http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119615,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
Printable View
At least he suffered less than the Iraqi prisoners. Personally, I find it much more humane, and for the beheaded person, much less humiliating. Do I think he deserved to die though? Maybe not, though I can't say for sure, since I don't know the circumstances for him being in such a place and getting captured.
Or perhaps you are trying to point out the endless cycle of violence that is now going to happen much similar to Palestine/Israel, except this will be with prisoners?
I don't think any group of people has cornered the market on evil. Whether it's American soldiers forcing detainees in Iraq to dress in women's underwear and perform sexual acts on tape as though it's some kind of effective interrogation technique, or if its Iraqis blindly killing someone simply because he has pale skin and celebrating a bloody murder as though it's anything more than an act of complete ignorance, it's all bad to me. Shame on everyone.
How can you say that for certain? Do you know exactly what went on in that prison?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arche
This is horrible, and they had no right at all to take this man's life.
That pretty much says it all. The difference is, we expect this kind of stuff from terrorists. That's why we fight them. However, we do not expect soldiers representing us to stoop to anything resembling these kinds of acts. That, Unne, is the difference. In my thread, I was not saying that the American soldiers were worse than terrorists. I was just saying that it's not the behaviour I want from troops representing my country or its allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandmaster LH
At least he suffered less than the Iraqi prisoners. --Arche
This is insane. To argue that death is "less suffering" than humiliation, or having your picture taken? Death is worse than almost everything. Even if US soldiers raped the prisoners every day, it wouldn't be worse than death, because the Iraqis would be STILL ALIVE.
Do I think he deserved to die though? Maybe not, though I can't say for sure, since I don't know the circumstances for him being in such a place and getting captured.
You think there is justification for any old group of people to cold-bloodedly murder a civilian, then dance around with his severed head in hand, and post a video of it to the internet?
I honestly feel that no sane human being can truly believe what you just said, and that you're exaggerating to the point of near-stupidity in order to make a point, so I'm going to ignore it.
However, we do not expect soldiers representing us to stoop to anything resembling these kinds of acts. That, Unne, is the difference. In my thread, I was not saying that the American soldiers were worse than terrorists. I was just saying that it's not the behaviour I want from troops representing my country or its allies. --Skogs
I agree. And I'm just trying to draw a comparison: Look what we did and how we reacted; we did something wrong, apologized to the world and prosecuted those who did wrong.
Look what THEY did. For people to even try to argue that we're as bad as they are is absolutely wrong.
I'm only saying that from what we know. We see and hear all these humiliating acts etc. American soldiers do on Iraqi prisoners, whilst from this other video showing the other side, a beheading.
As for having a right to take his life, well if it was a soldier, then as it's a war and he's the enemy, they have just as much right as American soldiers taking Iraqi lives. If he wasn't a soldier (I can't seem to see whether it specifies this or not on those two sites though), then no, perhaps they shouldn't.
If it wasn't a war zone, but in the middle of America, then yes, I'd say it's outright wrong, no-one should be getting killed, let alone like that. But war changes everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
This madness will never end. We'll be telling our grandchildren that even back when we were young, the Middle East was not a place one wants to visit.
Take care all.
Both articles make it clear that he was a private contractor, not a soldier or even a civilian employed by the Pentagon (paragraph 3 in the FOX News article, paragraphs 12 and 15 in the CNN article).Quote:
Originally Posted by Arche
Yeah, bad stuff happening there, made by both sides and non of these actions are right. Awful world we live in, folks.
Ooooh, big deal, USA has done worst things through their history. This si nothing bad, really!
^
^
^
I hope the sarcasm up there was obvious.
Aaaaaanyway, I can't say I am surprised about this. Of course, I wasn't surprised about the other thing either. I just have a little comment:
"This shows the true nature of the enemies of freedom," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "They have no regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children."
I really don't understand why he refers to them as "enemies of freedom" and refers to the goverment as friends of freedom. This is what I call demagogy.
