^^ That is indeed what separates this from Abu Graib.
Any doubts that the insurgents would have tortured or killed any US soldier if they had the chance?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
The list that I follow is:
AlJazeera, albawaba.com, arabic news, arab news, al hayat, egyptian gazette, ana ayafa, gulf news, Kurd and Kurdistan news, Dawn, WRMEA.com, and Islam online.
Not reading Arabic, these are the only all english sources I can find to reflect that view.
Of course I read the Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz, and Jihad Watch too!
[/QUOTE]
and there you have it. my point borne out. you have an incredibly selective reading of the Muslim media, and that too of what is internet based which touches less than 5 percent of Muslim people, assuming all 5 percent get their news online.
please refrain from commenting on what Muslim media is and isnt.
questions seminole?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Verizon: *
^^ I totally agree with you till.
The idea behind military and training is for the soldiers to perform in comformity, no matter how chaotic the situation. (I remember this from 23 yrs ago). In the mil training specially advanced the idea is to create the most chaotic environs and have the soldiers perform as trained. No if thens and buts, and if you have "if thens and buts" the next stop is the mil psychologist, psychiatrist.
It is not an impossible situation, we (US) asked for it.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, the idea of training is to make soldiers perform in conformity with the training. But, because soldiers are human and conditions of training cannot possibly simulate exactly conditions of combat, things happen and soldiers snap. This soldier's next stop is most certainly a mil. psycholigist or psychiatrist and then home to a desk job or discharge. He will not be going back to the front lines. Whether "we" asked for the situation or not, it is an impossible one for the soldiers on the ground. And, whoever "we" is, it is most certainly NOT this soldier who did not ask to be sent to Iraq to kill people in Fallujah.
heres a piece for the insurgent. They came to liberate us. They gave us death and destruction. Family, friends, neighbours ,elderly and children being killed and maimed. Do we sit and believe we're being liberated, or do we fight fo our freedom?
"and there you have it. my point borne out. You have an incredibly selective reading of the Muslim media"
Sure, please let me know which Baptist media you read....
Dude, feel free to enlighten me, but frankly I will not be spending every waking hour trying to relate to the Muslim world. Most of the Muslim media I read has such homogenous views that it bores the crap out of me. And, frankly you do pick up a thing or two from the Gupistan Tribune here.
You are lucky, during the baseball season I have absolutely no time for you!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
"and there you have it. my point borne out. You have an incredibly selective reading of the Muslim media"
Sure, please let me know which Baptist media you read....
Dude, feel free to enlighten me, but frankly I will not be spending every waking hour trying to relate to the Muslim world. Most of the Muslim media I read has such homogenous views that it bores the crap out of me. And, frankly you do pick up a thing or two from the Gupistan Tribune here.
You are lucky, during the baseball season I have absolutely no time for you!
[/QUOTE]
i dont expect you to know anything about Muslim media because we're far too diverse to even characterise. obviously, your attempt to do so is so childish because you do not understand it.
dont make a habit of sounding stupid my man. second or third time i've had to tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree. im not asking you to invest more time to relate to the Muslim world. you commented on how Muslim media is, and i said you dont know squat about it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Actually I think many in the U.S. believe the U.S. army can do wrong, you see this by opposition protests some of which were attended by hundred of thousands of people within the U.S. You don't see this in the Muslims world, more often than not you hear excuses justifying the beheadings rather than condemning them.
[/QUOTE]
hmm...but those same people changed their opposition once the "troops were in" cuz they are in danger "and we gotta support them"
it is like u dont want your son to rape, and scream outloud when he grabs his victim. then you scream again when he undresses her, but then you say i can not abandon my son when he is "in" so i gotta support it.
thats what happened in US and england. ppl might not agree with the rape of iraqi nation, but they cant condemn their troops performing the act of rape...cuz they are "in"
Just as I don't believe one needs thousands of supporting documents from "companions" or legions of scholars to interpret God's word, I don't think one needs to be an Arabic journalist major to comment on, or even generalize Muslim media. The media that OG lists as sources are probably more extensive than what 95% of Muslims worldwide are reading. And you are overplaying the diversity in Muslim media and opinion. It is naive to say that the news the majority of Muslims are exposed to is anything other than homogenous.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Just as I don't believe one needs thousands of supporting documents from "companions" or legions of scholars to interpret God's word, I don't think one needs to be an Arabic journalist major to comment on, or even generalize Muslim media. The media that OG lists as sources are probably more extensive than what 95% of Muslims worldwide are reading. And you are overplaying the diversity in Muslim media and opinion. It is naive to say that the news the majority of Muslims are exposed to is anything other than homogenous.
