogue soldiers can be found anywhere, and I'm pretty sure it's standard procedure to have them judged by their military court system.
The conspiracy theories I'm not even going to get into, but just for general knowledge, the US actually contains more oil than Iraq...
But I still believe that the real reasoning behind the war was self-defense in the long run. Though I really have no idea and therefore don't really get into a lot of arguments about it.
The Hague is an international court. If an Iraqi prisoner was to sue one of the American Army, the Hague would be the designated court. Sure, this may lead to a lot of charges, that's probably why it is mostly done on a national level. Problem is that the little guy, the real victim, is often forgotten. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the power of the Hague, and the US should remove the law preventing US Soldiers from being trialed there.
I left conspiracy theories out of this. Personally, I believe that the war against Iraq is a step to overtake the Middle-East and establish one Union there, with one central government.
Self-Defence? Defence against what? Nukes? The only nation ever to fire a nuke for offensive capabilities was the US. Biological weapons? Unlikely. This is a suicide weapon, an indiscriminate weapon, as it kills muslims too, and they are rather careful with not killing too much of their own.
Chemical? Ha. Iraq just had short-range Scuds, which they are allowed to have to defend their own nation. The US had nothing to fear from Iraq, only vice versa. Sadam was just bluffing so he could sell the oil at a higher price.
Long live the Grand Chessboard.
Mr U i reckon Sadam was working for Bush. Sadam used to be a CIA agent (thats what my history teacher said when i told him my opinion). i think the US went after iraq for the oil. Hmm.. Well, as a reasonable specialist in conspiracy theories, I can state with reasonable certainty that Sadam was not a CIA agent, but rather a puppet of the CIA. He was indirectly aided by the CIA when the Ba'at party came to power thanks to CIA liquidations. Sadam later killed some people to complete his rise.
Osama Bin Laden, however is a known CIA agent, and was called a Freedom Fighter in the 80's, when he received support from the US since he fought the US's enemies through terrorism and guerilla-warfare. Osama already in the eighties, however, stated that he was pro-palestinia, and was anti-zionistic.
Mr U i didn't know that Binladen was a CIA agent. wow!
-Sync- George Bush senior was head of the CIA, what does that tell you? For one, in politics you can't just say what you mean or get to the bottom line, you have to be touchy feely and walking on egg shells, never really saying the truth. Because every action you take and everything you say has to be 100% justified and backed up by facts, and the other part of it is reprocussions for the actions you take and things you say, and you can never fully predict what that's going to be. There is no clear cut connection to Iraq for Osama, because the administration in the white house isn't giving us the full story, for whatever reason. They have their agenda, and we're on the outside just guessing at everything.
With George W.'s daddy as head of the CIA, and now that he's president there's some connections he's making that we're not allowed to know about. Micheal Moore is supposedly going to shed some light on the connections between Bush and the Bin Ladens, but I'm not crossing my fingers here, as Moore has his own agenda.
The reason we didn't invade Saudi Arabia is because they are our allies, and they haven't given us problems. They say "Terrorists are bad and our country is good and prosperous", so we don't aggressively invade anyway, I'm sure we have spies there, we have spies everywhere. Anyhow, Iraq is the uncontrolled country, and the current administration in office knows of some connections, they are doing whatever they think they can to end terrorism, and guess what? We haven't had any problems here since Sept. 11th besides raised alert levels. That's got to say something... and despite all this, I'm still voting for Kerry. I mean it is the end of the world, so why does it matter who we vote for? that is one of my favourite satirical explanations of Iraq war:
http://develnet.org/ThisAndThat/DaddyWhyDidWeHaveToAttackIraq
:p Originally posted by smith_fan
that is one of my favourite satirical explanations of Iraq war:
http://develnet.org/ThisAndThat/DaddyWhyDidWeHaveToAttackIraq
:p
Yeah, that is pretty funny, but you always gotta be careful with satire... it's a powerful way to make a point, but you have to remember that the reason it's so powerful is because it tries to put the other side down and is going on the assumption that all that disagree are either idiots or evil... it's just something that I think should be watched out for. Though I agree with the point about America's zigzaging policy. But I think it's mainly due to bullshit like the idea that America invaded Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people. Whatever the specific reason for invading Iraq was, it was American. Regardless of whether it was for oil, security, christian or colonial goals - the reasoning would always be to further America's interest, which is the way it should be. Lies would just get them more complicated then they already are... Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
...Osama Bin Laden, however is a known CIA agent, and was called a Freedom Fighter in the 80's, when he received support from the US since he fought the US's enemies through terrorism and guerilla-warfare. Osama already in the eighties, however, stated that he was pro-palestinia, and was anti-zionistic.
Mr U
Eh, CIA agent as in American spy? Please elaborate. I think you're still talking about American supported... if the man is an American spy then logic says he wouldn't be fighting against his own people. Or is there a bigger conspiracy here that I don't see? It wasn't like he celebrated his birthday in the US. You have to understand that the US hires people abroad to do missions for them. In any case, Osama Bin Laden (the terrorist) was trained by the CIA, and was on a payroll of the CIA to assasinate and to terrorise members of established governments.
Osama Bin Laden, as I said before, was pro-palestinian. When the US got further involved in the matter, I guess Osama did not like it. In any case, Osama was never completely loyal to the US. It's more like a 'You give me training, I'll take care of your competitors'. And, if something went wrong, the US could disavow all knowledge of knowing or hiring him, and claim he was a terrorist (sound familiar?).
Or they could use him as a scapegoat to blame the middle-eastern world afterward.
It's obvious that the events on 9/11 had, in principal, nothing to do with Iraq, yet it seems that the American public seems to think that they do. In any case, it is a little too much like Nero's Rome, And Hitlers Reichstag's building. You know I don't like conspiracy theories, but the similarities are striking. Use a disaster against your own people and blame your enemies. Some shit never get's old.
Mr U Please, they don't need to hire anyone. It's like a game of chess, manipulate would be more the key word here.
And ftr I am not singling out the U.S for all countries do it. It's human nature and I'm not a huge fan of conspiricy either, in any form. Sounds too vague. Countries have motives and sometimes those motives blow up in their faces.
They also make offers or deals with devils to make their country safer, only to find the devil turns out to be an even bigger monster or threat, so they need to play hardball with their asses. No mystery here I'm afraid.
This all boils down with giving the kid a toy to play with and the kid plays with it the wrong way. The person or adult who gave said kid this toy then steps in and takes it off them and slaps their bottoms for good measure.
As for satire, it has become synonimous with the word war. And props to SF for giving us that link. Good stuff. Yeh, you may haved backed up your opinion good, but Do you really think any of this murdering and abusment and all that would ever have happened if America had never went there at all and decided to mind its own fucking Business, now I know Americans have nothing to do with it, but the Goverments decission to ever go to war over 'weapons of mass destruction' there werent even there has to be the STUPIDEST decision ever made in history as it has led to all this shit happeneing in Iraq, And it wont stop now, it will go on for a very long time, while Americans remain thinking that their country is doing a heroic thing for another nation.....
And one more point, This is war meaning people kill people, this is acceptable as that is the main action of war, but when your are improsined that means your are surrendered and cannot harm your enemy, and by the rules of war your are to be locked somewhere until negotiations or execution, not to be kept alive to be torured and to have fun with, because these prisoners will live on scared terribly fot their rest of their agonsing lives. Think about it would you rather be a soldier who dies a quick death, or one who is tortured and abused until death??..... Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
OK. At this time, I'm trying very hard to maintain my composure. And if I come off as offensive, then I come off as offensive. What I am going to say in this post will probably be very harsh, and is not deliberately directed at anyone's person in particular, but at the views expressed in this thread that I view to be wrong.