About what happened, well, this is just another of the bunch of barbaric acts commited through war. Do you actually expect for both invaders and defenders of a country to act correctly in a war? What can you expect of such a bunch of ignorants?
Yeah, USA has been politically correct, but the act of barbarism perpetrated by those soldiers still exists. And ignoring the documents presented in regard to that until it was of public knowledge does too. And innocents died through the bombings, even if it was "just collateral damage". No matter how much perfume you put on it, trout is still trout.Quote:
Look what we did and how we reacted; we did something wrong, apologized to the world and prosecuted those who did wrong.
Look what THEY did. For people to even try to argue that we're as bad as they are is absolutely wrong.
If US troops are ever found to have done something as bad as stand on top of an innocent civilian to hold him down while someone else saws his head off with a knife, I'll condemn them harder than I condemn those people mentioned above, because at least WE should know better.
I'm pretty sure though, that there would be MANY dead Iraqi prisoners, if US troops just would be "allowed" to do whatever they please to them, in no fear of punishment from their leaders.
If this was 300 years ago, you'd be saying "Those Injuns' finest"
"hurr death to the ragheads horray for US global supremacy"
This is war, stuff happens. That sucks, move on.
A sterling example of the inherent ugliness of human nature.
I wonder what the head count is now.
Psst! I hear some people actually LIVE there! Imagine that... >_>Quote:
This madness will never end. We'll be telling our grandchildren that even back when we were young, the Middle East was not a place one wants to visit.
:P
Actulally, I spent the best days of my life in middle-east. And I've never met that friendly people anywhere, than I met in Dubai, United Arabic Emirates. :) Seriously, muslims, arabs; they have been the friendliest people ever to me.Quote:
the Middle East was not a place one wants to visit.
Alright, this was a bit off-topic, but I recommend that place.
Perhaps I should clarify:
Iraq and the West Bank are places one does not usually want to visit. I overgeneralized. My apologies.
Take care all.
Shame on everyone is right. Two wrongs do not make a right. Killing someone to retaliate is just as bad. I'm very sad about this.
I dunno weather to agree more with Dr. Unne or Arche. Humilition and Death are both horrible. The Iraqi's being forced to do things such as oral sex to each other is sick. Murder is sick too. I'm just going to say that both are horrible and shouldn't have been done in the first place.
Granted, this isn't directly tied to this topic, but I think I should add it in:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...use_general_dc
What will we do if this really does boil down into a holy war? These sort of terrible acts by both sides will only get worse, I'd warrant.
Is it time for the USA to cut their losses?
Should we remain?
Neither choice seems possible now. The USA is damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, if the above story turns out to be a major event, the anti-American, anti-Christian sentiment will reach a new high probably, and I can only believe, it will lead to more death.
Take care all.
The Iraqi's being forced to do things such as oral sex to each other is sick. Murder is sick too. I'm just going to say that both are horrible and shouldn't have been done in the first place. --Rye
Different degrees of "sick", but both sick, I agree.
Is it time for the USA to cut their losses? --The Captain
I think we should do the best we can in Iraq, and once they're set up to where they can survive on their own, i.e. once their government is set up and they're capable of maintaining a sovereign state, we should cut our losses.
I agree with Unne that justing picking up Americans and cutting there head off is worse than what happend in the prison. Why would it be one thing if he was a soldier? Were'nt those prisoners also soldiers? And I also agree we shoudl stay there until the government is set up. If we leave now then the country will go back to how it was before and more civillians over there will die.
I hate saying that other opinions are wrong, so I'll just say this: it's a real damn shame when people exploit tragedies to make political statements. Why can't we just be people, instead of left-wing or right-wing? Hell, no matter who's elected this November, we're going to be in Iraq for a long time. Let's put the controversy of the war behind us, and accept it as a fact. We can't change the past by saying that we should have done something different. Let's look at the events happening now without a party filter. Christ, are we so petty to say, or hint, that this guy deserved to die because he was there, no matter that he came to help people, because we don't agree with the reasons for starting the war?