[/QUOTE]
you can comment i guess, but unless you've studied them or actually lived in a Muslim country, most likely your generalisation would be wrong.
as for your second assertion, why dont you back that up. please elaborate on the homogeneity between the Jakarta Post (the country with the most Muslims in one place) and gulf news.
Obviously with over 1 billion people, I am not implying that every news outlet within a Muslim majority city reports the same news with the same editorial as every other. Indonesia is very different from most Muslim states (gulf states in particluar) with their diversity, tolerance and moderateness. But Indonesia is not where the radical Islam that threatens the modern world is coming from. That distinction belongs to south Asia and the Middle East. The biased, anti-west, homogenous "reporting" that goes on in those areas are where the lack of diversity is evident.
Seminole, you are right, but Indonesia is also producing jackass like the Imam Basheer Abu Bakr who is implicated in Bali bombing, and is now rotting in jail. Hope they hang his religious ass. Jama Islami of Indonesia is a terrorist organization with links to Mideast and other Islami terrorists.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Obviously with over 1 billion people, I am not implying that every news outlet within a Muslim majority city reports the same news with the same editorial as every other.
[/quote]
im not asking you to show me that. im asking you to show me whatever you meant by 'homogeneity'. though the above is the meaning of homogeneity.
so effectively you've already backtracked on what you were saying.
[quote]
Indonesia is very different from most Muslim states (gulf states in particluar) with their diversity, tolerance and moderateness. But Indonesia is not where the radical Islam that threatens the modern world is coming from. That distinction belongs to south Asia and the Middle East. The biased, anti-west, homogenous "reporting" that goes on in those areas are where the lack of diversity is evident.
[/QUOTE]
gulf states have a combined population less than half of indonesia. so i suggest you have have more qualification in your statements and accept taht your friend was sprouting BS. as for including South Asia, please tell me how Ptv/GEO is similar to al-jazeera, and gulf news is homogenous with The News in Pakistan.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Can anybody see how such a guy might just "snap" in all the turmoil? This guy was not playing some video game from the comfort of his room. These people are not perfect automatons that can always perform in conformity with all their schooling and training. They are real people put in impossible situations doing the best they can. Far be it for me (or you) to judge and condemn this young soldier for what he did.
[/QUOTE]
I realy dont buy the notion about the marine snapping, the fact is Fallujah has been cut off from the outside world, Aid agencies are not allowed to enter, with the US marines stating they can take care of the Humanitarian situation themselves. Question being asked is what has been going on behind these closed doors? Yes, there are reporters posted with the marine units, but even they can only report information given to them, with much of it censored. How many wounded Fallujah residents were actually murdered or executed in this way? perhaps we will never know. What the world is now realising, thanks to the likes of NBC is the hidden side of the US occupation.
This whole episode of killing wounded iraqi prisoner was tragic and shameful. I read both sides on this forum; while both condemned the killing, they had their differences which led to sensless but interesting debate on Muslim news outlets. Sensless to me cause I personally am a nationalist so the Ummah concept and muslims coming together is a thing of past that requires it due place in the museum of muslim history.
I posted the following in the middle of this thread and would like to know the views of fellow guppies like OG, Seminole etc..
[QUOTE]
Is this the reason that U.S will not join ICJ or that war crime court thingy that Kerry was talking about? i am really curious to know why U.S will not join that while other countries have joined the crime court or whatever it is called.
[/QUOTE]
The reason I am interested in this is due to U.S refusal and the fact the U.S is the police of the world. Now every police department has Internal affairs so why not U.S join the war crime court and play nice for once why so much arrogance.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Verizon: *
Now every police department has Internal affairs so why not U.S join the war crime court and play nice for once why so much arrogance.
[/QUOTE]
Bad analogy, cz they can then claim that we do have our internal military court martials etc, so we don't need ICJ to indict our soldiers, etc etc.
Might is Right.
Jis ki laathi uss ki bhens.
