Soldiers face murder in Iraq

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Soldiers tortured, one probably beheaded
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Internatio...2098724&page=2

"We give the good news … to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said the claim, which appeared on an Islamic militant Web site where insurgent groups regularly post statements and videos.

"With God Almighty's blessing, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer carried out the verdict of the Islamic court" calling for the soldiers' slaying, the statement said.

The statement said the soldiers were "slaughtered," suggesting that al-Muhajer beheaded them. The Arabic word used in the statement, "nahr," is used for the slaughtering of sheep by cutting the throat and has been used in past statements to refer to beheadings.

U.S. Investigates GIs' 'Barbaric' Slayings in Iraq
LA Times

Originally Posted by The oppressed victims of globalization and American Imperialism

"We have good news coming straight from the battlefield to the nation of Islam," the statement reads. "We satisfy your wrath by executing the sentence of God — which is slaughter — on those two crusader infidel prisoners."

[ziggytrix]

Oh, well this changes everything. They need to dismis all charges against those poor soldiers who may have committed war crimes while defending this great nation. After all, the only option over there is to murder people or get murdered, am I right?


neva 4get

[Ant10708]

ok...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

After all, the only option over there is to murder people or get murdered, am I right?

Well hey, somebody just figured out what happens during war.

I like this new and improved Ziggy, it could work!

[ziggytrix]

Fuck you if you think random killing is ever justified.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't, nor am I am big fan of suicide bombings, beheadings, throat slitting, or any other kinds of executions.

This is why I don't make excuses for Islamic* terrorists.

[ziggytrix]

but making excuses for dishonorable conduct among our troops is A-OK!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

No, see, I understand how things work now.

Atrocities committed by U.S. troops= reflective of all our troops, as well as the actions of our leadership, especially evil Republicans in the White House.

Atrocities committed by radical Islamic extremists= reflective of all our troops, as well as the actions of our leadership, especially evil Republicans in the White House.

And uh, imperialism and globalization and Christianity and stuff, too.

[mburbank]

Okay, that's just crap Kev. I appreciattte you've developed an enoprmous chip on your shoulder due to the Bad hippies and lefty Bloggers that scared you in a gas station restroom somewhere, but they ain't me, Ziggy, or any of the people here with brains.

You want to fight the Bad hippies and bloggers because it's easy. Who here (and this is where we are, this is I-mock, not one of thse terrifying lefty blogs you read, and I, by the way do not) said that individual attrocities committed by individual us soldiers is refelctive of the army?

I'll go out on a limb and say that there's some degree of trickle down when the secretary of defense so obviously couldn't give a crap, the Presidents lawyers call the geneva conventions quaint and the justice department turns out to have no conrete evidence against Jose Padilla that would stand up in court after three years of holding him in a navy brig without charge. But Just because I think this fish rots from the head down doesn't mean I think the vast majority of soldiers are doing anything but what they think is their job, and doing it the best they can.

That being said, no matter how awful it may be that an alleged soldier got their alleged head allegedly cut off doesn't make him a non combatant, and an allegedly little girl and an allegedly old man in an alleged wheel chair allegedly executed with alleged bullets to their alleged heads aren't combatants.

Violent, uneccesary death is awful, and is only just barely moderated by soldiers signing up for the possability. Children don't.

Me personally? I think the difference between cutting the head off someone even if you think, even if you hope they aren't soldiers is just so many degrees of morality away from dropping a bomb on a building you think might have a bad guy in it and just not caring if it's full of other people, or dropping a bomb from the air and not really knowing who's getting turned into hamburger.

I think there's an attitude, shared by most americans of both parties, that what we do in war is civilzed and almost dainty compared to the unwashed barbarians.

Yes, on the whole Ilsamic extremists are way nastier than Americans. They want to enslave and control and destroy in ways only the most extreme Americans want to, and thank God our cultural standards don't allow for it. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty of killing people, we will always kill more and more effectively for the simple reason we can afford to. We will never, ever kill someone by cutting their head of, because that's declasse. No one should fuck with us. We might just go off an invade some uninvolved country.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Okay, that's just crap Kev. I appreciattte you've developed an enoprmous chip on your shoulder due to the Bad hippies and lefty Bloggers that scared you in a gas station restroom somewhere, but they ain't me, Ziggy, or any of the people here with brains.

