A little honesty for a change? How will we be able to deal with an honest media 
| Yahoo News wrote: |
Troops charged with murdering Iraqi civilian
By Will Dunham
The military on Wednesday charged seven Marines and a Navy medic with premeditated murder and other crimes in the April 26 killing of an Iraqi civilian in a village west of Baghdad, the U.S. Marine Corps said.
All eight men face the possibility of the death penalty if convicted. All were charged with premeditated murder, larceny, conspiracy, housebreaking, assault, kidnapping and obstruction of justice, while five also were charged with making false official statements.
"The Marine Corps takes allegations of wrongdoing by its members very seriously and is committed to thoroughly investigating such allegations. The Marine Corps also prides itself on holding its members accountable for their actions," Col. Stewart Navarre told reporters at Camp Pendleton, California, where the men are jailed.
The incident took place in the town of Hamdania in central Iraq and is a separate case from the November 19 killing of 24 civilians in Haditha in which other Marines are suspected.
Military investigators examined whether the servicemen fatally took a 52-year-old disabled Iraqi man, identified as Hashim Ibrahim Awad, from his home, shot him in the face, then planted an AK-47 assault rifle and a shovel next to his body to make it appear he was an insurgent placing a roadside bomb.
Those charged were: Marines Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins, Cpl. Trent Thomas, Lance Cpl. Tyler Jackson, Pfc. John Jodka, Lance Cpl. Jerry Shumate, Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington, Cpl. Marshall Magincalda, and Navy Hospitalman Third Class Melson Bacos.
There have been a number of cases of misconduct by U.S. troops in Iraq, although military leaders maintain the vast majority of American troops have conducted themselves honorably.
The eight men have been held in pretrial confinement at the Camp Pendleton brig since May 24. Their next step is a hearing to determine whether their cases go to court-martial, which would be held at Camp Pendleton.
Defense lawyers have asserted that investigators extracted incriminating statements by using inappropriate interrogation methods.
ANOTHER MURDER CASE
In another case, the military said a fourth Army soldier, Spc. Juston Graber, had been charged with premeditated murder in connection with the shooting deaths of three detainees in Iraq on May 9. The military said on Monday three other soldiers were charged in the same killings and with threatening to kill a fellow soldier if he told authorities the truth about the case.
All four soldiers also face a possible death penalty.
Joseph Casas, a lawyer representing Jodka, said his client was innocent and that military investigators used inappropriate methods to obtain statements from the troops.
Casas said the statements were not "confessions" and that he would seek to have them suppressed at trial.
"I can tell you with regard to my client, he was subjected to at least three interrogations, one of which lasted about eight hours without any food, water, restroom breaks, you name it," Casas said.
Defense lawyers also questioned how the military could charge the troops with premeditation, saying the troops were on a mission and the Iraqi's death came amid combat.
"It's preposterous to suggest that eight Marines got together to plan a murder," said David Brahms, representing Pennington.
The military held the eight suspects in "maximum" custody for three weeks, officials at the base said. They were restrained with handcuffs attached to a leather belt and leg cuffs any time they left their cells. Authorities slightly loosened the conditions last week to enable them to have no such restraints while inside jail, the base said.
The Washington Post has reported the slain man was known in his village as "Hashim the Lame" because he had a metal bar surgically inserted into one leg several years ago. |
Full Source
Am I wrong or is the first time (in this conflict) that the US has even suggested it has done something not only wrong but blatantly illegal? It really makes you wonder how they (the Government and the Media in general) consider all the collateral deaths...are they not murder also??
Any thoughts out there? All I have to say is this:
Killing a so called iraqi civilian should very well be allowed, its not the iraqi army that did the whole bit on sept 11th, nor anything eles for the matter. Its the civilians that are the suicide bombers.
Rmember vietnam when a soldier would walk up to a child, 8-10 years of age, and as soon as the soldier got close enough, or soldiers... the child would then pull the pin of a grenade. A freakin child for god sakes. who can you trust these days? no one, we allow iraqis in the usa and alot of the 'terrorists' are in fact american citizens!
Yes, but hasn't there been some members of the Iraqi army that have attacked members of the U.S. army? I thought there was a news article about it here somewhere *Looks*
Of course people look at this and say "AHHH! The United States is horrible!" Yet they totally fail to look on both sides.
Oh well, they say that ignorance is bliss (which it may be).
(Not So) Sharp Wrote:
| Quote: |
"Killing a so called iraqi civilian should very well be allowed . . ."
|
Then how about:
"Killing a so called American civilian should very well be allowed . . ."
You do believe in equality, don't you? I'm sure all of your have heard the most recent murder where a couple of US Marines went to a house and raped an Iragi woman and then killed her off along with the rest of the people in that house including a child, to cover their tracks.
It is facinating to see how the US Army is trying to justify this crime saying that the soldiers were psyched because they lost someone in their unit and other bull shit. In that case, the whole of the Islamic population has a right to be psyched over all the deaths and inhumanity suffered by the Palastenians in the hands of the Jews.
But let's leave that...
What cracked me up most in this most recent affair is that the US Army has labelled this atrocity by their soldier as "a crime of opportunity"...now what was special about the case that stopped it from being labelled "premeditated rape and murder" I guess only Georgy-boy will know....
All I see is the US laying a think layer of foundation to get the rapist-murderer off with a light sentence...
It looks like there was a cover-up in the Haditha killings,
| BBC wrote: |
| US marine officers at all levels failed to investigate conflicting reports of killings in the Iraqi town of Haditha, a report quoted by US media says. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5160276.stm So the actions of a few soldiers now reflect the intentions of an entire nation? Pathetic.