Jungle ka badsha, anday de ya bachay de
You get the idea. :)
VZ,
You were not around for some of these debates. This was some of the comment from Rumsfeld when Belgian courts got out of hand:
"
Finally, I discussed the U.S. concern about the lawsuit that’s recently been filed in a Belgian court against General Tom Franks and against Colonel Brian McCoy alleging that they were responsible for war crimes in Iraq, as well as suits that have been filed here in Belgium against former President Bush – George Herbert Walker Bush as opposed to George W. Bush – General Norman Schwarzkopf, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell.
The suits are absurd. Indeed, I would submit that there is no general in history who has gone to greater lengths than General Franks and his superb team to avoid civilian casualties. I am told that the suit against General Franks was effectively invited by a Belgian law that claims to gives Belgian courts powers to try the citizens of any nation for war crimes. The United States rejects the presumed authority of Belgian courts to try General Franks, Colonel McCoy, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Powell and General Schwarzkopf, as well as former President Bush.
I will leave it to the lawyers to debate the legalities. I am not a lawyer. But the point is this. By passing this law, Belgium has turned its legal system into a platform for divisive, politicized lawsuits against her NATO Allies. Now, it’s obviously not for outsiders, non-Belgians, to tell the Belgian government what laws it should pass. And what it should not pass. With respect to Belgium’s sovereignty, we respect it. Even though Belgium appears not to respect the sovereignty of other countries.
But Belgium needs to realize that there are consequences to its actions. This law calls into serious question whether NATO can continue to hold meetings in Belgium and whether senior U.S. officials, military and civilian, will be able to continue to visit international organizations in Belgium. I would submit that that could be the case for other NATO Allies, as well.
If the civilian and military leaders of member states can not come to Belgium without fear of harassment by Belgian courts entertaining spurious charges by politicized prosecutors, then it calls into question Belgium’s attitude about its responsibilities as a host nation for NATO and Allied forces. For our part, we will have to consider whether we can allow senior uniformed and civilian officials to come to Baghdad . . . to Belgium, I mean. (laughter) Because of the charges flowing out of the activities in Baghdad, which of course would involve other coalition nations as well. Certainly until this matter is resolved we will have to oppose any further spending for construction for a new NATO headquarters here in Brussels until we know with certainty that Belgium intends to be a hospitable place for NATO to conduct its business, as it has been over so many years."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030612-secdef0271.html
Thanks OG I was hoping to get more than DODs website and Rumsfeld point of view on war crimes, I’ll go on a :google: jihad later.
Myvoice: The basic principle (conduct of war) in war is not to touch/harm a wounded soldier, combatant. This is the basics of soldiering. This is the definition provided by War Crimes Administrators (for lack of a better word) and geneva convention.
Last night on CNN Aaron Brown they had an interesting segment on the content (killing of wounded combatant) of this thread. Latest tally was that it was not one person but four that were shot execution style.
Now some on gupshup will discredit the basic principle by invoking “enemy doesn’t comply why should the U.S troops”. The issue is that U.S is not a rag tag insurgency so they have to /should comply with international laws or geneva conventions.
Others will discredit CNN, however it was an interesting segment worth watching.
As far as insurgency is concerned there was an execellent op-ed in NYTimes that I am posting under “Second Battle of Falluja begins” thread. All are welcome to read.
I don’t disagree that as a general principle of “civilized” warfare, you don’t shoot wounded prisoners. When the dead, dieing and living enemy are often booby trapped with explosives designed to be used to kill the capturers things get tricky. The guy on the ground who just saw his buddy blown up by a booby trapped wounded insurgent has got to make a split second decision whether the wounded insurgent he’s facing is also booby trapped. Insurgents have waived white flags (universal symbol of surrender) and then opened fire on advancing troops. As stated above, these guys are pumped with adrenaline from days of house to house and room to room fighting, bullets whizzing by their heads. Heck, people in civilian life crack up every day from far less pressures than these soldiers face. Anyone who doesn’t think a soldier could snap or make a wrong split second decision in this environment just plain doesn’t have a clue about the reality of combat.