Nah, see I have no problem with the Geggys and the ranxers of the world. They may be wrong, and they may be nuts, but at least they have the balls to say what they really believe. I can respect that.

My main problem is with "Liberals" and "progressives" who can't come out and say it. I have a problem with "Liberals" and "progressives" who only seem to worry about human rights violations when it's America and Israel who are supposedly committing them. I have a problem with "Liberals" and "progressives" who can't figure out that we do have a clear enemy, and all of the relativist games they play won't change that.

Geggy will come out and actually say that this war is about oil and imperialism, whereas some "Liberals" and "progressives" will only call it a 'attempted Empire' or 'stab at hegemony'.

Who here said that individual attrocities committed by individual us soldiers is refelctive of the army?

I'll go out on a limb and say that there's some degree of trickle down when the secretary of defense so obviously couldn't give a crap, the Presidents lawyers call the geneva conventions quaint and the justice department turns out to have no conrete evidence against Jose Padilla that would stand up in court after three years of holding him in a navy brig without charge. But Just because I think this fish rots from the head down doesn't mean I think the vast majority of soldiers are doing anything but what they think is their job, and doing it the best they can.

What you do is far worse than simply saying all of our troops are complicit in, well, whatever it is you think they're complicit in.

No, in your version of the story only some of our soldiers are entirely evil, and the rest are just stupid doops who are too dumb to distinguish between right and wrong. I mean, Don Rumsfeld might be ordering bad things, but he can't be there ordering everybody around. So what's the ratio? Is it that the military is 30% evil and 70% retarded? Maybe it's more like 40%/60%??? You tell me.

the Presidents lawyers call the geneva conventions quaint and the justice department turns out to have no conrete evidence against Jose Padilla that would stand up in court after three years of holding him in a navy brig without charge.

And FDR inturned innocent Asian Americans, and Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. That doesn't make it right, but it also didn't make us any less at war with very real enemies.

Considering the anarchis nature of terrorist cells, our government could be doing far worse right now. That doesn't mean Gitmo is right, or the NSA spy program is right, or whatevr else. But I thin you're seriously lacking in perspective.

That being said, no matter how awful it may be that an alleged soldier got their alleged head allegedly cut off doesn't make him a non combatant, and an allegedly little girl and an allegedly old man in an alleged wheel chair allegedly executed with alleged bullets to their alleged heads aren't combatants.

YEAH, LET'S NOT ASSUME HE GOT HIS HEAD CHOPPED OFF, GUYS. IT MAY JUST HAVE BEEN THAT THEY SLIT HIS THROAT, OR SIMPLY PLACED A BULLET IN HIS HEAD.

There's a huge difference in the absurd comparison you've just made. if our soldiers are doing things that are illegal, unethical, or against the code of conduct these men and women swear to, than they are flat out violating policy. This is why they're being investigated (unless you believe Ziggy, who thinks all of the recent charges are to appease the media and cover up the military's bloodlust for children and cripples).

As for our enemies, this is their M.O. They can't confront us head on (as you elaborated upon below), so they plant roadside bombs, they blow up mosques, and they kidnap journalists, aid workers, and soldiers.

One side criminalizes the targeting of innocent life, and the other glorifies it.

I think there's an attitude, shared by most americans of both parties, that what we do in war is civilzed and almost dainty compared to the unwashed barbarians.

And I'm glad you count yourself in the minority opinion that can't see the difference.

But when it comes down to the nitty gritty of killing people, we will always kill more and more effectively for the simple reason we can afford to. We will never, ever kill someone by cutting their head of, because that's declasse. No one should fuck with us.

And? Hey, they may be bad, but we can kill more efficiently, which really means something.

I don't think you've shared anything terribly enlightening here. If Al Qaeda could challenge our weaponry, well I'm sure they would. This is why they revert to guerilla warfare and barbarism, because they can't drop all of those baby killing bombs like we do.

We might just go off an invade some uninvolved country.