Yes Soulfire, that is what anti-Americans would like to convince you of. What these fools fail to realize is that blowing such crimes out of proportion and comparing them to deaths cause by accidental damage, is that they are discrediting themselves.
If they have not already, they are on the path to desensitizing the public to a point to where if their worst assumptions do actually occur, such as ACTUAL ATROCITIES, they will go unheard.
Well then it can just as easily be said that you are playing down this crime just because it is the Americans who did it.
I suppose if somone came into your house and raped your daughter and killed your wife and younger son along with her, you'd still feel it wasn't an "ACTUAL ATROCITY" if it was an isolated soldier who did it. You wouldn't want to "blow it out of proportion" would you. I mean, it was just your daughter, wife and son. It's not the end of the world.
I should learn to be as understanding as you. I wonder what you'd do if you happened to walk into the house while the isolated soldier was going about his business. Would you walk back out to give the soldier time to finish. I mean, why make an issue out of it, right... Why "desensitize the public" over something so trivial... It's just your family. It's an isolated case. It's not as if the soldier is a serial rapist going from house to house. It's just a one time thing... How understanding of you... I suppose I should envy your great heart...
How fooling of me to be sure that personally I would kill the guy for touching my family. How foolish of me... Stupid stupid me...
Jipmerite, your post was very emotional and assumptive or perhaps you have trouble with English.
My point is that this incident was a crime, an atrocious crime indeed but perpetrated due to an individual’s decision. Any one of those soldiers could have started or stopped the situation and should all be punished.
When one refers to an incident as an ‘atrocity’ one generally is referring to a particularly bad act or sometimes an act delivered by a group on another group. In other words, much worse that a crime. An example would be systematic rape and murder.
You and your kind seem willing to portray this crime as an especially terrible incident as if to attack the credibility or the US armed forces and its leadership in the name of humanity. This in fact does a disservice to humanity as the US armed forces are one of if not the most human armed force in history.
A person sincerely concerned for humanity and human rights would call this what it is, a detestable crime, and not let his emotions compel him to write a foolish post or subject. I for one do not believe the US armed forces would allow an ‘atrocity’ and I believe this is an example of them doing just that. However, if the day comes where such a thing occurs, I would like to have the proper designation untarnished by ‘chicken little’ at my disposal and others
| Quote: |
| the US armed forces are one of if not the most human armed force in history. |
How can you possibly state this as a fact?
| Quote: |
| I for one do not believe the US armed forces would allow an ‘atrocity’ and I believe this is an example of them doing just that. |
Contradiction?
On the one hand, the US forces are the most humane, on the other they're letting this 'atrocity' go.
EDIT:
| Quote: |
| An example would be systematic rape and murder. |
By the way, this was apparently quite pre-meditated.
| Quote: |
| Several soldiers allegedly planned the attack over drinks after noticing the woman near the traffic checkpoint they manned in Mahmudiyah, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. |
| Quote: |
"Fifteen-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza was afraid, her mother confided in a neighbor.
"As pretty as she was young, the girl had attracted the unwelcome attention of U.S. soldiers manning a checkpoint that the girl had to pass through almost daily in their village in the south-central city of Mahmudiyah, her mother told the neighbor.
"Abeer told her mother again and again in her last days that the soldiers had made advances toward her ... [Her mother] feared the Americans might come for her daughter at night, at their home. She asked her neighbor if Abeer might sleep at his house, with the women there. ... Abeer did not live to take up the offer of shelter." |
| Quote: |
Mahmudiyah wasn't a case of soldiers exceeding their orders or authority in the interrogation of prisoners -- or an example of war-weary, stressed-out troops mistakenly assuming a villager was a member of the insurgency. Neither was it a situation in which U.S. service members, grief-stricken over the loss of a comrade, decided to take out their anguish on people who looked like the enemy.
Mahmudiyah, if the charges are true, was a case of something else; a vile event made all the more disgusting because a soldier, afforded the opportunity to serve his country, chose instead to indulge his private need to hurt, degrade and murder. |
| Quote: |
In a press release [text], the US Attorney for Western Kentucky, where Green was based at Fort Campbell, said:
The charges allege that on March 12, 2006, while stationed in Mahmudiayh [sic], Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, Green and three other individuals went to a house in the vicinity of Traffic Control Point 1, near Mahmudiayh, to rape one of the adult females living there. Green allegedly shot and killed an adult male, an adult female and a female child who were present in the house. The charges also allege that after participating in the rape of the second adult female, Green shot and killed her. |
Sources:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/07/former-us-soldier-charged-with-rape.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701124.html
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060707/OPINION01/607070337/1035/OPINION
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/nation_world/story.asp?ID=138560
Last edited by tidruG on Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:32 am; edited 1 time in totalWhen it cames to other ppls life, we tend to be realistic and kindhearted.
I had a conversation with a Trooper that had just came back from Iraq.
Well i do not know about the most humane army in the world, but definately it hosts the most uneducated barbarians of the US.
They do not know they reason of them being here and the only thing they know is that they must kill terrorists.
And just a tip, the rest of the world would not ming a world without US, so yes, you can trust nobody since you have pissed EVERYBODY around the globe.
You do not have place in Iraq, you can see it is not in US boarders, so, going there and loose your head is something natural, and the more you stay there the more you piss its residents of, with cruelty.
| Lied wrote: |
When it cames to other ppls life, we tend to be realistic and kindhearted.