WHAT THE FUCK. (http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=Will+killing+shake+Jews%26acute%3B+faith%3F&intcategoryid=5) This is THE VERY reason that the occupation will continue. Whether the origins of the occupations is considered stupid or not, it is this very shit that makes the end of the occupation not possible.
This is going to come off as immature, I know, and my opinion in this matter is VERY biased as of now, but I say FUCK THOSE IRAQI FUCKERS. Make human sex pyramids out of them, and BURN THOSE FUCKERS ALIVE. Lets drag Iraqi nationals through the streets. Let us take any flag burning bitch in the whole lot and fucking slowly saw their heads off. An eye for an eye makes everyone blind? Then lets all learn braille. Because like Bush or not, I would have wiped Iraq off of the face of the Earth.
It's really fucking funny how ironic it is that nobody is posting URGENT GODDAMN threads here about an American civilian GETTING HIS FUCKING HEAD SAWED OFF IN THE NAME OF GOD. I don't give a flying FUCK what any of you assholes say about Iraq's "independence" or "sovereignty". FUCK THAT SHIT. These people are barbarians who slaughter American civilians, and we're pissed because they were UNDRESSED?!?! Because they had PEE ON THEM?!? HOW ABOUT SAWING A CIVILIANS HEAD OFF? HOW ABOUT BURNING CIVILIANS TO DEATH AND HANGING CHARRED CORPSES FROM BRIDGES?!? THIS is the population of Iraq that I as an American am supposed to SYMPATHIZE with? Are you fuckers SHITTING ME?
It's funny that America is forced to conform to the laws of decency. It's funny that people who are plotting to BLOW PEOPLE UP are put in embarrassing situations, and this is call for outrage. But when American civilians are being targeted in Iraq and are being barbarically exterminated and celebrated on the internet, AND NOT ONE OF YOU POMPOUS MOTHERFUCKERS MADE A GODDAMN PEEP ABOUT IT is FUCKING SICK. Anyone who says shit about NUDITY, or people in CHAINS AND MASKS, or got PEE on them, and TURNS THEIR HEAD WHEN PEOPLE LIKE NICK BERG, DANNY PEARL, and the VICTIMS IN FALLUJAH ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED, YOU ARE FUCKING IDIOTS. When women like JESSICA LYNCH are found incapacitated and riddled with gunshot and stab wounds, and that is BETTER than what is happening to the fucking Iraqi prisoners, I think it is the REST of the world that is fucked up.
WHERE is the U.N. NOW? What are THEY doing to resolve the digusting slaughter of innocent American civilians? Have Iraqi civilians died in our war effort? Yeah, but they weren't specifically targeted, no matter what any anti-American conspiracy site says. They weren't turned into GODDAMN SNUFF FILM SUBJECTS, and posted for the sick pleasure of a bloodthirsty people.
VIOLENCE BEGETS VIOLENCE. Everyone else here is wondering why America won't just leave Iraq. Why don;t you ask the Berg family? There is nothing noble in what those fucking cowards behind masks did. Nothing they filmed in that buther room did anything to further their "message". They hid and found a weak civilian to butcher. Six men pinned Nick Berg down and sawed his head off with a knife. In the name of God, and in the name of Iraq. And we're now supposed to leave. Well, there goes THAT idea.
HU once said that if an American soldier came to his doorstep, that he would shoot him in the gace, no questions asked. There are MANY people posting on this and other sites that feel the exact same way. But it is America that is fucked up. It is America that is violent and bloodthirsty. It is America with no fucking morals. And it is an innocent American like Nick Berg being captured, tortured, put on film, and ultimately execited in disgusting grizzly fashion. AND THAT SHIT'S NOT URGENT?!? This is a fucked up view, and I'm sick to my stimach to think that some of you are reading my post, thinking of ways to explain how that was justified. For some reason that those same extremists HAD to do it. For some reason to explain that you TOO are as FUCKED UP AS THEM, but it's OK because that guy was American, and America = bad. Fuck Iraq. I hope that shit get's turned into a parking lot for a Walmart. Maybe when we bring christmas there in the "spread of Christianity", we could hang the butchered remains of Iraqi nationals on our tree as sugarplums dance through our heads. Because that qould be OK. That's what the Iraqis do.
ok, listen BSD. We're all shocked. I've seen the video and I would have posted it myself but you were faster. That is an obvious reaction that you posted. This killing of an american innocent civilian was WRONG, it can't be justified by whatever. Some may call it "revenge" but this is just a simple way of terrorists to add fuel to the current situation.
I can only repeat what I said: war IS disgusting and people forget their principles and ideals there. (though I don't believe terrorists even have that)
BUT that's again NO reason to justify the treatment of iraqi prisoners. It's not right to return the like. Italian, british, spanish, german civilians got murdered. Disgusting crimes happened. Many civilians got killed but I don't change my opinion and say: "Fuck Iraq. Kill them all". A lot of IRAQI civilians were killed TOO! And not every iraqi is a terrorist and not every american is one of the bad guys.
WHERE is the U.N. NOW? What are THEY doing to resolve the digusting slaughter of innocent American civilians?
Please don't forget that the US government has totally ignored the UN and started that war without a resolution. Now you can't say that UN should directly send troops there. And Iraqi people could say exactly the same: Where is the U.N now? What are they doing to resolve the disguting slaughter of Iraqi civilians and so on....? One says this, the other one says that. Typical war situation, in my opinion.
However, I offer Mr. Berg's family my condolences. Well, BSD, one thing I can agree with you on is that there is a huge difference between the bloodthirsty murders by terrorists and the American torturing, or humilating of prisoners. I don't, and I'm sure the vast majority of this site don't even consider these crimes to be the least similar in nature. But the thing is, and I've said this many times before, terrorists as a rule kill. It's not news. There's an ongoing debate what to do with them but it is generally accepted that they're evil. The American army, on the other hand, is held to a higher standard, and it may change the way it acts according to the way people respond. The reason why people keep going on about how the American army is violent is because they wouldn't have expected it to be - because it's news. Terrorists, on the other hand, are expected to be evil, it's what defines them. This, btw, is why the terrorists organistations must be destroyed and the American army shouldn't. The thing is you keep comparing the two as if they came from some equal starting point when they are actually worlds apart - in their moral status, in the way they are criticised, in their legitimacy in the world. While I agree with you that America is treated with way more contempt than it deserves, for the reasons above I don't think it's to the extent that you think.
As for those statement about the Iraqi civilians, I'm not sure whether you were serious or were just trying to make a point, but I think you should really consider what you're saying. I know how you feel. Yesterday we Israelis had reason to be pissed off as well. Six soldiers were killed in Gaza and their bodies were desecrated - bodyparts were filmed being shown off and played around with in a Hamas display - attempts to regain their bodies are still underway - and all of Israel was in shock. But still, it's important to remember and I think we've done that pretty well, that like Smithfan said, not every Palestinian/Iraqi is a terrorist, and emotions are more often subjective than not.
EDIT:
...And Iraqi people could say exactly the same: Where is the U.N now? What are they doing to resolve the disguting slaughter of Iraqi civilians and so on....? One says this, the other one says that. Typical war situation, in my opinion.
I don't think that's a fair assumption... When Iraqi civilians are killed it's not even because of rogue soldiers, it's because of collateral damage, and it's not something the UN would be able to stop.