Or worse yet, we might do that, and then allow the isolationists and partisans in our country to abandon that country once we've already invaded. I think Bob Taft would love you, Max. No international engagement is ever justified unless it yields rapid and immediate benefits for America.

oh, right, right, we should be stopping genocide in Darfur instead (check out which party was more vocal on that issue b/f it became sexy to equate troop levels in Iraq with Darfur). Maybe we should withdraw, and "focus on the war on terror", whatever that means. Well hey, we should cry on and on about catching Bin Laden, but when we actually get Zarqawi (arguably a far more dangerous terrorist than Osama), let's downplay its significance. I mean, we never EVER should've invaded Iraq, but I'm NOT saying Iraq was better under Saddam. And hey, I know Islamic* extremists are bad, but we kill far better than they do or something.

I think it once again comes down to a fundamental problem, Max. You and Ziggy would rather see a Bush and co. loss than an American victory. Anything that is good is merely consequential, and anything that's bad is REALLY, REALLY bad.

But I forgot, the reason you and Ziggy rush to post about our blood thirsty troops is b/c we need transparency, and we need to hold our OWN tax supported soldiers to a higher standard. i mean, what our enemies do is irrelevant, because well, uh, we can kill better than they can.

[mburbank]

Kevin, I cannot figure out for the life of me why you need a strawman, and even more I'm puzzled why you want me to be that strawman. It wasn't clear to me until now that I am the bad hippie that frightens you.

1.) I agree. We have a clear enemey. They are significant, though small in number, and I beleieve we will never decrease their numbers by making traditional war, as we are doing in Iraq. I think we end up creating more terrorsim by occupying and 'colateral damage' then we defeat. You want to argue that, argue it. Hooting "THERE'S BAD GUYS! KILL 'EM!" isn't an argument. I don't disagree there is a legiotimate enemy out there. I think that the way we are fighting them is barbaric and counterproductive. In the future, please don't accuse me of thinking we don't have an enemy.

2.) For the billionth time. My particular objection to the evil we do as opposed to the evil others do is that I help pay fr the evil we do. As an american I feel it is my patriotic duty to disagree most vocally with the evil done in my name, as opposed to the evil done in Allahs name, or Sadaams name, or Bin Laden's name, etc, all of which is evil, but not evil I directly fund. For the record, I believe wanton killing is bad, no matter who does it. It's the evil I choose to write about. It's a free fuckin' country.

My children are fighting. I have to go now.

[El Blanco]

Max, I have to disagree with you that we are using only tradional means in Iraq. Our military is spending just as much time and effort rebuilding the area and trying to improve the lives of the average Iraqi as they are getting into gun battles with insurgants.

Its really a disservice to try and paint them going in and blasting everything in sght.

[mburbank]

I haven't finsiehd yelling at Kev, yet, Eye Tai.

But I don't mean to say I think we're only using traditional scorched earth type shit in Iraq. I'm saying that where we do (and we do do it) it's counterproductive as well as barbaric and sinful which war always is. I think war should be at very least productive.

I think the evil ratio in the military is very small, thanks. I think the insanity level is probably very high. I think war always encourages insanity, and I think when you wage war the way Rummy does, you maximize the craziness. What's your point here? I think the percentage of retardation is exactly as great as the the national retardage percentage, but retardation at the food court and wall mart aren't that big a deal, and retardation with big ass weapons is dicey.

FDR was at war with nations. Lincoln was at war with half the United States. That doesn't excuse them violating the constitution, and I'd argue that those acts didn't help them win their wars. I think the interment of japanese was a horrid idea that set a horrid precedent. This isn't WWII or the Civil War and W isn't FDR or Lincoln. This is a substandard leader in an ill defined war, and I would say that makes his line crossing even worse and more dagerous than the line crossing of greater men in worse circumstances, but slightly more forgiveable, in that Lincoln and FDR knew better. Again, I don't see your point. And if you hate relativism so much (and I do not) stop being a relatavist. By your lights, Lincoln and FDR have absolutely zero to do with W because they already happened.

"our government could be doing far worse right now."

hat's a really powerful moral argument there, Kev. That's what I told the cop when I got brought up on assault charges, I said "What the fuck, officer, I coulda killed the guy and ate him."

"YEAH, LET'S NOT ASSUME HE GOT HIS HEAD CHOPPED OFF, GUYS. IT MAY JUST HAVE BEEN THAT THEY SLIT HIS THROAT, OR SIMPLY PLACED A BULLET IN HIS HEAD."