Anyway, I agree with Dr Unne.
I'd have to say that this is probably the best thing I've read on this board. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rei
Yeah what those US prisoners did to the Iraqi prisoners doesnt reflect are whole military. But they fail to see that. I think they should just bombard Al-Jaazera network news because there biased as hell.
The only way Iraq will ever approach a democracy is if they are allowed a free press. Bombarding a network wouldn't solve anything. In America, we have news stations that are bias both ways, which balance things out.
Take care all.
The only way Iraq will have a democracy, is if it is no longer populated by Iraqies.Quote:
The only way Iraq will ever approach a democracy is if they are allowed a free press.
Let's not blame "Arabs" for the despicable criminal actions of Al Qaeda terrorists. That organisation is a non-governmental, non-national group that should've been eliminated by now. Instead of looking for new nations to invade, the world should devote its *considerable* intelligence resources to tracking down and capturing/eliminating the entire network. Simply hurling cruise missile at training camps and mounting invasions of Middle Eastern countries won't accomplish the goal easily; it'll just make matters worse. Killing the innocent instead of the guilty.
Those who're directly involved in organising murderous groups like this need to be eliminated by one means or another. Since the deadly embassy bombings in 1997, and the US's brief explosive response to those crimes, Al Qaeda's threat has simply grown. "Vowing" to hunt them down, and then invading Afghanistan and Iraq and going on a wanton "liberation spree" won't achieve a lasting success against the terrorist groups. Instead of shooting everything that (1) moves and (2) looks like a terrorist, we should take a break from active destruction, get accurate and reliable information on the exact location of key operatives, and then eliminate them all in a decisive act, free of collateral casualties.
Israel successfully used such strategies against militant groups back in the '70s, launching brief but effective and well-planned raids against specific, individual targets; entire terrorist cells were wiped out with no innocent blood spilled.
Far better than the current strategy of "bomb a hostile nation's infrastructure into nothingness and then occupy".
Also, on a related note, there shouldn't be any civilian contractors in Iraq until the military has been able to stabilise and secure the nation. It's too hostile a locale for innocent outsiders to be caught up in it, as much as their humanity may be admirable.
The problem, Big D, is how do you desintegrate the whole group. It's very easy to say it, but every time you get one, two more join. It's like a cancer.
The ideal thing would be to find peace between our OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR (:rolleyes2) culture and theirs. How to do that....uh... Habermas wrote a book about it, I think. I should read it.
I agree with Big D that it's foolish and ignorant to blame "Arabs" for this.
I also agree that there shouldn't be civilians at all, but there has to be some personell to rebuild and help that country in what it needs. But, would it be impossible to have some sort of military escorts to protect civilian workers there? Does anyone have any clue how many western civilians are there at the moment?
Also also - Try to imagine if YOUR country was invaded like this in the first place. Do you think it'd be safe for invader-country civilians to just hang around there? I think it'd be very naive to assume it would be safe for them.
My point is, that human are not so different when they're driven to corner back against a wall, and they are ready to do almost anything just because of pure anger. And I think many Iraqis has reason to be angry. I would be very angry if Finland was invaved. Note: I'm not defending these actions, for they are disgusting - just saying that many people in US would be ready to do the same in Iraqis' postion.
I find it pretty disturbing that in the thread about the Americans abusing Iraqis, you were all pissed and saying there are no excuses... but now, you find all sorts of excuses. "Pushed to the corner", "Cultural habits", my foot... they decapitated a man. An innocent man. Face it, and don't get all double-standardised.
I never said there are no excuses, but I say it now. There's no excuses; there are reasons. But if you would have to look at excuses, they just want their invader to leave, no matter what. And I'm equally pissed, if it was American soldier doing this, I would be just as pissed. I'm not biased about any of this to neither direction. What they did was disgusting and horrible.