It's important to see the difference between accidental killing and bloodthirsty deliberate murder. And torturing doesn't even come into the equation here... Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
Blablablablablablabla blablablablablaBlablablablablablabla blablablablabla blablablablablablabla blablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablabla.
Iraq sucks. blabla blablablablablablabla blablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablabla blablablablabla. All Iraqis must die. blabla blablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablabla.
HU said something bad. Blabla blablablablablablabla blablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablabla.
On the Berg family (http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/051104beheadsuscivilian.htm)
On me shooting an American soldier: I did indeed state that, and it is a quite logical response. If an American soldier would appear before my door, they would not respect Dutch sovereignity, and I would be in my fullest right to rip the guy's heart out.
On you hating Iraq: Get over it. As stated in article, there is no reason for us to torture those soldiers, as it only gives more reason for terrorist attacks. Did you ever consider the fact that maybe the kids of the people we kill might just turn against us and decide to use themselves and our commercial airplanes as wallpaper on the Empire State Building, if you get my meaning? Your point of view is, to say the least, boring. Everyone could have wrote that 'oh look at me, I am special!' post, and it is rather sad to behold, indeed. If you have a point to share do it, but I have no intentions allowing someone to think they are superior to others and that only they can exercise revenge over others. I'm getting mighty tired of this crap.
Don't forget to whipe your knees on the way out,
Mr U Quite right on your last post HU, every action has a consequence. We're 'supposed' to be the good guys (the U.S.), and yet we're torturing the Iraqis because of a collapse in the power structure. But you have to realize that it's hard to decide what you would do in that situation looking at the prisoners who killed your best friends that you trained with, etc...
Every action has a consequence, not everyone knows what the consequence will be at this point.
The real people to blame are the Media. They are being OVER THE TOP in their disreguard for consequences. They show this footage, probably with added incentives for the Democratic Party, because now our administration is in a world of shit, and they don't even stop to think that the images they're showing are going to lead to devastating consequences for our people, at home and abroad in enemy territory. It's all about ratings, not safety for these stations, screw them. I'm sure you guys don't care what I add to this thread, but one more thing... THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD. Americans are not expected to torture prisoners, or at least not to let it leak out. You have to wonder how America is the most powerful and elite military in the world if they were never sneaky or underhanded... they have always been the most underhanded. It's just that when it's brandished on the news people get mad at America. Terrorism is not okay, but terrorists are expected to kill, as BSD said (I think...) so that's not new news. Plus over here we're all fat pigs who could care less about when a civilian is killed in Iraq, because we're over here trying to buy everything under the sun and forget about all the problems of the world. America seems to need a bigger wake up call than 9/11, because I think everyone seems to have forgotten about it now.
The main thing they're saying on the news (most channels) is that there is outrage at the outrage of the torture of Iraqi prisoners, not outrage at the tourturing itself. The media is evil. This thread is "so hot right now"...in the words of that other evil-doer...Mugatu...
The reason for the lack of equality in respect to what the US does in comparison with what a terrorist does is simple: The US professes to have the moral high-ground and that they are there for the greater good. When a country asserts to the rest of the world that they are here to uphold the highest moral standards and yet make a mockery of the very standards they are supposed to be defending, people can see the utter-hypocrisy and cry bullshit. THAT is the reason a lot of the world views the US the way it currently does. Everyone sees this big-bully going around telling Iraq, South Korea, Cuba, Syria, etc, etc, etc that their human rights record is poor, that they have WMDs, that they limit the freedom of the press, blah, blah, blah...when at EXACTLY the same time they are guilty of the very offences they are citing at others! It doesn't take a genius to understand the contempt aimed at the US when this is what is going on...
The only way I can see the current hatred of the US ending is if Kerry gets elected...then, depending on his policies, US-favor may again be restored...While Bush is there it's only going to get worse...Oh, for those heady days of Clinton...!
Post-note: I just watched THAT video of the guy being beheaded. It is horrific...even more so when you fully comprehend that it is REAL and not some scene from a movie... OBLh, that is the exact reason I'm wondering if the whole thing going on with our soldiers torturing the Iraqi prisoners isn't the work of Democrats. Kind of how the republicans blamed Clinton for the cigar incident and then he lied about it, but in the end it turned out to be true, but no one would have cared if the Republicans hadn't pushed or even introduced the idea.
Well now we have Democrats blowing the whistle. They certainly didn't choose for it to happen, but when one of them found out, the whistle started to blow... I was watching part of the Rumsfield speech, and didn't he say that he had the pictures (or information of their existance) on his desk months before and just 'overlooked' it? I could have sworn that's what he said... Is it me, or is there a slight difference between a president getting a blow-job and a president condoning - in that he is the commander-in-chief and has justified NOT acknowledging the Geneva convention - torture in a land he is supposed to be 'liberating'... As smith_fan said, Iraqi civilians are victims of collateral damage, not kidnapping and murder victims. I put that eye for an eye quote because it was what HU reminded me of at MH. And now he's talking about children getting revenge. You ASSUME the people terrorizing American victims were connected with a wronged family member. You know what happens when you assume right? You make an ass out of you and me, but this time it's just HU. For fuck's sake HU, America did NOTHING to you, and you're ready to abandon that tired ass pacifist act that you spout to exercise your FULLEST RIGHT. You are ready to exercise a revenge that you have no place in exercizing. Just like a LOT of Iraqi militants. You're weak in your convictions and practice. Just like a LOT of Iraqi militants.
The US violated Iraqi sovereignity, and that allows the Iraqi's to whoop your asses on their ground. You were the agressors. I said that once to state that I would do the same, I would fight aggressors in each way I could. If Iraqis invaded, my response would be exactly the same.
People like HU spout off on the "evils" of America and then rationalize their OWN violence.
Again, this is about being the agressor. If American soldiers are on Dutch soil, they have violated soveriegnity, and I'm in my fullest right to kill them. If American soldiers are on Iraqi soil, the Iraqi's have a full right to kill them. If Iraqi's are on American soil, the US has the right to kill them.
How fucking hard can it be to comprehend the basic rules of sovereignity? Maybe I am young, and have little experience in the world, but this also means my opinion is less biased, and as you stated before, yours is heavily, as you are unable to see that violating sovereignity is wrong.
You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about do you? The people put on a leash and shit were people who don't abide traffic. Who don't have passports when they arrive at a checkpoint. If you don't believe me, ask DD what they do when they get shot upon.
And even if they were murderers and rapists, it is in no way justification for the crimes commited against them. After all, according to both Dutch, American and International laws, the body is sacred, and is not to be violated.
Than you come up with some shitty argument that a US business man got killed, who actually came to a warzone to make fucking money! Can you even begin to understand the foolishness behind your argument? These people come there to build companies because in their own country the wages are too high.
I am against all forms of violence, and if a US soldier would be in front of my door, that very act would be an act of violance according to International law, and do not believe a man should die. In the case of Berg, however, I can empathise with the people who did it, how cruel it may have been.
I assume however, that you see the above point as an anti-american view, and personally, I have no interest in proving you wrong. Believe what you will.
And what is the fuss about me posting in pink, BSD? You know what they say about homophobes...