Kevin, you doof. The use of the word alleged like eighty times was a reference to your reprimanding me becuase I didn't offer a presumption of innocence to the crew in Haditha, and you were right. The main point being, if one doesn't yet know all the facts one ooughntn't to act as if they do. By the way, I'm totaly prepared to believe that these guys were kidnapped and tortured to death, but I was also prepared to believe that Pat Tillamn died fighting the enemy, Jessica Lynch was a war hero instead of an unconcious victim, etc. etc. It's all fucking horrible, every horrible pointless death over there. I'm realtive that way.

Kevin. The official investigation notes that prior to Times article, the investigation was crap. We will never know if it would have stayed crap, but I think theres some reason to suspect it might have. If you beleieve that the pentagon doesn't try to sweep nasty shit under the rug on a regular basis, I think you are a rube. Appease the media? Cover up bloddlust? Nothing so complicated, dramatic or grandiose. Avoid bad PR. Reflexively, habitually. I think that's uglier, personally.

"As for our enemies, this is their M.O. They can't confront us head on (as you elaborated upon below), so they plant roadside bombs, they blow up mosques, and they kidnap journalists, aid workers, and soldiers. "

Yes. BUT I'M NOT ON THE OTHER SIDE!

"One side criminalizes the targeting of innocent life, and the other glorifies it."

Not exactly. One side criminalizes the deliberate targeting of innocent life. The accidental taking of innocent life is seen as an unpleasant biproduct that some policies try to avoid and others embrace with open arms. We use weapons we know for a fact are maximal killing machines like cluster bombs, we actively try to fuck up land mine treaties. They glorify the taking of human life, were casual about it. AND THIS IS MY COUNTRY!

I have things that need doing. I'll yell at youy more later.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

unless you believe Ziggy, who thinks all of the recent charges are to appease the media and cover up the military's bloodlust for children and cripples

I said that? Really? I mean, I AM curious if a response to public comparisons of the latest so-called "American atrocity" to the My Lai massacre isn't at least some part of the motivation for the investigations, but I hardly think ANY event in the realm of human politics has such a clean, identifiable causality. That's the problem with conspiracy theorists. They think you can find one person who is in control, and directing everything, but that's not how it works. In truth, even a simple seeming situation is much more complicated than is pragmatic to believe.

Well hey, we should cry on and on about catching Bin Laden, but when we actually get Zarqawi (arguably a far more dangerous terrorist than Osama), let's downplay its significance.

I assume this is sarcasm, but it's become very hard to tell with you lately. Wasn't this your response to my saying it was a good day for Iraq when Zarqaqi died?

I dunno, is there an overwhelming amount of evidence that Zarqawi really had much control over things, or was it more like he saw a riot, stepped in front, and called it a parade....?

So, yeah. Maybe it was great we got him, maybe it was no big deal? I'm not sure what your take is on it. I'm still undecided about it, myself. But I thought it was really interesting that he was allegedly ratted out by Sunnis who were sick of him telling them they needed to kill Shiites.

I think it once again comes down to a fundamental problem, Max. You and Ziggy would rather see a Bush and co. loss than an American victory.

I'm glad you know me so well. You should register a character called "The REAL Ziggy" and you can take over posting for me in this forum. I hope you will do this, cuz I'd love to be able to spend more time in the Gaming forum.

But you are a bit off there. My distaste for arrogant "my side is ALWAYS right" lines of thought does not actually equate to wishing ill upon our country, and I think it's jsut the smallest bit absurd that you believe that. But seriously, if you wanna take over posting for me in this forum, I can overlook a few minor inconsistencies. Let's do this thing!

But I forgot, the reason you and Ziggy rush to post about our blood thirsty troops is b/c we need transparency, and we need to hold our OWN tax supported soldiers to a higher standard. i mean, what our enemies do is irrelevant, because well, uh, we can kill better than they can.

The reason I rushed to post about this is because I heard it on the radio, and I thought that perhaps these charges would have a some sort of significant impact on the war effort. What impact that will be remains to be seen, but in the meantime I thought we might have some interesting discussion about it here. I guess that was a dumb thing to think!

In my opinion (to which I believe I'm still entitled) what our enemies do is exactly as relevant as what we do. Deliberately targetting and killing innocents for whatever reason is terrible. Our enemies doing it certainly does not justify our doing of it, IF that's even happening (which I hope it isn't, but hope in one hand, right?) If you cannot understand this, then let's talk about relativism some more...