Everything I said and meant, is that also US soldiers would be capable to decapitate man in similar circumstances.
I don't think the people who did this were even Iraqi. The news says it was a Jordanian. "This is revenge for the prison abuse" was likely just a convenient excuse. Didn't they also capture and behead a reporter, a while back? Why did they do that?
If my country was occupied, I would not capture civilians and murder them and put videos of it on the internet, no. Any reason other than that those people are sick, evil freaks, is a justification and an excuse.
I wouldn't do that either, Unne, but there are people ready to do that as we can see. :\
No. You wouldn't because you are an intelligent, educated person with high moral standards living in a society that, to a greater or lesser degree upholds such standards. But there are people in every country who would be capable of such acts. It is one of the unfortunately uglier aspects of human nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
Well, suppose your whole family was killed, for example. And your friends. Would you do it then?
I think I would not do it, I'd probably just go madly depressed, and probably after I'd just join any resistance group and would not care about dying, not like I'd have much to do. I don't believe I'd decapitate an unarmed person though, because that would make me as bad as them.
I can understand the resistance groups that act against soldiers though. I do not agree with what they do, but I'd probably do the same in their case. I understand them fighting against their...ahem...liberators, and I can understand the soldiers shooting back. Sorry, I don't think there are any good guys in this war.
But there are people in every country who would be capable of such acts. --Skogs
Agreed, I probably know some fellow Americans who would.
Well, suppose your whole family was killed, for example. And your friends. Would you do it then? --Shadow Nexus
I would defend my family, even by killing, but that's different than kidnapping an innocent civilian and murdering him in cold blood (in the name of a god, no less), and then publishing footage of it to terrorize people.
You know before this Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, Iraqis were doing bad to are troops before that. An this guy that was beheaded wasnt in the military, he was a civilian contractor. Those guys that abused the Iraqi prisoners, only humilated them. Nothing as bad as killing them all. :greenie:
But that's the thing we arn't trying to take over their country we are trying to help them. the man they killed was trying to help them. there's no exscuse for that. Yu don't kill people who are trying to help your people. The U.S. is trying to help the people of Iraq and set up a democracy so there won't be anymore crazy leaders in control. NOT TO TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikztsu
Meanwhile, America is occupying Iraq, by means of military force. You can't expect Iraqis to like that, right?Quote:
NOT TO TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY.
And about that whole business of 'helping them'... get off that tree. You don't help a nation by conquering it. America got into Iraq, to bring down Saddam, destroy his WMD infrastrcture, and cut his aid to terrorists. You came there to fight evil, and that's what you must continue on doing. America shouldn't act all saint-like... it's unbecoming, and seems rather pretentious, as well.
Yes, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert
As far as I know, that guy was there for business stuff, something about a company he was doing stuff with. I didn't listen to the news very clearly, but I heard something like that. Correct me if I am wrong.
No, I'm sorry, that war is a taking over of the country, an invasion. Just look at how American companies are installing there to take profit of the reconstruction. Does USA want a muslim fundamentalist goverment to kick all their corporations away? No, they want a nice puppet democracy, that will give some kind of pseudo-legitimization to the war and help them mantain things going. And then they will say they did it for democracy and world peace. Yeah, right, like the Spanish conquistadores went to South America to "cristianize the little indians and save them from hell". Thats what they told people then. Of course, in pre-modernity, wars were done because "God is with us". Now it's "reason" who is with us. Well, thats nice, but I'm not believing their fairy tale.
I am not surprised there are so many people fighting the troops. No one wanted Saddam, so the first step was done. Then no one wants the troops, so they want them away too.
Seriously, if this war was for democracy, they could have done it anywhere.
Uh, actually an unkown number of prisoners have been murdered by their jailers - beaten to death, in most cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by noname
Besides, this latest terrorist crime has nothing to do with "Iraqis"; it was an Al Qaeda act. This has been confirmed.