I had a conversation with a Trooper that had just came back from Iraq.
Well i do not know about the most humane army in the world, but definately it hosts the most uneducated barbarians of the US.
They do not know they reason of them being here and the only thing they know is that they must kill terrorists.
And just a tip, the rest of the world would not ming a world without US, so yes, you can trust nobody since you have pissed EVERYBODY around the globe.
You do not have place in Iraq, you can see it is not in US boarders, so, going there and loose your head is something natural, and the more you stay there the more you piss its residents of, with cruelty. |
They're their to fight insurgents, enemies of the public, people who fly airplanes into buildings and kill 3000 innocent Americans. The reason the soldiers are there - stability. We want a stable democratic Iraq, and after other middle eastern countries realize that they don't have to live under oppressive dictators that torture, rape, and kill it's population, democracy will spread. I believe this is called the domino theory.
I'm not really sure what you mean by uneducated barbarians, surely they all have different levels of education, but I wouldn't say it has all of them.
Without the U.S. - who would stop Iran from using nuclear weapons? Who would stop North Korea from using nuclear weapons? You people are too passive, and that passiveness is what's going to end this world. Soon it will be "Let them have their weapons." We finally give in and let them have them. What do they do? Turn around and blow everyone up.
We can't leave Iraq now. All the work and progress we've made until now will be ruined, and the 2000 some (maybe more now) soldiers who have lost their lives would have died in vain, all because we "have no place in Iraq."
[sarcasm]It's terrible of the United States to want people to live under a free non-oppressive democracy! How horrible! The agony![/sarcasm]
Freedom isn't free. We're just doing the dirty work for the rest of the world. Doing the work of the nations who want to reap the benefits of doing nothing. Allies? Who needs allies? There's no such thing as an ally in war. | Soulfire wrote: |
| They're their to fight insurgents, enemies of the public, people who fly airplanes into buildings and kill 3000 innocent Americans. |
Which is strange, because last time I checked Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact many of the people who are insurgents are connected to the Iraqi political parties, and even with the various ministries...
| Quote: |
| The reason the soldiers are there - stability. |
So do you think that Iraq is stable? Do you think any country in the region wants to be like Iraq? Do you think they want religious groups taking power and squabbles in parliament, slintering their countries to the point of civil war? If not, what was wrong with your idealism?
| Quote: |
| We want a stable democratic Iraq, and after other middle eastern countries realize that they don't have to live under oppressive dictators that torture, rape, and kill it's population, democracy will spread. I believe this is called the domino theory. |
No, domino theory is the discredited theory which said that South East Asia would become communist if Vietnam did. It was wrong.
It seems that the most prominent cases of torture, rape and killing in the Middle East at the moment are being carried out in Iraq, and also in Palestine. So much for your theory that other countries will look at them and say "We want to be like that." I mean, seriously, who would look at Iraq and envy them? Do you?
| Quote: |
| Without the U.S. - who would stop Iran from using nuclear weapons? |
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons so it's unlikely to use them. They are prevented from getting nuclear weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is backed by all the major countries in the world, with the exception of Israel, Cuba, North Korea, Pakistan and India. Under the IAEA, Iran, and every country in the world, has tight controls on what it can and cannot do with nuclear material, and maintains safeguards and inspections of their nuclear facilities, just like every country which is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
| Quote: |
| Soon it will be "Let them have their weapons." |
How did this go from US soldiers abusing Iraqis to to nuclear weapons? Are you trying to change the subject? In fact, the opposite is true. Most countries of the world have signed up to the NPT, which calls for nuclear disarmament. It is the nuclear powers who are failing to live up to their agreements and not disarming.
| Quote: |
| [sarcasm]It's terrible of the United States to want people to live under a free non-oppressive democracy![/sarcasm] |
The real problem is not democracy, it is violent methods. Democracy was brought to countries around the world peacefully. To East Timor, South Africa, Cambodia, Mozambique, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Burundi, Rwanda, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and more recently to Kygystan and the Ukraine through peaceful means. Any of these countries is much better off than Iraq, where over three years later the killing continues, with perhaps a hundred thousand civilians dead. Violent methods just lead to more violence, and to the instability in Iraq.
| Quote: |
| Allies? Who needs allies? There's no such thing as an ally in war. |
Which pretty much sums up how ungrateful the US is for our help. Next time, we won't. Don't worry. You don't need us anyway. | tidruG wrote: |
| Quote: | | the US armed forces are one of if not the most human armed force in history. |
How can you possibly state this as a fact? |
Seriously tidruG?
The USAF….
1. Trains to protect civilians or non-combatants.
2. Administers medical aid to soldier, civilians and enemy alike.
3. Drops aid to civilians in war zones and refugees.
4. Spends billions on weapons accurate to produce little damage outside the target.
5. Takes civilians into account when planning.
The only comparable forces are the English that I can think of. Do you imagine the English doing a better job? Are their ranks criminal free? Ask the elderly Afghanis how polite the US is in comparison to the USSR.
| tidruG wrote: |
| Quote: | | I for one do not believe the US armed forces would allow an ‘atrocity’ and I believe this is an example of them doing just that. |
Contradiction? | horse wrote: | | ???????????????? |
On the one hand, the US forces are the most humane, on the other they're letting this 'atrocity' go. |
Perhaps you should read the whole topic. “Troops charged with murdering Iraqi civilian”
This means that they are being accused of the crime. If it is proven they are punish, possibly by death.