I don't claim to have the solutions or to know of anyone able to do a better job of this than our President, but even if there's absolutely nothing I can do about it, I'd prefer to at least think about it, rather than just bury my head in the sand and say "well these things just happen in war".

I guess what the real problem with trying to talk to you is that I don't "have the balls to say what I really believe". So, knowing you think that, I guess I just wasted my time typing all of that, and I could have just typed "LOLWTFBBQ" 50 times for all you cared.

But maybe, just MAYBE, my beliefs are not etched in stone, unchangeable by any force, and since I cannot clearly state in black and white what I believe, I must be playing "relativist games". Is that it? Am I getting warmer?

Throw me a bone, cuz every time I start to think I have you figured out, I realize I'm WAY off.

[Preechr]

Having had some unexpectedly rough treatment from Kevin myself, I think I generally concur with your sentiments here. He's mean now.

[mburbank]

"You and Ziggy would rather see a Bush and co. loss than an American victory."

Kev, that line puts you in Abccdx territory, and very close to Vinth territory. That's just bizarre, and I can only assume it' the Niquil talking. I'm not going to speculate what's in your heart, I'll stick to your politics. After all, it's not as if anything you've posted suggest that you'd rather see every single Iraqi dead than admit your faith in our battle against evil doers was misplaced. That would be a real leap, don't you think?

If you mean by 'American victory' the establishment of a working democracy and peace in the region, I would far, far, far, far, far rather see that than a Bush company loss. If you can't believe that, thats your lookout. What would it take to convince you? If I totally stopped posting about any objection I might have to American conduct, would you beleive me then?

Sure, I loathe Bush, and I believe he's damaging the country, but I care way more about the death toll and the human suffering more than my personal dislike for this administration no matter how intense, and more even than my fear for my country, which is significant. I don't think Ziggy has said that, or me, or anyone. You're really becoming a kind of tremulous old Victorian Lady, Kev.

While I won't offer to stop posting here, I totally agree with Zig. You seem to have moved to a point where your interior Max is more real to you than anything I have to say.

"Bwooo-ah, BwoooooooOOOO-AH! I'd rather see the earth decimated by nuclear fire than say Bush can tie his own tie!! I'M A SCARY HIPPY!!"

Happy?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Max, you can call me Vinth, or an old woman, or abc, or a niquil junkie, whatever you gotta do. I understand that you'll need to do this in absence of a real argument, so go for it.

And Preechr, you know you love the rough stuff.

Originally Posted by mburbank

I agree. We have a clear enemey. They are significant, though small in number, and I beleieve we will never decrease their numbers by making traditional war, as we are doing in Iraq

I believe Blanco covered this already, but the way we are fighting this war is far from "traditional". Would we have men and women on the ground to the extent that we do, going town to town and village to village, if we were fighting in a "traditional" fashion? I mean, we could pull a General Clarke and simply sit back and launch missiles at the country. We could level half the country, that'd probably fix our problems pretty quickly, no!!?

Also, you yourself said they are small in number. I think you're right about that, relative to the size and population of the greater muslim world. So what would a war on terror look like to you, Max? Ziggy, feel free to chime in here with your thoughts, too.

I think the Bush plan has been pretty clear, and it actually makes more sense than some random WOT that looks more like a "criminal investigation" (which a lot of liberals are fond of saying). Terrorism as a tactic, and terrorist cells being the way they are, are indeed not very "traditional", you're right about that, Max. However, the countries that have funded these activities (yes, this includes Saddam's Iraq), as well as the countries that continue to breed intolerance, hatred, sexism, and racism towards Jews, Christians, and the West in general are actually VERY statist, and very traditional. Iraq compensated the families of suicide bombers in Israel. The very specific reasons we were dragged into war there were wrong, which is why I still despise this administration for it. But to argue that Iraq had absolutely NO role in the current makeup of the modern Middle East is absurd. To say that this war is just against a few guys in a group called Al Qaeda misses the point and the real problem, and I think this is where we part on the matter.

For the billionth time. My particular objection to the evil we do as opposed to the evil others do is that I help pay fr the evil we do. As an american I feel it is my patriotic duty to disagree most vocally with the evil done in my name, as opposed to the evil done in Allahs name, or Sadaams name, or Bin Laden's name, etc, all of which is evil, but not evil I directly fund. For the record, I believe wanton killing is bad, no matter who does it.

