The extent of prisoner abuse goes far beyond a few photos. How about
beating, rape, torture, sexual abuse, and murder? It's been widely reported
in most of the major media outlets, and if you don't believe me you can do a
search for yourself.
Murder is murder. After what has surfaced in the last few days, there's
plenty of evidence that shows both sides have committed atrocities and
neither side can claim a moral high ground over the other. Your rage over
what happened to Nick Berg is no different than what the Iraqis feel when
their own are killed.
There's been more than a few cases. About 23 or 24 if I recall.
The following is quoted from a May 7th ABC news report about several US
marine reservists being charged in a beating death.
"The photographs show a 52-year-old former Baath Party official, Nadem
Sadoon Hatab, who died at the detention center last June after a three-day
period in which he was allegedly subjected to beatings and karate kicks to
the chest and left to die naked in his own feces."
On your own personal moral equivalency scale, how would you rate a beheading
vs a slow painful death after three days of torture?
Part of it depends on whether the victims were our guys, or their guys. As
a dual-citizen of both the US and the UK, I value the lives of Americans
and Britons more than I do the lives of the enemy. Sorry. That's war.
The latest blockbuster coming out is the movie "Troy." What was that
about? A girl?
Of all humanity's historical accounts, what is more prevalent than
How have prisoners ever been treated? Check out the movie "The
Passion." That was 2000 years ago.
Yes, be outraged. Be angry. Call it unjust, evil, and inhumane. It is.
But it is human. It doesn't matter if you are American, Iraqi, or from
the far reaches, we will always have war. And if you turn your back on
war, it will hit you in the back. We HAD been turning our back on the
terrorist-war, and it hit us on 9/11.
You will NEVER get any society of humans to act in a non-human manner.
That's still very general. What was the torture and how does it
equate to a slow beheading?
"Allegedly" doesn't prove he died a slow painful death or that the three
day assault was constant, or even severe. Someone can die from one
blow landing wrong or him landing wrong. So it doesn't prove that it was
equvilant to a slow beheading.
You apparently confuse a "beheading" which is traditionaly quick
with a slow sawing off beheading with a knife. I couldn't compare
the two until I had the facts. You don't have them either but that
doesn't seem to matter.
I'm not confusing anything. I don't see how murder by torture can be
considered in any way morally superior to murder by beheading. And I'm not
referring solely to the one news item I posted, but in general to all the
beating deaths of Iraqis over the last year while in US or British custody.
Those responsible for beatings are being prosecuted -- check it out
yourself. The same problems occur in all countries in prisons, in
civilized countries, those who commit such acts are prosecuted, in
non-civiized countries they are promoted and come to positions of power in
Hussein and Taliban regimes.
Thus far, no credible evidence of rape, torture, or murder (apart from
the beatings cited above) has been presented -- only allegations.
There is a world of difference between an accident of war and an atrocity
like the killings perpetuated against Nick Berg or the 4 civilian
: There is a world of difference between an accident of war
An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60% of
whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?
-- Andy Barss
Anonymoose <Ihatespam> wrote:
:> :>: There is a world of difference between an accident of war :> :> :> An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it:> covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60%:> of whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?
: And from whos ass might you have pulled that 60% figure?
It's in the Taguba report. Heard of that? Bothered to read it?
-- Andy Barss
Hey, Andy, have you read every piece of paper that's been written on the
subject of Iraq? When you have, you can chide someone for not having read
the Taguba report. All the relevant section states is that approx. 60% of
the detainees who were being held for "Crimes Against the Coalition" are
deemed to no longer pose a threat. The number you really want is the number
of Iraqis being "tortured" who are part of this group. And then you're
going to have to back out the number of photos that don't represent actual
torture. Sorry...in my book, pointing at a guys wang doesn't constitute
Yes and No. But, as Todd points out to you, "detained for the wrong
reasons" and "deemed to no longer pose a threat" are two different things.
Which is worse, my skepticism as to the validity and source of that 60%
figure, or your misuse of it?
The number is actually quite a bit higher. From the Red Cross report on
Iraqi prisoner abuse:
"Certain CF military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their
estimate between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty had
been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests
to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units."
: : There is a world of difference between an accident of war
: An accident? Can you define 'accident' please? In such a way that it
: covers 1800+ photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi detainees, some 60% of
: whom are probably detained for the wrong reasons?
And mark and juanita again fail to reply to the thread. They introduce
controversy, then run away from it. Again and again.
-- Andy Barss
On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:00:54 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
No Andy, just a reasonable decision regarding the use of my time. Some
comments are simply not worth responding to. In the case cited above, I had
responded to a very similar comment within the thread and didn't feel it
worth pointing out that if one considers having someone stand naked with a
hood or pair of women's panties on their head to be torture, then a new
name must be found for a description of the various acts of barbarism
perpetrated upon prisoners that resulted in mutilation and death. As to
the perpetratrators of the "torture" pictures, the military is already
pursuing action against them. In those cases where excessive force was
used, that too is being investigated and the perpetrators will likely be
prosecuted as well (as opposed to promoted under the former Iraqi regime)
You further took the quote above out of context in which the word
"accident" had absolutely no connection in the conversation at hand to the
detainee question. The extension from a discussion comparing deliberate
barbarism with accidental collateral damage in a wartime action to
mistreatment of detainees was simply not worth the effort of reply.
On Fri, 14 May 2004 04:12:19 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
... and once again you have snipped all relevant context from the
original post which was dealing with trying to generate moral equivalence
between deliberately targeting civilians vs. accidental damage caused by
actions directed at insurgents who are using civilians as human shields.
Your comment above has no relevance to that particular part of the
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.