Thats not "letting this 'atrocity' go"
| tidruG wrote: |
| Quote: | | An example would be systematic rape and murder. |
By the way, this was apparently quite pre-meditated. |
I really have to start giving you turkeys more definitions along with my posts.
Systematic means that there is a system in place. For example raping and murdering everyone like in Darfur.
Premeditated means it was planned.
The accused soldiers seem to have planed the crime, yes. This is atrocious but to label it an atrocity is discrediting to those who have suffered atrocities. If you call this an ‘atrocity’ what do you call a whole army raping and killing an entire people? ‘atrocity-especial’? ‘atrocitous-maximus’? ‘super-happy-fun-atrocity’? ‘atrocitisen’? | Quote: |
| Which is strange, because last time I checked Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact many of the people who are insurgents are connected to the Iraqi political parties, and even with the various ministries... |
You took my comment a bit too far, I was just trying to point out that the terrorists kill innocent civilians, and that's who we're fighting. I didn't necessarily mean to imply that the Iraqis were involved in 9/11. However, it goes without saying that Al Queda operates in Iraq (as well as many other middle eastern nations), and they're the people responsible for 9/11.
Insurgents in the political parties? If you can back that up I might believe you, but I don't have a problem believing it.
| Quote: |
| So do you think that Iraq is stable? Do you think any country in the region wants to be like Iraq? Do you think they want religious groups taking power and squabbles in parliament, slintering their countries to the point of civil war? If not, what was wrong with your idealism? |
Did I say Iraq was stable? No, I said the soldiers are there trying to make Iraq stable. Eventually, when democracy is firmly established other nations will look on it (hopefully) and adopt it. Besides, do you think they want more tyrannical dictators who torture and kill their own people? Well, that sounds just nice doesn't it.
| Quote: |
No, domino theory is the discredited theory which said that South East Asia would become communist if Vietnam did. It was wrong.
It seems that the most prominent cases of torture, rape and killing in the Middle East at the moment are being carried out in Iraq, and also in Palestine. So much for your theory that other countries will look at them and say "We want to be like that." I mean, seriously, who would look at Iraq and envy them? Do you? |
They will envy Iraq when the citizens are free from the insurgency. I'm thinking a East Berlin/West Berlin situation here. When Berlin was divided, people were leaving the communist half to go to the democratic half because life was better. Hopefully middle eastern populations will look at the new opporunities.
Our nation was unstable at first, and we got off to a rough start - but we're one of the world superpowers now. Whose to say that out of instability in Iraq a great democracy can't be born? I have faith in Iraq.
| Quote: |
| Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons so it's unlikely to use them. They are prevented from getting nuclear weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is backed by all the major countries in the world, with the exception of Israel, Cuba, North Korea, Pakistan and India. Under the IAEA, Iran, and every country in the world, has tight controls on what it can and cannot do with nuclear material, and maintains safeguards and inspections of their nuclear facilities, just like every country which is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. |
Yes, but as I understand it, Iran has been becoming restless and willing to ignore the IAEA mandates. We have laws, but does that mean they don't get broken? Nope.
| Quote: |
| The real problem is not democracy, it is violent methods. Democracy was brought to countries around the world peacefully. To East Timor, South Africa, Cambodia, Mozambique, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Burundi, Rwanda, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and more recently to Kygystan and the Ukraine through peaceful means. Any of these countries is much better off than Iraq, where over three years later the killing continues, with perhaps a hundred thousand civilians dead. Violent methods just lead to more violence, and to the instability in Iraq. |
Sometimes you have to fight for peace. It sounds like having sex for virginity, right? But no. In all honesty, the middle east is different than all of the countries you listed. They hold their religion so close to them which is hampering some of the functions of democracy. And since when do you hear of terrorists coming out of those nations? There may be a stray few, but they were in a stable world before they were democratic, whereas the middle east has been unstable for quite some time, long before the war in Iraq.
| Quote: |
| Which pretty much sums up how ungrateful the US is for our help. Next time, we won't. Don't worry. You don't need us anyway. |
We can't be ungrateful, we aren't getting help to be ungrateful for. Yes, the UK has tried to help (and we're pretty close with England, and I'm all good with that). Like I said before we're already virtually doing it on our own, might as well not "drag you down with us."
Man, it sucks that we're trying to make Iraq a better place to live. | Soulfire wrote: |
| However, it goes without saying that Al Queda operates in Iraq (as well as many other middle eastern nations), and they're the people responsible for 9/11. |
At the time of 9/11 Al Qaeda was not in Iraq (except in Kurdish controlled areas). They spread there, encouraged by lawlessness and violence of the invasion, the dissolution of the police and armed forces, and the sense of injustice. Violence only encourages more violence.
Militia groups are closely tied with the Iraqi political parties, and ministries such as the interior ministries and defence ministries:
| Quote: |
| There are a growing number of small, homegrown, paramilitary-style brigades being formed by local tribes, religious leaders, and political parties. Some battle Iraq's largely Sunni insurgency alongside official Interior and Defense ministry troops; others operate without official assistance or sanction. The larger, more established militias, such as the Badr Organization and peshmerga, are tied to Iraq's leading political parties, organized along sectarian lines, and enforce order in their respective regions. |
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8175#1
It is overly simplistic to call them "terrorists" when US troops are killing them, and praise them for being democratic when they're not being killed. They are the same people. For example, in this fight a number of "terrorists" were killed by the US forces were card carrying members the Dawa party of Jafaari and Maliki (the largest party in the Iraqi parliament).