Nothing can justify or excuse blatant acts of barbarism, by anyone. The contractor who was murdered was completely innocent; the Iraqis murdered and tortured in prison haven't been convicted of anything either, and most likely the majority weren't responsible for such acts of depraved cruelty. "An Arab did it to us, so we're allowed to do it to Arabs" is the worst possible reasoning in a situation like this.
You guys see the video off consumption junction !? Its outrageous, even on there message boards, those guys are a-holes.I cant believe they even put it up.. We should get some mercenaries in there to kill them all. Hell, if I was old enough Id go over there and kill. I just think this is a kill or be killed situation right here. Even if your fighting over there, you get captured they will kill you. Unlike the U.S. who captures them, we dont decapitate them..
Quote:
No, they want a nice puppet democracy
And whats wrong with democracy in Iraq? Do you think dictatorship is better? Look at Japan as a result of world war 2, WE HELPED THEM! An Japan is prospering even today...
Well at least this is proof that Iraq has Al-Qaiada connections.
Who would you kill? Would you conduct a thorough and just investigation and target only those you knew to be guilty? If so, how?Quote:
Originally Posted by noname
Yeah, they lost a hundred thousand innocents in the world's only nuclear strike, then they were occupied by soldiers who dramatically increased the nation's crime rate. They then wrote their own pacifist constitution and decided to refrain from armed conflict, for the benefit of their own people and future. Totally because of America, of course.Quote:
Look at Japan as a result of world war 2, WE HELPED THEM! An Japan is prospering even today...
There are, of course, Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq; there may have been in the past, too - but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the country having "Al Qaeda connections". Event the US intelligence agencies knew there was no actual link between Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda terrorists. If mere presence equates to "connections", then we'd better get on with targetting Spain, France, the UK and the US - not to mention practically every Middle Eastern nation, since there are Al Qaeda operatives present in all of those locations, and more besides.[q=Shadow Nexus]The problem, Big D, is how do you desintegrate the whole group. It's very easy to say it, but every time you get one, two more join. It's like a cancer.Quote:
Well at least this is proof that Iraq has Al-Qaiada connections.
The ideal thing would be to find peace between our OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR (:rolleyes2) culture and theirs. How to do that....uh... Habermas wrote a book about it, I think. I should read it.[/q]Yes, demolishing the entire network in a single action would be extremely difficult; it'd take a lot of intensive planning, and while it was being planned, there'd be no nice "victories for freedom" to splash across TV screens. A true settlement to hostilities would be good; however, the current 'batch' of terrorist groups are simply beyond reason. Addressing the idealogical and factual causes that promted their actions would be effective for the future, but it'd do nothing about the current fanatics and their determination to destroy. Negotiation cannot work with them; but localised and destructive wars won't do the job either. One of the only plausible solutions is to remove the threat, then change things to ensure that no-one feels a similar need to fight in the future.
The Japanese pacifist constitution is more or less exactly what General Douglas MacArthur told them to write. At that point, they essentially nodded and smiled whenever he said anything. He would have beaten the <delicious marshmallows> out of any of them if they didn't, too. Franklin Roosevelt labeled him the most dangerous man in America for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Edit by Kishi: Watch your language.
As for the whole war in general, it's all just a matter of opinion. I mean none of us can truly know what is right or wrong. We just do what we believe is right and wrong and punish/retaliate against those who did wrong.
Much like US soldiers are considered heroes in the US, Iraqi soldiers and militants are heroes in their countries. What I'm tired of is how the media makes those non-military personel killed to be out as heroes. I mean I sympathize with loss of life, but that's like saying if someone were hit by a car and died, they'd be considered a hero too. Not heroes, just people at the wrong place at the wrong time.
