OT: Atrocities

[Stone Mill]

Seeing this turned my stomach as well and made me thing of how, once again, the actions of a handful of fools can bring about such widespread ramifications. If they only knew.

Two thoughts on your Posts, gentlemen.

1. News agencies are reporting that the SSgt who ran the camp somewhat claimed something to the effect that he wasn't trained on the geneva convention. Hogwash. I remember during my service that was reinforced ad nauseum, from basic training to promotion tests. He should have known better.

2. I has been extermely common for armies (US and others) to informally characterize their foes as something a bit less than human... (i.e., "krauts" "japs" "gooks") [no offense to anyone intended]. It makes the enemy easier to deal with (kill). And now it's common to lump arabs into that Category. This subltle dehumanization helps opens the door for abuses such as this.

[dogscoff]

I agree with everything posted so far. I wasn't going to say anything, but I wanted to add something to this:

News agencies are reporting that the SSgt who ran the camp somewhat claimed something to the effect that he wasn't trained on the geneva convention. Hogwash. I remember during my service that was reinforced ad nauseum, from basic training to promotion tests. He should have known better.

Let's give this SSgt the benefit of the doubt here: I'm ready to believe Stone Mill's assertion that (s)he would have been trained on it, but let's suppose that he had never been trained on the Geneva Convention.

Shouldn't (s)he have known better anyway? I don't need the Geneva Convention to know that treating people like that is just plain wrong in any situation.
"I wasn't trsained on the Geneva Convention" has to be the most pathetic excuse ever- it just makes the guilty party look even worse...

It's also interesting the amount of news coverage it's getting. It's been headline news here in Europe for several days, with the second story being how it is hardly being reported at all on US news.

[Slynky]

Well, there's no doubt that the news media (in any country) can be known to tip-toe lightly when something as embarassing as this comes to light. And who can really know about the amount pressure put on the media by a country's ruling government to leave certain stories alone? Let's face it, as free as the US claims to be, it's not 100%.

But what was said about the Geneva Convention...and the SSgt. It reminds me of my daughter when she is caught doing something wrong with a piece of her furniture ("I didn't know I couldn't sit on a drawer!" or "I didn't know I wasn't supposed to climb on top of the dresser!") I shouldn't have to tell her every single thing she should do that mistreats furniture...she should know and I believe she does. It's just a desparate attempt to get out of trouble. And the same goes for that SSgt.

[Baron Munchausen]

No better proof of the real bias of our media can be found than the handling of this story. This puts the whole rationale of 'rescuing' Iraq from the brutal dictator and his evil WMD programs to shame. So of course it must not be covered any more than absolutely necessary, because it makes the the chickenhawk buddies of the corporate news chiefs look bad. Shrub and his cronies stick together.

Anyone familiar with combat could have told Shrub something like this would happen. (Ahem... and Shrub himself could have known if he'd gone when it was his time.) It takes extra-ordinary strength of character to go into combat and not be twisted by it. And you can't have an army of tens of thousands of people of extra-ordinary strength of character. There aren't enough of them around. You have to send ordinary people into combat. Someone always steps over the line and commits 'war crimes' or 'atrocities' or whatever you want to call them when real combat occurs. Many of our troops did some very ugly things in WW II even though we were the 'good guys' but it was covered up. That's why war should always be a Last resort used only when absolutely unavoidable.

[Randallw]

Although I am not American, I am a member of an allied country. I have to say putting aside whether we all went to war for a good reason or not that we are surposed to be the "good guys". Our efforts are based on the claim that we are fighting evil. Terrorists strike against America and allied countries because we are supposedly evil while we go around saying we are good and blameless. How can we convince those people the terrorists recruit from that we are on the side of right, when we do exactly what the terrorists accuse us of. I saw an arab expert on TV and he was saying it helps Al Qaida because now the terrorists turn around and say "see, the Americans are barbarians". Our troops are trying to bring order and peace to Iraq (yes, it is debatable if we made it worse to start with). It makes me frustrated that now instead of things slowly getting better, things will very likely stay just as bad or get even worse. I can't help imagining the Iraqi civilian who before was sitting on the fence, as it were, who will now go and kill allied troops because he has evidence of Allied atrocities. Not only are the soldiers in question responsible for atrocities, they should also, at worse, be considered traitors because they have effectively done propoganda work for the terrorists.

[LordOffender]

My mistake. And I am not a troll! I posted because this was the only thread worth posting in. I will retrun to lurking. And I was told that this was a friendly place.

[ May 03, 2004, 22:19: Message edited by: LordOffender ]

[Aiken]

Dictor in CNN newsline:
1,5 millions of iraqis, suspected to sympathize with Al-Quaeda were executed Last week by the brave death squadrons of Alliance.
No one of the iraqis were tortured or sexually abused so everything is fine.