Mr U
//Edit:
The reason for the lack of equality in respect to what the US does in comparison with what a terrorist does is simple: The US professes to have the moral high-ground and that they are there for the greater good. When a country asserts to the rest of the world that they are here to uphold the highest moral standards and yet make a mockery of the very standards they are supposed to be defending, people can see the utter-hypocrisy and cry bullshit. THAT is the reason a lot of the world views the US the way it currently does. Everyone sees this big-bully going around telling Iraq, South Korea, Cuba, Syria, etc, etc, etc that their human rights record is poor, that they have WMDs, that they limit the freedom of the press, blah, blah, blah...when at EXACTLY the same time they are guilty of the very offences they are citing at others! It doesn't take a genius to understand the contempt aimed at the US when this is what is going on...
http://www.matrixmania.com/images/smilies/party.gif . Just saw this. I agree wholeheartedly, but I assume BSD will just ignore this point, and continue talking about how I am a homosexual and how I give people blowjobs with carnival. How very mature of him. Guys, I'm sure you both know that there's no chance of anyone getting anywhere if you keep up this style of argument, especially if the opinions are worlds apart as they are here...
That said, I'm beginning to agree with BSD. It's rediculous how people can empathise with Iraqis brutally murdering a random white guy (and filming it) due to the American's army peacekeeping presence and can't empathise at all, or even find completely shocking, that the American army couldn't control a couple rogue soldiers humiliating (it wasn't even torturing according to what I'm seeing) Iraqi lawbreakers because of what has happened to their comrades and friends - because of soldiers being burned alive and being paraded! Both events are wrong, but jeez, take things in perspective. What the American soldeirs had done is nothing, NOTHING, compared to what's been done and has just been done again yesterday to Americans.
And come on HU, that first post of BSD had nothing to do with being "special". I don't know, maybe seeing a random innocent guy's head off chopped off doesn't move you at all, but most people, and especially his countrymen, can tell that there's something extremely wrong here.
About killing the soldier coming to your door, firstly, there are other ways to fight occupation apart from murder, but actually that's besides the point. That guy that was filmed killed wasn't occupying anyone. He simply happened to be in Iraq - and whatever the reasons that brought him to do this, they were not to do with violating anyone's sovreignity - AND WAS KILLED BECAUSE HE WAS WHITE. And this isn't considered widely wrong in Holland and Europe because there isn't a taboo on racism against Ameircans. Maybe there should be, I dunno, but I think most people participating in this argument are intelligent enough to understand that no people should be targeted due to their race or nationality.
Secondly (if I can still continue from the "firstly" :p), all of your talk against soldeirs is ignoring the fact that right now they have on choice but to stay in Iraq. I'm sure that the Americans would be more that happy to just leave the Iraqis there to rot but the fact is they have a duty now to make sure they haven't completely destroyed the country. Your argument might have made sense while the war was going on, but right now, the force being attacked by terrorists is a peacekeeping one...
Ou Be, true, it should be cause for outrage if the Americans are not even fulfilling the ideals in whose names they are fighting, but that does not explain why the murder of innocent Berg would be more understandable than the humiliation of felon Iraqis (and I'm not sure exactly what their crimes were. Anyone know what kind of prisoners are kept in Abu thingamajig?) That's the problem, Freeyourmind, no body knows what kind of prisoners they were. A US secretary stated that they were murderers and rapists, but I for one doubt that, as I have serious statements were they stated that most of the people involved in these sick acts were in fact people who just forgot their passport, or drove too fast...
Personally, I'm not at all moved by images of someone dying. The only thing I found sickening is that they didn't use a larger knife. I'm against taking the lives of people, but when someone is killed it should be quick and painless.
I encourage the return to normal, friendly debate, of course.
Pink is Masculine
Mr U Perhaps you want to scroll up and check the title of this thread. In any case, stay on topic, biggstankdogg. The rules apply to all members, you included.
Mr U ok everyone, I know this a very emotional debate but please stop insulting or flaming, both BSD and Mr. U ;) Smith_Fan:
I encourage the return to normal, friendly debate, of course.
It was just above the Pink is Masculine. I guess you were too much drawn to the Universal Truth that is Pink to see it ;).
Now, let's return to the Second Gulf war, shall we?
Mr U Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Smith_Fan:
It was just above the Pink is Masculine. I guess you were too much drawn to the Universal Truth that is Pink to see it ;).
Now, let's return to the Second Gulf war, shall we?
Mr U
haha, I was blinded by that wonderful pink color ;)
I think you're going a bit too far if you say that it's ok for those terrorists to kill that guy. Ok, it's war but that is no justification for the slaughter of an innocent civilian. It probably also had something to do with him being jewish and that's not right either.
So, that is in my opinion the difference between terrorists and iraqi fighters. Those who only want the occupation to end. They can see the difference between soldiers and civilians. its war. people die. but that is overboard just coz he was a jew. Are you sure innocent is absolute? Or is it perhaps relative?
Perhaps the people who murdered Mr Berg did not feel he was innocent, after all, he was an American, and he came there with capitalistic reasoning. Although I do not agree with murder of any kind, I just hope that people will be able to empathise with the Iraq people. At a certain point, when you have such hatred against American soldiers, generalisations are created, and they are believed.
We, however, as OBLH stated, as defenders of Peace, Harmony and Justice should stand above this, and luminate equality where-ever we set foot. Too much to ask? Perhaps, but how could one expect less from a country that intends to reform a country according it's own design. Perhaps we should improve ourselves before pointing at others.
Matthew stated, in chapter 7, verse 5:
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
May we heed his advice and be shielded from the hypocrisy that surrounds us.
Amen,
Mr U Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
That's the problem, Freeyourmind, no body knows what kind of prisoners they were. A US secretary stated that they were murderers and rapists, but I for one doubt that, as I have serious statements were they stated that most of the people involved in these sick acts were in fact people who just forgot their passport, or drove too fast...
Personally, I'm not at all moved by images of someone dying. The only thing I found sickening is that they didn't use a larger knife. I'm against taking the lives of people, but when someone is killed it should be quick and painless.
I encourage the return to normal, friendly debate, of course.
Pink is Masculine
Mr U
Well, I'm not that good at research, but I found this article which seems to be pretty well-informed, from the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact
I don't know how objective this magazine's supposed to be, but for what it's worth, it states here that the inmates were both people who commited minor offenses like you said and people involved in terrorist acts. Regardless of whether the tortured prisoners belonged to the first group or the second, even the worst kinds of torture inflicted upon them cannot compare to what was done to Nicholas Berg. Not one Iraqi prisoner was murdered.
You still haven't answered me how Nicholas Berg's murder for being an American civilian is more understandable than the inmates' torture for being Iraqis. Both are wrong, but to say the second is worse is preposterous to me. I can't see your logic.
Smithfan, I kinda agree with about terrorists but not completely. I reckon freedom fighters are the ones that fight against the occupation - that is, against the army, by battle or by sabotaging equipment and the like. The moment they are aiming to take life it begins to become terrorism. There is no question that targeting civilians is terrorism, but I think that targeting soldiers like the Iraqis are doing, and especially considering the nature of soldiering the Americans are doing right now, also is terrorism. When you murder a man in cold blood to make a message then it's murder - it's no longer war...
I don't think the murder had anything to do with Berg being Jewish though. When he was captured I doubt they were able to tell whether or not he was Jewish. More likely it was because he was white, or American. Originally posted by freeyourmind
Not one Iraqi prisoner was murdered.
hmm...I saw a news report that stated that the british and american government is doing an investigation because of iraqi prisoners that died during their time in prison. I don't know if that's accurate yet.