What I don't like is how Bush thinks all we have to do is just send more soldiers and everything will be alright. He can send the entire US military and police force and they'd still be outnumbered 5 to 1. That's like putting more bandaids on a broken leg...it's ridiculous. I don't know how they'll resolve this issue, but sending troops after troops just isn't going to cut it...not unless Bush likes more body bags.
"What I don't like is how Bush thinks all we have to do is just send more soldiers and everything will be alright. He can send the entire US military and police force and they'd still be outnumbered 5 to 1. That's like putting more bandaids on a broken leg...it's ridiculous. I don't know how they'll resolve this issue, but sending troops after troops just isn't going to cut it...not unless Bush likes more body bags."
Very good point. THAT is exactly the same mentality that led to the USA's downfall in Vietnam. We may have overwhelming weapons and resources, but we're on the offensive no matter what, and it's almost always easier to fight a battle when you're defending your "home".
Take care all.
Al-Qaeda operatives and Saddam loyalists. If a guy points there gun at you, then there guilty, either you fire back or just say "Hey! Go ahead and shoot me, I dont know if your guilty or not...''Quote:
Who would you kill? Would you conduct a thorough and just investigation and target only those you knew to be guilty? If so, how?
And about sending more troops, we dont need more troops. We need more Mercenaries.
Quote:
Much like US soldiers are considered heroes in the US, Iraqi soldiers and militants are heroes in their countries. What I'm tired of is how the media makes those non-military personel killed to be out as heroes. I mean I sympathize with loss of life, but that's like saying if someone were hit by a car and died, they'd be considered a hero too. Not heroes, just people at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Theres a difference between going over there and risking your life, knowing your life expectancy will drop.Then getting hit by a car. They are all heroes, there doing somthing that no one or maybe some of us here got the balls to do. That civilian contractor is a hero for going over there, and trying to help rebuild Iraq. He went there knowing the dangers, and just wanted to make over 160,000 $ on about a 6 month job. He was only 27 and had family and friends. You tell me if he isnt a hero... An yeah are definitions may all be different, but I respect that...
Yeah, but some of these guys didn't choose to go there. I wasn't just referring to that one guy who got beheaded...I was just citing an example. Like David Bloom, he died in Iraq because he had a blood clot sitting in a tank too long. Is he a hero? No, at least not in my definition. But that doesn't make him any less of a man. I never knew David Bloom and I'm sure he's a fine human being, but I don't really consider him a hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by noname
"Well at least this is proof that Iraq has Al-Qaiada connections."
...there are NOW. See, Saddam's regime didn't put up with Al-Qaeda's crap, because Osama hated Saddam almost as much as he hated the US. Now that the country's been plunged into chaos, Al-Qaeda is free to do send in its operatives and do what it wants.
P-U-P-P-E-T democracy. It's not democracy. That who puts rules to the game is not a gamer: He's an impostor.Quote:
And whats wrong with democracy in Iraq? Do you think dictatorship is better? Look at Japan as a result of world war 2, WE HELPED THEM! An Japan is prospering even today...
Plus, I am wondering, if USA loves democracy so much and everything is so beautiful, why did they mantain monarchy in Kuwait after the Gulf War? :rolleyes2
I lifted this from theferrett's livejournal and I might as well repost it here:
The actions of both sides are sick and twisted, and we *should* be outraged and appalled by both. I just hope that it *always* comes as a huge shock when Americans are guilty of the level of brutality that went on in Abu Gharib.Quote:
The Danger of the Single-Standard
You know what always makes headlines? American brutality. If you can dig up pictures of American soldiers raping some boy or American police beating the trout out of a black guy, it'll make world headlines in a second.
People all around the world love to watch American authority figures whuppin' the tar out of people; as an entertainment value, it's somewhere between football and reruns of Baywatch. They watch it and get outraged, pass the photos around, bitch about America on forums and in cafes.