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18631622-38201,00.html
| Quote: |
| Besides, do you think they want more tyrannical dictators who torture and kill their own people? |
I don't agree your assumptions. You portraying many of the leaders in the region unjustly, for example King Abdullah II of Jordan who is a much better leader than the Iraqi administration.
You also assume that the US opposes dictators. The US actually supports many dictators. Uzbekistan's dictator President Karimov enjoyed support while Uzbekistan boiled it's political opponents alive, and massacred pro-democracy demonstrations. Saudi Arabia enjoys support despite being a dictatorship and their human rights abuses, and Egypt has support despite resisting popular calls for free and fair elections. In Palestine the people voted for a party that the US did not like, and support was cut off. Pakistan is under military rule. Kuwait is a monarchy. Libya is a dictatorship... and so on. Don't confuse democracy with being pro-US, because the two aren't the same.
| Quote: |
| They will envy Iraq when the citizens are free from the insurgency. I'm thinking a East Berlin/West Berlin situation here. |
Iraq was one of the most prosperous countries in the region before sanctions, with admirable health care and education, and large oil reserves. Now Iraqi proffessionals are leaving Iraq because they cannot find jobs and want to be away from the violence. In suggesting Iraq as a model you are dreaming. Iraq is a deeply wounded country and the rifts which Iraq has created will take many years to heal. There is no security there. I feel for ordinary people who have to live through this.
Anyone in the region can already see what democracies are like. They have the Internet. I know one girl (who will remain nameless) who searched for her hometown on Google. You know what she found? She found pages and pages of pornography (because it happened to match a girl's name). She was disgusted. They can already see quite clearly how people in the West live, and are intelligent enough to what they like and what they don't. They don't need the US bringing about hundreds of thousands of deaths to show them that.
| Quote: |
| Yes, but as I understand it, Iran has been becoming restless and willing to ignore the IAEA mandates. |
It is not the US but the IAEA who prevents Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The current negotiations are between the EU and Iran, not the US. US leaders spend so much time loudmouthing and threatening which is not helping anybody. They critisize the UN while trying to cut their funding. If they really did want to stop the proliferation of nuclear technology, why not stop badmouthing the people who are stopping it?
| Quote: |
| It sounds like having sex for virginity, right? |
That's exactly what it is. Starting wars to avoid wars is nonsense.
| Quote: |
| They hold their religion so close to them which is hampering some of the functions of democracy. |
There is nothing wrong with Islam co-existing with democracy. Indonesia is the largest muslim country in the world and it became a democracy (from a military dictatorship) peacefully. Turkey is another example. Of course, you are right that Iraqi politics is dominated by religion. What did you expect, especially when the nationalist Ba'ath party is banned? It is marginalized the secular moderates in Iraq.
| Quote: |
| And since when do you hear of terrorists coming out of those nations? |
I live in Liverpool. There aren't many bins here, for fear terrorists could put bombs in them. Terrorists from a democracy: the IRA. The London bombers were British. The shoe bomber was British. The bombers in Bali were Indonesian. ETA are Spanish. The Oklamohma bomber was American, as was the guy who set off the bomb in Atlanta. There's no reason why terrorists don't come from democracies.
These people act because they feel wronged. In the IRA's case they resent British oppression and occupation. That's a lesson the US could do well to learn from. Terrorism has only increased because of Iraq (according to the US State department reports). When the US acts immorally, as they did to start this war, when they torture people in Abu Gharib, Bagram and Guantanamo, when their soldiers kill people at checkpoints and burst into people's homes in the middle of the night, and when cases like this one come up, with rape and murder, it ticks people off. Right or wrong, occupation encourages more violence, not less violence.Yeah, so why should I bother quoting your posts and then typing my opinions in? It doesn't really matter, does it? Opinions can't be wrong, so we'd just be sitting here bickering back and forth over nothing.
At any rate, peace doesn't just magically happen. There's no magical peace fairy that pops out of nowhere and grants peace. Sometimes you have to do stuff to lead up to peace, be that war, diplomacy, whatever. I know that often times after war, places become instantly destabilized, but after a bit of rebuilding, they are very strong and stable.
Of course opinions can be wrong, and in a democracy and it does make a difference. That's the point of a democracy. We're talking about killing thousands of people. You can't just take it so lightly.... surely!
Peace doesn't just come about, no. It comes about when countries don't attack other countries based on lies. It needs communication and understanding. It comes about when they respect the others in the world, and don't treat them as inferiors, negotiating their differences and only using war as a very last resort. Peace doesn't come about through violence, killing and fear. You can never kill all your enemies, because in killing one you make two.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| The accused soldiers seem to have planed the crime, yes. This is atrocious but to label it an atrocity is discrediting to those who have suffered atrocities. If you call this an ‘atrocity’ what do you call a whole army raping and killing an entire people? ‘atrocity-especial’? ‘atrocitous-maximus’? ‘super-happy-fun-atrocity’? ‘atrocitisen’? |
Ah, so now we're going to compare atrocities, are we? Well, in that case, dropping of the atomic bomb on two cities is an atrocity, anything below that is not.
An atrocity is an atrocity. I don't care what your personal defition of atrocity is.
| dictionary.com wrote: |
1. Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness.