Smithfan, I kinda agree with about terrorists but not completely. I reckon freedom fighters are the ones that fight against the occupation - that is, against the army, by battle or by sabotaging equipment and the like. The moment they are aiming to take life it begins to become terrorism. There is no question that targeting civilians is terrorism, but I think that targeting soldiers like the Iraqis are doing, and especially considering the nature of soldiering the Americans are doing right now, also is terrorism. When you murder a man in cold blood to make a message then it's murder - it's no longer war...
I don't think the murder had anything to do with Berg being Jewish though. When he was captured I doubt they were able to tell whether or not he was Jewish. More likely it was because he was white, or American.
hmm...yes, but if you are in the situation of facing a war then this changes one's opinion. Both sides are willing to kill each other - iraqis and american soldiers.
Well, if they knew that he was jewish then it definitely was his death verdict. But however, it would have been the same result.
I've seen the video a few minutes ago and I have to agree with HU. They should, at least, have taken a bigger knife. I know that this sounds absurd due to the whole situation :rolleyes: Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Are you sure innocent is absolute? Or is it perhaps relative?
Perhaps the people who murdered Mr Berg did not feel he was innocent, after all, he was an American, and he came there with capitalistic reasoning. Although I do not agree with murder of any kind, I just hope that people will be able to empathise with the Iraq people. At a certain point, when you have such hatred against American soldiers, generalisations are created, and they are believed.
We, however, as OBLH stated, as defenders of Peace, Harmony and Justice should stand above this, and luminate equality where-ever we set foot. Too much to ask? Perhaps, but how could one expect less from a country that intends to reform a country according it's own design. Perhaps we should improve ourselves before pointing at others.
Matthew stated, in chapter 7, verse 5:
May we heed his advice and be shielded from the hypocrisy that surrounds us.
Amen,
Mr U
You keep mixing up America's policy and role in the war and the case of Mr Berg. The two have NOTHING to do with each other.
Even if the American army had invaded Iraq with the outspoken intent of murdering every Arab man they set their sights on it wouldn't have justified killing Berg. He is COMPLETELY innocent. His only crime was to be born American, like you said. And Capitalist? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
I don't think that Berg's killers were under any illusions that he wasn't innocent either. Unless of course, like you said, being American constitutes a crime. But they thought it would further their cause or maybe improve their political status so they did it anyway. That's what murder is. Taking a person's life for as selfish cause.
But the question remains, why the hell should we emphathise with these "Iraqi people"? Yeah, they're miserable, yeah their life sucks, but does that give them an excuse to randomly kill people of a certain race? By the same reasoning we could say, and it would make much more sense even, that we should empathise with the American soldiers for taking their frustration out on Iraqis. I mean, what did they even do? It is so unbelievably insignificant when compared to the murder that I can't see the two as remotely similar in nature, not to mention regarding the former as worse. Come on, seriously ask yourself now, isn't this bias? You're blaming the Americans and "empathising" with the Iraqis when what the Iraqis have done is infinitely worse!
About the generalisations being made and believed, you're talking about people being brainwashed. Even if this is sometimes the case, it isn't so here. The murderer is an aide to Bin-Laden. I don't think he's even Iraqi...
But again, all of this is beside the point. There is emphathising to be had with the torturing soldiers too, but that's got nothing to do with anything. The question is whether the acts were wrong. What you're basically saying is that the soldiers are guilty because they're American and the Iraqis aren't guilty because their victim was American. If that's not anti-Americanism then I don't know what is... Originally posted by smith_fan
hmm...I saw a news report that stated that the british and american government is doing an investigation because of iraqi prisoners that died during their time in prison. I don't know if that's accurate yet.
Mebbe. We'll have to wait to see what's up with that, but right now it's irrelevant. What HU is saying is that the torture, which, I've got to say, wasn't even close to how bad it can get and was more to with humiliation, was worse than the cold-blooded murder of Berg. That's the point I'm arguing against right now ;)
hmm...yes, but if you are in the situation of facing a war then this changes one's opinion. Both sides are willing to kill each other - iraqis and american soldiers.
Well, I'm in a war situation, and I'm still not in support of randomly picking off Palestinians and sawing their heads off. And I think you'll find that most American soldiers, despite what has happened, given the choice, will not saw random Iraqis' heads off, or even torture them. Saying that it's war is no excuse.
Besides, the torturing was by rogue soldiers, the murder was an official policy of whoever did it. Which reminds me, btw, who did do it? Al Queda?
Well, if they knew that he was jewish then it definitely was his death verdict. But however, it would have been the same result.
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here :p
I've seen the video a few minutes ago and I have to agree with HU. They should, at least, have taken a bigger knife. I know that this sounds absurd due to the whole situation :rolleyes:
I disagree. They shouldn't have murdered him at all. They shouldn't have kidnapped him either. They should have kept him out of it and let it be. The man wasn't even a soldier for crying out loud. Okay, just to keep you guys up to date with what's happeneing NOW...
My husband said that because of the sexual humiliation (far worse than death to the Iraqis) and torture, American civilians were going to get their heads chopped off and be tortured and sexually humiliated, and one guy gets his head chopped off. Just like Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg got his head chopped off. I haven't seen the footage and I don't want to. This situation is just getting worse, because opinions vary and one opinion infects another in every place where there is world news being shown or talked about.
I have to say that I totally respect your opinions FreeYourMind, because you live in Israel for one, but for another you always bring up good points. I'd be interested to know what your country views America as, same goes for HU and smith_fan. I'm not asking what YOU think of us, I'm asking what you think your country is thinking or saying about us. Val, Israel has a complicated relationship with America. On the one hand, America has been almost the only country that has stuck with us and supported us and remains Israel's only powerful true ally, but on the other hand, Israel, and especially the public of Israel, resent the US's increased involvement in the conflict. We won't tell the US to go to hell like we did to Europe because we needs the huge financial aid that we're getting from America, but still, Israelis wish the US would stop handing out orders on what to do and how to achieve peace.
That being said, the current administration is among the most friendly ones for Israel in history. It might be more involved than the previous ones have been (I don't know enough history to tell you that), but it's definitely among the biggest supporters of Israeli policy.
As for America's previous involvement in other areas of the world, Israelis aren't all that interested. We have our own problems to worry about. Most of the latest development in Iraq I get from here since it usually doesn't even make the Israeli news.
During the war in Afghanistan I wasn't in Israel, so I'm not sure how they responded, but I know that during the war on Iraq Israelis were in the awkward position of having their strongest enemy defeated without having to lift a finger. The mood was sort of reserved, since jumping up and down with happiness didn't feel right, especially considering the uproar this was causing in the rest of the world, but the general feeling about the roar was quiet optimism - when the war was going on free gas masks were handed out to all citizens just in case, but only in very few places were people worried or panicked. Mostly they just felt rattled.
Also, Israel is enjoying the fact that America is too busy with Iraq to get involved with Israel, and that world focus has shifted to Iraq and anti-Americanism rather than the previous anti-Israelism. But Israel silently dreads the day when the Americans will come here. We know we need them on our side, but we sorta hope they just nod and smile and not ask too many questions :p
There, hope that summary wasn't too confusing or messed up. I expect the European moods are utter hate, but we'll see...
Oh, and thanks for the compliment ;) My grandparents were in Israel right before September 2001 (in the summer) on a church mission/fieldtrip to the holy land. They had no fear of going there and looked foward to it, took some great photographs of the land and the buildings, made curtains for and fixed church buildings, and came home safely, so I thought that we had a pretty good relationship with them if the tourism was still going on without fear. But I just wondered how they felt about us now, even though we supposedly are on good terms. Thanks for letting me know. Whoa. Wait a sec. You're telling me that Americans have fear of visiting in anti-American European countries? Or did I misunderstand your post?