Yet worse things happen every day, don't they? Were people passing around photos from Saddam's torture chambers before we invaded? Of course not. Do worse police beatings happen every day in Africa? Oh, you bet - sometimes those poor suckers don't even survive!
In short, is what happened in the Iraqi prisons that bad, comparatively?
Hell no. There are worse prisons in the world that don't get the PR, and most of the prisoners survived. You want real trauma, listen to some of the escapees from Somalia or any other ethnic genocide. Rape is bad, but some of the tortures you can read about in other lands are so sickly inventive that you won't be able to eat for a day.
But the media doesn't ever talk about that. I mean, some poor bastard just got his head sawed off before a camera! Why doesn't the media talk about the brutality of the Iraqis, the way they shoot and bomb our soldiers, the violence that goes on in the rest of the world?
I'll tell you why: It's because we're the good guys.
Or we're supposed to be, anyway.
In the aftermath of the on-camera decapitation of an American contractor, I've heard a lot of bitching lately about how the Iraqis are animals, and we should just carpet-bomb those barbaric son-of-a-bitches and kill them all.
And you miss the point. America is about justice, and about mercy, and about giving people who really don't deserve it the benefit of the doubt. And when we stray from those principles for any reasons, we lose what makes us special.
I'm going to state a fact that's going to make a lot of lefties uncomfortable, but it's completely true: There's a reason why frontier justice works pretty well, and it's because most of the people who get strung up are bad guys. One of the embarrassing things about Guantanamo Bay - where, if you'll recall, we're holding and torturing prisoners without recourse to lawyers, a trial, or in fact any way of getting out - is that when it looked like the Supreme Court was going to interfere, the Pentagon ordered the release of about a hundred prisoners.
At last count, at least twenty-five of those prisoners have been spotted fighting for the opposition again. It's estimated that as many as sixty of them are back, doing their damndest to put bullets in the brains of American soldiers.
This is embarrassing for the right, because it turns out that actually, the Pentagon has no ****ing clue who's a good guy and who's a bad guy. They release a hundred people, and within two months 25% are recidivists? Not really good odds.
But it's embarrassing for the left, because what we frequently forget is that the people in Guantanamo Bay are mostly bastards. Sure, they've been picked up at random, and sure there are probably a few exceptions in the bunch - but most of 'em are, in fact, enemies of the state. Most of them do hate America, and you wouldn't want to be in a city full of these guys; left to their own devices, they'd probably kill you unless you were a reporter.
They're not nice people. And chances are pretty good that the people in the Iraqi prisons weren't fine, upstanding citizens either. I'm willing to bet they were in prison for a reason, and if you were to rank people on a scale from 1 to 10 - 1 being "Doesn't deserve a beating at all, karmically speaking" and 10 being "Saddam Hussein and Hitler" - the guys who had the funny photos taken of them probably averaged around a 7 or 8.
Which is why the temptation of tit-for-tat is so tempting. It's really efficient, and most of the time when you throw someone in jail for no reason they had it coming. The "Whup 'em all and let God sort 'em out" has a frighteningly high accuracy rate.
But here's the thing you have to understand about America, and one of the reasons why our country was unique: America's justice system was founded on a principle that was absolutely-****ing-unheard of in the world.
It's better to let a guilty man go than it is to jail an innocent man.
You heard me - or rather, you heard our Founding Fathers. They said, "You have to prove they're guilty. You can't just do trout because you think they deserve it, even if they probably do."
And it was ****ing brilliant.
You see, the problem with the "Whup 'Em All" theory is that although it rounds up the guilty, it also scoops up a fair amount of innocents, too. And the innocents get creamed.
Furthermore, the "Whup 'Em All" system is weighted. If you get picked up, there's not a lot you can do to get out. And as has been noted, the WEA system isn't accurate at filtering out mouthy non-criminals, so there's a good chance you can wind up in prison completely at random. The rules are broken.
So considering that you might get thrown into jail for no good reason, why follow the law at all? Why not come up with a WEA system of your own, and just beat whoever you want to?