2. An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners. |
Oh, and sorry to disappoint you, but one word may have other related meanings, such as systematic:
| Quote: |
1. Of, characterized by, based on, or constituting a system.
2. Carried on using step-by-step procedures.
3. Purposefully regular; methodical. See Synonyms at orderly.
4. Of or relating to classification or taxonomy. |
Maybe instead of thinking you're the ultimate authority on all subjects, you should open your eyes to other possibilities.
| Quote: |
| Ask the elderly Afghanis how polite the US is in comparison to the USSR. |
Ask the Iraqis how polite the Americans were when they ****** a young girl, killed her family and then tried to burn her body to hide the evidence.
Or ask the friends and relatives of the people who died at Haditha.
| Quote: |
| 4. Spends billions on weapons accurate to produce little damage outside the target. |
So do a lot of other countries, India included.
| Quote: |
| 5. Takes civilians into account when planning. |
But then go murder the civilians anyway?
| Quote: |
| 3. Drops aid to civilians in war zones and refugees. |
So would any army via the UN, but then, you're not very pro-UN either.
| Quote: |
| I really have to start giving you turkeys more definitions along with my posts. |
No ostrich, I think it would be enough if you just assumed that other are not as stupid as you assume them to be.Good grief tidruG, what are you actually trying to argue here. If you remember my original point was that calling a simple crime a ‘atrocity’ is discrediting. In other words, what would you call systematic rape and murder. Pulling up dictionary definitions is ridiculous. Regardless, its not my personal definition to call a crime a crime and an atrocity and atrocity. I think the ‘personal defining’ in this case is done amongst those wishing to degrade the USAF.
| tidruG wrote: |
Ask the Iraqis how polite the Americans were when they **** a young girl, killed her family and then tried to burn her body to hide the evidence.
Or ask the friends and relatives of the people who died at Haditha. |
Wow tidruG, that was intelligent. So now THE Americans did these things? I thought it was a single fellow and a hand full of accomplices
| tidruG wrote: |
| Quote: | | 4. Spends billions on weapons accurate to produce little damage outside the target. |
So do a lot of other countries, India included. |
Sort of
| tidruG wrote: |
| Quote: | | 5. Takes civilians into account when planning. |
But then go murder the civilians anyway? |
If you persist in this type of ignorance I will become uninterested in discussing anything with you. Here you are saying that the United States Armed Forces murders people. Can you really not see the difference between someone killed accidentally in the process of war and a person being killed by another person for that person’s own gratification?
| tidruG wrote: |
| Quote: | | 3. Drops aid to civilians in war zones and refugees. |
So would any army via the UN, but then, you're not very pro-UN either. |
You have a point here. Truly, what can the world do? The UN proved its self incapable of stopping an oppressive two bit dictator who tortures and kills his people. Not even after he blatantly breaks sanctions and hinders inspections. This is why I am not so pro-UN.
What will you do when the day comes that the US or what ever super power exists DOES begin committing atrocities? It is only a matter of time. Will the victims cry out ‘atrocity!!!’ and the world hear ‘a man killed another man’? | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Good grief tidruG, what are you actually trying to argue here. |
I'll second that. 
tidruG, you need to take a deep breath and relax. The US doesn't go around trying to murder people. It's not our policy. But we can't control everyone. Just as your government can't. So do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and stop blowing things out of proportion and putting them out of context on purpose, it's just as bad as lying. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Good grief tidruG, what are you actually trying to argue here. |
2 things... I'll get to the second later, you've probably touched on it in your reply anyway, and I have yet to read the rest of your reply.:
1. An atrocity is an atrocity, just as a crime is a crime. If you're not going to use a standard reference for the meanings of words, then language is a useless means of communication, IMO.
| Quote: |
| In other words, what would you call systematic rape and murder. |
An atrocity. Murder in itself is debatable. Systematic (by your definition of the word, i.e. the first one in the dictionary definition I provided) murder is an atrocity. However, certain murders are just crimes, not atrocities.
| Quote: |
| Wow tidruG, that was intelligent. So now THE Americans did these things? I thought it was a single fellow and a hand full of accomplices |
Sorry if you thought I was generalizing, but those 3-4 soldiers were Americans. That's right, 3-4. Because there were other soldiers who planned it as well. They knew what Green was going to do. They're just about as guilty as Green if they didn't stop him.
EDIT: Note that I'm not saying all American troops are the same. I'm just saying that American troops were blamed for Haditha, and American troops are being blamed and investigated for the current rape.
| Quote: |
| Can you really not see the difference between someone killed accidentally in the process of war and a person being killed by another person for that person’s own gratification? |
This time, it is genuinely my mistake. Shouldn't have generalized. But Haditha, Green, etc are examples of certain members of the US Army commiting crimes and atrocities.
| Quote: |
| Not even after he blatantly breaks sanctions and hinders inspections. This is why I am not so pro-UN. |
Agreed. Action should have been taken by the UN earlier. However, I still don't support an illegal war. I call it illegal because it hasn't been sanctioned by the UN. Don't forget that the UN is the largest body of countries, and is thus a good representation of what the world thinks. I don't like the 5 big countries having Veto power. It's pointless because the Americans will say NO to most of what China may propose, and the Chinese may say NO to what America wants. Regardless, we still need a body of countries where their opinions on issues can be properly represented. If a superpower like the US doesn't give a damn about the rest of the world's opinion and does whatever it wants, and adopts whatever foreign policy it wants (hypothetically, of course), then that would be like a dictatorship.
| Quote: |
| What will you do when the day comes that the US or what ever super power exists DOES begin committing atrocities? |
Hmm.... OK I think I know why this is a sensitive subject for you.