If your grandparents told you they had no fear they were probably referring to the terrorism... that they weren't afraid of being hurt by it. That's the danger here. Got nothing to do with US-Israel relations... I don't know how people feel about it now, at that time (Summer of 01) there was no reason to be hesitant to go to Jerusalem for the church, that's all I know. Right now I wouldn't want to go anywhere near the middle east unless I was part of the military, but I certainly wouldn't go by myself. Berg did that. He went to Iraq by himself, was held by the American (council? Not sure if it was UN or what) and then he convinced them to let him go and he was taken as a hostage, or example by those men. He chose that, but I just can't see anyone from America going to Iraq for any reason, or any other Middle Eastern country right now for tourism reasons, for a mission or a purpose maybe, but it depends on the country and circumstances.
Another couple from my grandparent's church took in a guy from a place in between Palestine and Israel through a church program, which allowed him to stay here and work. He was going to college and through an internship got a good job for a major manufacturer by fixing office equipment, mostly computers when there's a problem with him. He worked for the same company I used to and I finally got to meet him one day. Anyhow, I hear he was just offered a job in St. Louis that is an even better job than the one he has now. The sad part in all of this is that he can't go home or he will be arrested. Because his being here isn't illegal to the U.S., but is illegal to either Palestine or Israel (not sure of the details), so he's here making a lot of money and sending it home to his family. It's sweet but very tragic. Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
I forgot to mention this also. The body is sacred. Even the head. Even the head of American Nick Berg whose holy body was defiled in such a despicable and gruesome method. The thing is - they violated their own beliefs on that one, which leads me to believe that it wasn't done out of religious zeal, but rather to capitolize on anti-American sentiment. They are using religious overtones in an attempt to add weight behind their racist slaughter of an innocent man. Yeah, he was there for a job. So what? Is it a solely "American" capitolist trait to try and better one's financial situation? To explain away the moral injustice of him being slaughtered like a pig by simply saying "He is a dumb American who should have known better" is just not satisfactory. Was he dumb? Yeah. That does not end the argument of how he was murdered in a reprehensible act. It was a ploy to get people to listen to and rationalize their cause by cashing in on a international sensation that was caused by a few stupid American soldiers. And as I can see from the contradicting, nonviolent American soldier killing, sovereign protector, it has.
The rebuttals I get about my stand are as if I am the one occupying Iraq. I could really give two shits about Iraq. I say pull our boys out and let those barbarians rot. I'm not making any illusions of righteous intentions or that I believe what we are doing is right. I'm just pointing out that a great percentage of the international membership of this site is willing to turn a blind eye to violence against American citizens while condemning America as the great Satan of the western world. If an American militant faction were to take an Iraqi immigrant hostage and slit his throat in the interest of Christianity, I know for a FACT that the vast majority or the anti-American members here would post a hundred threads about how it is Bush's fault and how America is shameful. There would be outrage over the problem of racism in America, and we would be forever villified for those disgusting action. But when an American is the VICTIM, it gets shrugs and rationalization. And that is wrong. By any logic. But apparently, even THAT does not get through, and it is saddening and frustrating. I'm not solely mad that Arabs were involved in this gruesome killing. If it was done on American soil by my fellow countrymen, I would be outraged also. It is just how it should be. In this regard, I am not biased, but decent. I am biased about the Iraqis, but what happened to Nick Berg was sick and disgusting, no matter WHAT the skintone or nationality of his killers was.
The issue of sovereignty is moot since a strong governing body has not been established. Sovereignty is NOT divine right. Hitler was protecting his sovereignty in WWII. Saddam Hussein had his sovereignty. Sovereign is not the absolute end all in law and justice. The sovereign is governed ultimately by the people. They weren't allowed their own sovereignty BEFORE U.S. involvement. They were denied that right by the very government that was meant to preserve it. It was the U.S. that liberated them from that system, and it is the U.S. who is responsible now to set up a government that will protect the people of Iraq, and not trample on their own sovereignty. A sovereign is only as strong as the body that governs it. A sovereignty maintains law within it's own borders. Tell me HU - what did the sovereign of Iraq do to the murderers in Fallujah? Or to the militants that terrorize people within their border? No law was maintained because there IS no sovereignty there. That is the reason of our continued occupation. And the fact that groups of murderers can come and go without investigation does not bold well for them when their ability to carry out that sovereign is under review by the rest of the world.
No you're not the only one here who believes as you do. I too feel the same way. I have been screening several rooms (not related here I want to add) who are letting under-age kids view the footage, and I felt sick and appauled. Not because I have a weak stomach, far from it. It is due to the fact this man, who has a family sitting torn apart right now, had been targeted by a bunch of bloody lunatic cowards sprouting it is 'Gods Work'. Also if you think the footage is bad, then watch for the sickos who I have personally eyeballed who have shamelessly made avys out of it. I mean that is one of THE most insulting and defiling things I have seen.
These are the days I am proud to call myself an atheist and an agnostic. I know politics and religion shouldn't be flung together, however it is inevitable. It's life. I for one am sickened by how he has been trivialised over and over again. I want to see the US out of there for exactly the same reasons BSD, and I too, as an Australian citizen am proud of all our boys going over to sought that 'animal' out. However, I see this being a long long road ahead indeed.
Well stated BSD. But the question remains, why the hell should we emphathise with these "Iraqi people"?
Because this country brought forth Sadam Hussein. Because this country, according to the US government brought forth a lot of terrorists. If we are to annihalate the global terrorist threat, we have to remove the source. We have to remove the reason why they believe that there is no more reason to live.
Of course I do not agree with mr Berg being killed, I only tried to view it from a different perspective, from that of the Iraqis. If the US had done that before they invaded, maybe there wouldn't have been so many darn casualties on their side.
Back to the reason. The area of Iraq, I have stated this before, I believe, was an area of great cultural prosper. The laws of civilisation were developed here, life first came to existence here!
How is it possible that such an enlightened civilisation became so torn apart? Was it perhaps divine intervention?
Valasher. Most of the people don't like the war, but drawing back means leaving the Iraqi's alone in their time of need, which they don't want. Balkenende, our prime minister, who is an assassination waiting to happen, or so I hope :D, still believes Bush's asses tastes best, so will probably run around circles in the oval office. In the mean time, some ministers may start applying pressure: The Dutch public believes the UN should be involved, and perhaps they will threaten to leave if the UN is not involved.
If an American militant faction were to take an Iraqi immigrant hostage and slit his throat in the interest of Christianity, I know for a FACT that the vast majority or the anti-American members here would post a hundred threads about how it is Bush's fault and how America is shameful. There would be outrage over the problem of racism in America, and we would be forever villified for those disgusting action.
It wouldn't if they would finally realise that they should involve the UN, which you apparantly forget each time, and if Bush openly apologized for it, while actually meaning it. Plus, OBLH stated his argument alread, and I have nothing further to say about his, his formulation is superior ;).
That is the reason of our continued occupation.
I'm outta here. Forget what I stated above. I full agree with you and intend to buy a ticket to the US so I can worship George. See you in the United States of Hypocri...America.