The WEA system leads to unjustice, which leads to a disrespect for the law, which leads to anarchy. The Founding Fathers were smart enough to see this and said, "You know, even if it's totally unfair sometimes, it's better to be totally unfair to us. The minute innocent people start thinking that the law might **** them over, they're going to completely ignore the rules. The only way to keep civilization in check is to make it fair for everyone, even the utter bastards."
Hence, America birthed a double-standard which stays in place to this day: Everyone gets their fair say. Even the total assholes. It's way better to let an asshole free to get caught again some day than it is to lock up some poor shopkeeper who's going to tell all of his friends, "What's the use?"
Thus, there is a double-standard. When we abandon the WEA theory, we act better than the enemy. We give them a chance they would never have given us... Because it's a smarter and ultimately more stable system.
It's not news when the Iraqis shoot some soldier, because their system has always been about force winning. If you have the most guns, you can shoot anyone you damn well please. You can do whatever the hell you want if you have the power. That's the way it is in most of the world.
But America has always told the world that it's not about force, but about justice. Yeah, the American cops could jail anyone - they have guns, and backup, and support from other cops - but though they have the raw power to do so, they don't have the right. Power is not from a gun, but from the law.
And we walk around, touting this in flaming letters a mile high: We invaded you because we're better than you are. We have a system that works.
That's really news when it breaks down.
And I hear the cries in the background: They hurt us! Go hurt them back! Kill them, we know they're bastards, bomb them all! Except if we do that on a large scale, without proof, we are essentially saying that we should kill you if we think you deserve it and we can get away with it. You don't need a trial, because ****, we all know it's true. And if we kill a couple of innocents along the way? Hell, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
And if we do that, what's the difference between us and Saddam Hussein except for better troops and a louder PA system?
America is about the system, people. It's about sometimes letting a complete and utter murderer go free because innocents are more important than revenge, and the law is more important than raw strength. Even the bastards in Guantanamo Bay deserve to be treated with respect, and even Osama bin Laden deserves a trial. We forget that at our peril.
Iraq is going to pound the trout out of us. The world media is going to hold every one of our mistakes up to a microscope. And yes, it's unfair.
But I hope the day never comes when American brutality fails to make world headlines. Because if that day ever arrives, then we will have lost in every way that ever really counted.
I can't say I was shocked by Nick Berg's beheading. Appalled, yes, but I knew quite well that news of the prison abuse would provoke groups like Al-Qaida.
One thing I do find interesting, and quite disturbing:
I don't know what to make of current events at all. :SQuote:
From the Baltimore Sun
In an interview yesterday with public radio station WBUR in Boston, Michael Berg said he blames the U.S. government in part for his son's death. If he had not been held incommunicado for nearly two weeks, he could have left Iraq safely, Michael Berg said.
"We could have gotten him out of there before the hostilities escalated," he told the radio station. "I still hold [Rumsfeld] responsible.
"But it goes further than Donald Rumsfeld. It's the whole Patriot Act. It's the whole feeling of this country right now that rights don't matter anymore because there are terrorists about."
Innocent besides the fact that he was stealing Iraqi jobs. But I'm just going to assume that no one here has any idea of what they're talking about as far as what this scandal actually means to the arab world.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
No, you just lock them up forever, and can legally decapitate them if you want.Quote:
Unlike the U.S. who captures them, we dont decapitate them..
WhatQuote:
Well at least this is proof that Iraq has Al-Qaiada connections.
Because promoting a free market and providing people with jobs is a crime punishable by a slow, painful and gruesome death. Of-course, now I see that he deserved it.Quote:
Innocent besides the fact that he was stealing Iraqi jobs.
You don't seem to take much consideration to how those people see USA at the moment. It's a comparatively safe bet that the victim was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time - an attack of opportunity, if you will. Innocent or not, the act wasn't about him at all, as far as I can tell.