For one, stop thinking that I think that the USA 'commits atrocities'. However, people do. And these people could be from anywhere, any country. There are stray incidents of atrocities anywhere. However, don't forget that the USA is in war, and therefore a lot more atrocities are likely to happen or be reported.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| tidruG, you need to take a deep breath and relax. The US doesn't go around trying to murder people. It's not our policy. But we can't control everyone. Just as your government can't. So do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and stop blowing things out of proportion and putting them out of context on purpose, it's just as bad as lying. |
Probably I didn't make myself as clear as I should have. Anyway, I hope you read what I wrote above. I'm not saying that the US likes to go around killing people. I am saying however that it's army cannot possibly be called humane when we have members of its army going around killing civillians or murdering young women. I know that not all (actually, not even a big percentage of) the army is like this, but a couple of bad eggs do spoil the basket.
Also, I'm keeping things in proportion. I request you to stop slighting them, though. Like I said before, an atrocity is an atrocity, It cannot be anything else even if you compare it to a 'bigger atrocity'.
Secondly, I'm generally calm when writing. If I'm not, I go away and do something else till I calm down before writing posts. However, I do tend to reflect the tone of the post(s) I am addressing/replying to. | Quote: |
| going around killing civillians or murdering young women. |
Hmm...
| Quote: |
| Also, I'm keeping things in proportion. |
Ooohh, I see.
Perhaps you haven't looked at how many 'young women' have been murdered by terrorists, considering that's their motto. As an army. Not just an individual or a small small percentage of the members.
Proportion. Yeah, that's it. 
| Quote: |
| Perhaps you haven't looked at how many 'young women' have been murdered by terrorists, considering that's their motto. As an army. Not just an individual or a small small percentage of the members. |
WHy does it seem like you think I'm defending terrorists?
I'm not. Terrorism is horrible to say the least. It's cowardly, and the wrong way to try and get anything done or to make a point, obviously.
But then again, why are you comparing the US army to terrorists?
I haven't denied that terrorists kill numerous people, mostly civilians. But that's what you'd expect of terrorists. Not something one would expect (or like to expect) from army troops. | tidruG wrote: |
| Quote: | | Perhaps you haven't looked at how many 'young women' have been murdered by terrorists, considering that's their motto. As an army. Not just an individual or a small small percentage of the members. |
WHy does it seem like you think I'm defending terrorists?
I'm not. Terrorism is horrible to say the least. It's cowardly, and the wrong way to try and get anything done or to make a point, obviously.
But then again, why are you comparing the US army to terrorists?
I haven't denied that terrorists kill numerous people, mostly civilians. But that's what you'd expect of terrorists. Not something one would expect (or like to expect) from army troops. |
Because it seems to me, by your posts here and in the past, that you are more outspoken about the reletively FEW abuses by Americans than you are about the thousands upon thousands of abuses by terrorists.
So if terrorism is so damn bad, why all the criticism from the majority of kids on this board of the US in dealing with said terrorists?
Perhaps what happened in India, Spain, England, Russia and the US should be a sign to the ignorant that it's not just the US that's at fault here.
It's every single human being that doesn't succumb to the virtues of (radical) islam that is at risk here. And every single PEACEFUL Moslim who does not openly denouce terrorism is only aiding that (radical) Islamic movement of toruture, terror, and submission.The criticism might be rooted on the flat fact that the US created, trained, financed and supported 80% of this deemed 'terrorists' to overthrow a variety of governments all over the world, and then proceeded to invade a number of those countries, exercise and exploit terror and threatening on several others, and just plain ignored any possible human rights convention on the fact.
Just my 2 cents
| polarBear wrote: |
The criticism might be rooted on the flat fact that the US created, trained, financed and supported 80% of this deemed 'terrorists' to overthrow a variety of governments all over the world, and then proceeded to invade a number of those countries, exercise and exploit terror and threatening on several others, and just plain ignored any possible human rights convention on the fact.
Just my 2 cents |
Oh, you mean like how we helped Afghan, when they were invaded by Russia? Or any of the other even more brutal regiems that were taken down? Just like we'll probably regret the government that finally emerges from Iraq?
Some times you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. And besides, the level of hatred by said terrorists even AFTER we helped them NUMEROUS times should be a clear sign to you and your ignorant ilk of what we're ALL up against.
Here's your 2 cents back, it's not worth it.
:edit: BTW, I'll wait patiently for you to provide source for your 80% statement and the others. This IS world news. | tidruG wrote: |
| 1. An atrocity is an atrocity, just as a crime is a crime. If you're not going to use a standard reference for the meanings of words, then language is a useless means of communication, IMO. |
Your opinion? I think you have it backwards my friend. Language develops and evolves while standards, such as your dictionary, struggle to keep up.
“My gay bro is a bad-asss rocker. When that biitch pulls out his axe he can get down on that boy.”
Decipher that with your dictionary. True, slang is an extreme, but most of English at one point was ‘slang’.
Musicians, authors, people in general and the media all make large contributions to how words are used and understood. This is one of the things that frustrate me about the media. Certainly, rape and murder is bad. It happens though, all over in every country.
Saying the USAF is committing atrocities is throwing them in with war lords and there like who take blatant advantage of peoples and I think this is the intention of those saying it. They are wrong. The US armed forces have not committed atrocities. All they are doing is reducing our language.