Mr U Originally posted by freeyourmind
I disagree. They shouldn't have murdered him at all. They shouldn't have kidnapped him either. They should have kept him out of it and let it be. The man wasn't even a soldier for crying out loud.
yes, of course. That's what I meant with the words "absurd" and "at least" :)
Val, it's hard to tell that. I have to say that the media here likes to point out the bad sides of the American Government (notice: government ;)). But I think that's happening all around Europe at the moment. And I've seen some polls dealing with the question of the general opinion about America and it's very negative but I don't want to go into too much detail on that issue. However, that doesn't mean that americans aren't welcome here. The bad "picture" of America is the result of the foreign policy of Bush, Powell and the rest of those people.
Oh and let me add...public view is still the same. NO german soliders shall go to Iraq, even if the UN gets involved. That's what our government and most people say. And a lot of politicians had to leave office because of apparent anti-american (which in my opinion were more like anti-bush) statements e.g our former attorney general. Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Because this country brought forth Sadam Hussein. Because this country, according to the US government brought forth a lot of terrorists. If we are to annihalate the global terrorist threat, we have to remove the source. We have to remove the reason why they believe that there is no more reason to live.
Of course I do not agree with mr Berg being killed, I only tried to view it from a different perspective, from that of the Iraqis. If the US had done that before they invaded, maybe there wouldn't have been so many darn casualties on their side.
Grrr, as I said about four sentences after the quote you brought, then in that case we should emphathise with the abusive American soldiers too. Of course there was a reason. Neither the American soldiers nor the Iraqi terrorists decided out of the blue "I'm bored, lets go hurt some Iraqis/Americans". Yeah they had a reason, but it was a selfish reason - therefore, it was murder. Saying we should emphathise because there's a reason is like saying we should identify with a bank robber because he did it for the reason of wanting more money.
I would agree that it is important to understand the motive, but you confuse motive with reason. Actions with reason ban be empthathised with. Actions with motive can be understood - so that they can be stopped. So if you mean that it is important to find what motivated these Iraqis to kill Mr Berg, then I agree, it is of the outmost importance to find the reasoning and stop these kinds of things from happening through that. But to say you emphathise is to say that you agree, at least partly. So was it just a mix-up of words or are we still disagreed?
Another point, I did bring forwards in my previous answer to you my view of what I think the killer' reasoning was:
I don't think that Berg's killers were under any illusions that he wasn't innocent either. Unless of course, like you said, being American constitutes a crime. But they thought it would further their cause or maybe improve their political status so they did it anyway. That's what murder is. Taking a person's life for as selfish cause.
It turns out that the killer was not just some random guy whose wrecked emotional state made him more succeptible to brainwashing or misguided self-imposed hate of the Americans. This was a high-ranking member of Al Queda that had devoted his life to terrorism and murder. He knew exactly what he was doing and the reason for his acts can only be removed once either America or he are destroyed.
Furthermore, he doesn't go under the category of those that feel they have no reason to live. He's very happy about living, and in a case like his, the only way of destroying the source is to destroy his organisation's infrastucture in the form of financial war and assasination or imprisonment of its leaders (i.e. him).
The US might have done a million and one things before it has invaded. It is quite possible that it has made many very bad mistake, but that argument has nothing to do with the one we're having here. The question was whether what was done was right or wrong, not what would be the most efficent way in fighting terrorism. So again, I will ask straightforwards the question, are we agreed that the murder of Mr Berg was immoral, even more so than the abuse of Iraqi prisoners?
Back to the reason. The area of Iraq, I have stated this before, I believe, was an area of great cultural prosper. The laws of civilisation were developed here, life first came to existence here!
How is it possible that such an enlightened civilisation became so torn apart? Was it perhaps divine intervention?
Yeah, I believe they have great potential. What's your point? What's torn them apart is beyond any shadow of doubt Saddam Hussein's regime and the reality of warlords that exists there still today. Or were you trying to say something else?
It wouldn't if they would finally realise that they should involve the UN, which you apparantly forget each time, and if Bush openly apologized for it, while actually meaning it. Plus, OBLH stated his argument alread, and I have nothing further to say about his, his formulation is superior ;).
Yeah, that's bullshit. It has nothing to do with involving the UN. If a country's army, any country's army I believe, would have done what the American army has done it would have rightly drawn enormous criticism and outrage. If an army were to murder a randomly picked citizen for no reason but his being Iraqi the outrage would be unbelievable. There is a double standard here. I can't believe you don't see it...
About Bush meaning his apology? What the hell does that mean? Did you want him to say it begging on his knees and with tears in his eyes? As far as all of us are concerned, he might be losing sleep worrying about those poor Iraqis and the way they're scarred now by all the abuse. There's no way for us to know unless we personally know the guy, which you still don't, despite all of your personal hatred of him. Nowadays a country's apology is only an official statement that they've screwed up. Meaning it has nothing to do with anything.
I'm outta here. Forget what I stated above. I full agree with you and intend to buy a ticket to the US so I can worship George. See you in the United States of Hypocri...America.
Mr U
Enjoy your stay.
The fact that a lot of people around you and probably your national media are convinced they know beyond a doubt the Americans' reason for continuing the occupation does not mean that they or you actually do. Actually, I don't know who you're quoting here so I may be wrong in assuming that it was someone saying the occupation continues because it would be immoral for it to stop - at least at this stage - but even if it isn't, this is my claim, and am I wrong? Should Americans really leave Iraqis to the warlords as their playground? The fact is right now the Americans have no choice but to stay in Iraq. You keep ignoring that fact...
Btw, sorry for answering your rebuttals for you BSD, it's just that we're sorta on the same side here now :p Feel free to add any thoughts... Originally posted by smith_fan
yes, of course. That's what I meant with the words "absurd" and "at least" :)
Yeah, mebbe, but the thing is, some people, HU apparantely included, do not realise the absurdity of that statement. It's like saying that I should now go over to your house and shoot you in the head because it would be better than keeping you in a basement and starving you to death. Of course there'll always be something worse, but those terrorists had no more right to kill Berg than I do to kill you.
Val, nowadays the danger Americans would encounter by staying in Israel is not the same as that that they will encounter staying in Syria say, or Iran. In Israel public opinion is not against you and you won't fell unwelcome, it's just that people are afraid of being caught in the middle of a terrorist attack, which is a bit of an irrational fear... the attacks are sad, but they're not a real threat to your security. The death toll from traffic accidents if much higher, so everytime you get into your car here it's much more dangerous than when you go out or something...
Oh, and HU, I just understood what you meant by this quote:
Because this country brought forth Sadam Hussein. Because this country, according to the US government brought forth a lot of terrorists. If we are to annihalate the global terrorist threat, we have to remove the source. We have to remove the reason why they believe that there is no more reason to live.
This country did not "bring forth" Saddam Hussein. Saddam brought himself forth, and he himself is the one who is responsivle for bringing forth all the terrorists and all the financial support (I don't know if you've heard of this, but in Saddam's era, every Palestinian suicide bomber got a huge sum of money from the Iraqis, I don't remember exactly how much ). All, or at least the great majority of Iraq's problems are due to Saddam. He wasn't a good guy you know.
If you wanted you could blame the British or French or whoever it was at the time that encouraged dictatorship in the middle east at the time, but that's not that relevant here I think. Oh, BOOHOO, someone innocent got killed. What about those three unarmed, defenseless civilians shot by an Apache Combat-Helicopter, even after one of them was crawling towards safety?
Is it because Berg was killed with a knife? Does that make it barbaric? Is it good to kill someone when you use an attack helicopter instead of a knife?