Chris Bellamy: The Americans are sowing dragons’ teeth in Iraq](http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=583641)
For every Iraqi killed, there are sisters, brothers, wives, parents and children now committed to a blood feud
A frightened, tired and shell-shocked young US Marine, concerned that a wounded Iraqi left behind in a mosque might be lying on a compression mine, clutching a hand grenade or concealing a pistol, makes a split-second decision and allegedly shoots him in the head. The Marines have lost many people to insurgents feigning death or surrender in this way.
The legal basis for the Fallujah operation, and thus the case against the soldier involved, is far from clear. What is happening in Iraq is unlikely to be international armed conflict (although that is how the war started 20 months ago). But it could be classed as internal armed conflict, and therefore still subject to the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Those conventions say that a combatant who has surrendered or is rendered hors de combat by sickness, wounds or any other cause must be treated humanely and is protected, in particular, against “murder of all kinds”. If that is the case, whatever the mitigating circumstances, the Marine could be tried for a war crime.
**Alternatively, defeating the “insurgency” is now a matter for internal Iraqi law. The US forces are a form of military aid to the civil power - just like the British Army in Northern Ireland. The latter were always subject to civilian law. Therefore, the Marine’s action ought to be dealt with under the Iraqi criminal code. In that case, most lawyers would agree there is a prima facie case of murder. If the investigation finds the soldier thought the dead man was about to detonate a grenade, that would be mitigation - but not defence.
The coalition cannot have it both ways. Either this is an armed conflict, in which case the 1949 Geneva Conventions apply, or else they are giving aid to the provisional Iraqi government, in which case they must be subject to its laws. It seems they want neither.**
But this incident has also focused attention on wider questions about the strategy adopted in Iraq, and globally. The “pre-emptive” tactic adopted by the young Marine mirrors the strategy of America itself, close to the heart of Condoleezza Rice: a strategy of pre-emption - to strike first to pre-empt an imminent threat. That idea has a respectable pedigree in international law. But it has become confused by the more forward strategy of prevention - to prevent a threat from materialising (something much more dodgy in international law). Although the present conflict, which began with the invasion of Iraq, is often called “pre-emptive”, preventive seems more accurate.
In terms of strategy, the current military buzz-word is “effects-based operations”: operations to achieve a desired end by co-ordinated attacks not only on the target’s people and weapons, but on his will to fight. What political effect has the campaign to quell the “insurgency” - perhaps more accurately described as resistance - had? In Fallujah, in the past few days, for the loss of 38 troops, the US claims to have killed 1,200 “insurgents”. Even though a quarter of a million civilians may have fled the city, it is unlikely that all the dead are insurgents, and foreign fighters appear to be relatively few in number. Comparisons with Vietnam War “body counts” are inevitable.
But this approach could be counter-productive. For every Iraqi killed, either in Fallujah or overall, there are five, maybe 10, maybe 20 sisters, brothers, husbands, wives, parents, children. For every dead Iraqi there may be 20 people who are now committed to a blood feud. We have to ask whether this is achieving the aim, which is to conduct free and fair elections in January and, in the longer term, to establish a stable and secure democracy.
For all the hype about “effects-based operations” the US approach appears to be thoroughly attritional. The US command appears to believe that the supply of suicidal Baathists, jihadists and foreign Islamist fighters, and Iraqi nationalists who just resent foreign occupation, will eventually be ground down to zero. By effectively eliminating the insurgents, according to one retired US general, the “fellow travellers” can be made to see the handwriting on the wall. It seems they have not seen it yet. With Fallujah largely subdued, US forces, with limited Iraqi government help, have moved to Mosul and Baquba.
Meanwhile the British forces, mainly deployed in the south of the country, have striven to avoid sowing seeds of longer-term discord. They have been defending themselves quite effectively, but ceasing fire the moment the attackers withdraw, rather than exploiting opportunities to inflict more casualties. Inevitably, this “softer” approach, with the ultimate objective in mind, invites criticism, and is alien to the US forces for whom “force protection” is paramount. But across the country, in Fallujah, and now in Mosul and Baquba, the US forces may have sown dragons’ teeth. In Greek mythology, dragons’ teeth, once planted, grow into fully-armed warriors. We must avoid doing that any more in Iraq.
The writer is professor of military science and doctrine at Cranfield University and heads its global security programme
I saw the clip on TV. The brave soldier made a quick decision. PhaRka kay rakh diya Terrorist ko. What the hell were terrorists doing inside a mosque to begin with? That place should be out of bound for fighting and war.