If we want to call a crime an atrocity now, sure, if a soldier hits an Iraqi with his vehicle it’s an atrocity. If a bird craps on the door handle to my truck, it’s an atrocity. | Quote: |
| Because it seems to me, by your posts here and in the past, that you are more outspoken about the reletively FEW abuses by Americans than you are about the thousands upon thousands of abuses by terrorists. |
That's because I don't expect terrorists to act any other way other than the way they do act. My condemning their acts doesn't make any difference to them, and I'd expect them to be as cowardly, dastardly and hideous (in their actions) as they are.
I don't like it when we have people from a civilised, highly developed country like America do commit those FEW abuses.
Also, I'd condemn an atrocity or a vile act by any person from any country if I thought what he did was wrong. The problem is that most the news posted around these forums has to do with Americans, so I suppose it appears like I'm anti-US. Well, I'm not.
| Quote: |
“My gay bro is a bad-asss rocker. When that biitch pulls out his axe he can get down on that boy.”
Decipher that with your dictionary. True, slang is an extreme, but most of English at one point was ‘slang’. |
I see. So what you're saying is any word can have a very very broad meaning just because we use it any way we want or because different people use words differently?
OK, I'll agree to that to some extent. However, since we can't hear each other's tones and other audio tips while reading each others' posts, I suppose we'll just have to use words in the way that is generally accepted by most, including dictionaries.
| Quote: |
| Saying the USAF is committing atrocities is throwing them in with war lords and there like who take blatant advantage of peoples and I think this is the intention of those saying it. They are wrong. The US armed forces have not committed atrocities. All they are doing is reducing our language. |
Saying the USAF is commiting atrocities is stupid. However, saying that a few members of the USAF commited atrocities is not.
| Quote: |
| If we want to call a crime an atrocity now, sure, if a soldier hits an Iraqi with his vehicle it’s an atrocity. |
Not necessarily. If the Iraqi was an innocent civilian not involved in the war in any other way except by virtue of his being in a war-ravaged country, and if the soldier drove him down on purpose out of spite and hate or frustration/anger and not because it was unavoidable, then it would be an atrocity.
| Quote: |
| If a bird craps on the door handle to my truck, it’s an atrocity. |
No mate, that's just bad luck. It's not even a crime | tidruG wrote: |
I see. So what you're saying is any word can have a very very broad meaning just because we use it any way we want or because different people use words differently?
OK, I'll agree to that to some extent. However, since we can't hear each other's tones and other audio tips while reading each others' posts, I suppose we'll just have to use words in the way that is generally accepted by most, including dictionaries. |
Exactly. The word atrocity has been used normally to describe particularly terrible acts. Media and anti-US are misusing it and threatening to change its meaning.
If I told you five years ago that some strange things were going to happen and in five years the US would be in Iraq and it’s soldiers would be committing atrocities, what would you gather from that?
| tidruG wrote: |
| Quote: | | If a bird craps on the door handle to my truck, it’s an atrocity. |
No mate, that's just bad luck. It's not even a crime |
NO NO NO!!!! You're going to hell you uncompassionate bastard!!!! What if it was your car or a car of someone in your family? Then I bet you’d call it an atrocity. 
| Quote: |
| If I told you five years ago that some strange things were going to happen and in five years the US would be in Iraq and it’s soldiers would be committing atrocities, what would you gather from that? |
Technically, 5 years ago, I'd have been too ignorant to actually form any opinion.
But if you were to tell me now that in 5 years ceratin soldiers of the USAF might be commiting atrocities on Iran (for example), I wouldn't be too surprised. I'd imagine pretty much the same things as are happening right now. Rape, mudering of civilians, etc.
| Quote: |
| NO NO NO!!!! You're going to hell you uncompassionate bastard!!!! What if it was your car or a car of someone in your family? |
Well, you won't be able to get much compensation out of the bird (Except perhaps the satisfaction of killing it and eating it for dinner). You could, however, sue the city council for not having enough places for birds to poop in peace, or something
[off-topic]methinks we may be getting a little off-topic here[/off-topic] | tidruG wrote: |
| Quote: | | If I told you five years ago that some strange things were going to happen and in five years the US would be in Iraq and it’s soldiers would be committing atrocities, what would you gather from that? |
Technically, 5 years ago, I'd have been too ignorant to actually form any opinion.
But if you were to tell me now that in 5 years ceratin soldiers of the USAF might be commiting atrocities on Iran (for example), I wouldn't be too surprised. I'd imagine pretty much the same things as are happening right now. Rape, mudering of civilians, etc. |
So then how could I explain a situation such as systematic rape and murder. What if I came back in time from five years in the future and wanted to tell you that it is then US policy to rape murder and poison water supplies? | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| tidruG wrote: | | Quote: | | If I told you five years ago that some strange things were going to happen and in five years the US would be in Iraq and it’s soldiers would be committing atrocities, what would you gather from that? |
Technically, 5 years ago, I'd have been too ignorant to actually form any opinion.
But if you were to tell me now that in 5 years ceratin soldiers of the USAF might be commiting atrocities on Iran (for example), I wouldn't be too surprised. I'd imagine pretty much the same things as are happening right now. Rape, mudering of civilians, etc. |
So then how could I explain a situation such as systematic rape and murder. What if I came back in time from five years in the future and wanted to tell you that it is then US policy to rape murder and poison water supplies? |
That's an atrocity too, just commited on a much larger scale by the government. An atrocity doesn't cease to be an atrocity just because it's been committed by a smaller group of individuals.Well it used to! I guess my fears have already come to fruition.
var Atrocity = reallybad
var Atrocity = Atrocity + (Bad & Terrible & Horrifying & Crime etc.)
I'm getting the fealing your a young fellow.