How will you explain the difference between the death of Berg and the death of their children to many Iraqi parents? How will you do that, freeyourmind? What arguments will you use to explain Berg's presence in Iraq, how much will you lie to convince them that he was there for the good of Iraq? How much will you lie to convince the people whose worlds have been shattered that it was all for the good of their Nation when they see the prisoners of those who occupy them being brutally abused. Just how will you explain it, freeyourmind?
What is your problem with the UN? May I remind you that in the constitution that will soon be released in Iraq under American occupation, female rights are not acknowledged! Man, are we making progress there! The UN would not have tolerated that, and the US should not have tolerated it!
I know I said I wouldn't reply anymore, but I just couldn't stand the repeat of the same hypocrisy here.
Oh, and if anyone remotely cares about anyone, read this, it was posted by Ou Be a while ago, but strangely their were very little responses to it.
The reason for the lack of equality in respect to what the US does in comparison with what a terrorist does is simple: The US professes to have the moral high-ground and that they are there for the greater good. When a country asserts to the rest of the world that they are here to uphold the highest moral standards and yet make a mockery of the very standards they are supposed to be defending, people can see the utter-hypocrisy and cry bullshit. THAT is the reason a lot of the world views the US the way it currently does. Everyone sees this big-bully going around telling Iraq, South Korea, Cuba, Syria, etc, etc, etc that their human rights record is poor, that they have WMDs, that they limit the freedom of the press, blah, blah, blah...when at EXACTLY the same time they are guilty of the very offences they are citing at others! It doesn't take a genius to understand the contempt aimed at the US when this is what is going on...
Mr U Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Oh, BOOHOO, someone innocent got killed. What about those three unarmed, defenseless civilians shot by an Apache Combat-Helicopter, even after one of them was crawling towards safety?
Is it because Berg was killed with a knife? Does that make it barbaric? Is it good to kill someone when you use an attack helicopter instead of a knife?
Boohoo? What, does murder not bother you anymore? I dunno, maybe you're trying to make a point, and maybe I'm plain misunderstanding you, but again, it sounds to me like you think Berg deserved death more than any given Iraqi, terrorist, prisoner, civilian.
I never said murdering Iraqis was better. What I said was that these incidents need to not be judged racially but objectively. If it were American prisoners being tortrued vs an American civilian being killed the murder would have been worse, if it were Iraqi prisoners being tortured vs an Iraqi civilian being killed then the murder would have been worse, if it were American prisoners being tortured vs an Iraqi civilian being killed then the murder would have been worse, ok?
I don't know anything about the apache incident, I don't know and I don't even get that much into the politics of what's going on in Iraq and why America went in there. All I wanted to say here, is that I think the murder of a civilian is worse than the torturing of prisoners, be they terrorists or heroes. I even asked the direct question in my previous post: "are we agreed that the murder of Mr Berg was immoral, even more so than the abuse of Iraqi prisoners?"
Instead of answering me you bring forwards the apache incident. I don't have a clue. If random Iraqis were picked off and murdered then yes, that was wrong, even more wrong than the Berg case because it was 3 lives rather than 1. But that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm asking you a very specific question and you don't seem to want to answer me.
I mean, why are we even arguing? Is there really a question whether or not murder is worse than getting pissed on and humiliated?
There you go. This question ^ I want an answer too. I'm not and I haven't been claiming anything else since I've joined this argument. I can't believe the two can even be compared...
How will you explain the difference between the death of Berg and the death of their children to many Iraqi parents? How will you do that, freeyourmind? What arguments will you use to explain Berg's presence in Iraq, how much will you lie to convince them that he was there for the good of Iraq? How much will you lie to convince the people whose worlds have been shattered that it was all for the good of their Nation when they see the prisoners of those who occupy them being brutally abused. Just how will you explain it, freeyourmind?
How will I explain? Why should I explain? Is it my job to further the US's agenda?
Berg wasn't there for the good of Iraq. He was there for the good of himself, and he wasn't going to do any bad to the citizens of Iraq. He was there to do business for crying out loud. While it was stupid, it wasn't evil. Captialism is not capital-punishment stuff.
Why are you convinced that I will lie to the Iraqis if I told them the American presence is for their own good? Just a few posts up you agreed that retreating now would be a selfish and an unjust move on the side of the Americans. Even if this fact would be difficult to explain to those whose life has been shattered it remains the truth. And while I agree that the abuse is a set back, it doesn't have anyfuckingthing to do with any of this.
Again, murder is worse than humiliation and abuse - yes or no?
What is your problem with the UN? May I remind you that in the constitution that will soon be released in Iraq under American occupation, female rights are not acknowledged! Man, are we making progress there! The UN would not have tolerated that, and the US should not have tolerated it!
I didn't say I had anything against the UN. In fact, the sooner the UN take over the peacekeeping in Iraq the better as far as I'm concerned, but the point I was making was that I thought BSD was right in saying that you would still complain (and rightly so) if the Americans committed these same crimes under a UN coalition.
I think the both of you are biased. BSD has admitted his bias towards the American side and is strangely comfortable with it. And the answers you have answered me, unless hugely misinterpreted are strongly biased towards the Iraqis. Again, either that or you just keep forgetting what my question is and therefore answer irrelevant answers.
I know I said I wouldn't reply anymore, but I just couldn't stand the repeat of the same hypocrisy here.
I don't appreciate being called a hypocrite. Answer if you want to defend your points. If you run away that doesn't really help your cause ;)
Ou Be's entry I have answered. He has yet to reply. I wasn't calling you a hypocrite, but rather referring to another non-german, non-israeli member. Of course, I won't name anyone even if it is a really Bigg hypocrite :p ;).
I believe the humiliation of a people is worse than the murder of one person, depending on the severity of the humiliation. Know, however, that I have a... different view on the world, and I do not believe a life to be as sacred as you do, I do believe however that the body is sacred, as it is an internation law. And although these laws are not perfect, it is our only way to justice.
I would also like to remind you that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in that way is much worse than you may believe. They were taken their liberty of religion at the moment they were abused like that. Would you die for freedom? I know many people who would.
Mr U I believe the humiliation of a people is worse than the murder of one person, depending on the severity of the humiliation. Know, however, that I have a... different view on the world, and I do not believe a life to be as sacred as you do, I do believe however that the body is sacred, as it is an internation law. And although these laws are not perfect, it is our only way to justice.
Ah, at least now we're talking about the same thing, I'll get back to that later since I really need to go right now...
I would also like to remind you that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in that way is much worse than you may believe. They were taken their liberty of religion at the moment they were abused like that. Would you die for freedom? I know many people who would.
Mr U
I dunno, we really need to ask a muslim but I am almost certain that murder is worse than sexual humiliation in their culture too...
Die for freedom? I don't know if that statement makes much sense. I and other people might risk death in the name of freedom, but that still doesn't mean that lack of freedom is worse than murder... anyhow, I'll get more into it later. Really need to go ;) That's funny, because the UN has tolerated it for years. That's why Iraq is in the shambles it's in. That's why the UN stands idly by in this situation. Wait for UN approval? The same approval that allowed the persecution of the Iraq people under it's OWN government? OKEY DOKEY. That's a great plan.
If it was all about suffering of people, why the hell did the CIA help Sadam's rise to power, and even his staying in power? If you want to pretend that the US invaded to help Iraq, that's fine, but please, keep your propaganda to yourself.
Perhaps you should try cross-dressing, BiggStankDogg, I found it to be quite a relieve to view the world from a different perspective. Perhaps it will aid you in viewing the Iraq war from a different perspective as well. It sure wouldn't do any harm.
Mr U |