And I respect your consistency, however I again think you're in need of some perspective. You yourself said it, we are at war. We have a very real enemy. However they don't seem to be large enugh for you to take this as a serious war (which I'll get to in a moment).

This isn't two equals having a duel at sunset over a chick. This isn't "wanton". We are fighting people who want to see us destroyed. We are fighting people who want to oppress women, destroy Jews, Christians, and just about anybody else who disagrees with them.

The loss of innocent life is horrible, unfortunate, and sad. The intentional taking of innocent life is barbaric, and if any of our troops are guilty of it, we need to punish them and make sure that every soldier knows it's absolutely unacceptable (I opposed execution for personal reasons, but the law is the law). Churchill had a great quote, which for the life of me I can't remember, but it was about the clashing of a civilized nation with a barbaric one. The former inevitably gets drawn into the behavior of the latter, and while it's ugly, and sad, and should be avoided when possible and punished when caught, it is the reality of this kind of war.

That's right, the intentional taking of innocent life is barbaric. This is why we need to defeat our enemies, because this is a measure that they see as effective. It allows them to kidnap and make idle threats, it also allows them to turn muslim against muslim. There won't be any investigation, media scrutiny, or court martial for the terrorists who blew up the dome of the al-Askari shrine, for example. Like the torture and execution of those two soldiers, I'm guessing they will only celebrate it.

It's the evil I choose to write about. It's a free fuckin' country.

Weak.

I think war should be at very least productive.

I know, I mean, what good does it do the Iraqis to not be living under Saddam any longer??? And all of this never-before-seen stuff, like Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds working in the same room to patch together a republic??? That stuff is dime a dozen in the Middle East, and certaily not a sign of progress in my book, no Sir.

erspective

This isn't WWII or the Civil War and W isn't FDR or Lincoln. This is a substandard leader in an ill defined war, and I would say that makes his line crossing even worse and more dagerous than the line crossing of greater men in worse circumstances, but slightly more forgiveable, in that Lincoln and FDR knew better. Again, I don't see your point.

Bingo. Now I know, I know, I know.....you really REALLY do believe we have a real enemy here, ad they are significant and stuff, but this isn't really like any of those wars, right?

Call me Samuel Huntington, but I think we are on the verge of a great war. We are already involved in a great clash of societies, and the way we go about (that's right, America) handling it could have lasting implications for years and years to come.

This is yet another example Max of where I believe your lack of perspective and hatred for Bush has blinded you. WW II was six years, not including of course the fighting that had been going on between the Chinese and the Japanese years prior to that. That's also excluding the military buildup in Germany, and the rise of fascism in Europe.

We're fighting another kind of fascism IMO. I think it's still in the cooking stages, and to look back at WW II now and cry about how this is sooooo not that is sort of stupid. Again, I'm thinkingof the "p" word.

This isn't the same as WW II. Thank God for that. And thank God that President Bush isn't alowing isolationists and political opponents to prevent us from dealing with this threat now rather than later, much like they did to FDR.

On a side note, your thing about FDR and Bush was kind of funny, considering FDR was probably the closest thing we've had to an imperial president. So I agree, Bush certainly isn't like FDR.

"our government could be doing far worse right now."

hat's a really powerful moral argument there, Kev. That's what I told the cop when I got brought up on assault charges, I said "What the fuck, officer, I coulda killed the guy and ate him."

Yeah, but see the clever little thing you did there was you cut my comment in half. Let's review it in its entirety:

Considering the anarchic (corrected my typo) nature of terrorist cells, our government could be doing far worse right now. That doesn't mean Gitmo is right, or the NSA spy program is right, or whatevr else. But I think you're seriously lacking in perspective.

My point here was that since we aren't fighting nation states, and we can't necessarily fight in a traditional fashion, the government could have cause to take VERY extreme domestic measures, far worse than taking telephone records, listening to our phone calls, and reviewing our bank records. They would have the justification, and you know what? The American people would support it, just as they've supported all of the aforementioned things.

This puts you (and me, frankly) in a minority of Americans who don't believe these encroachments on liberty are worth the security. Most Americans seem to disagree with us. I would like it if they just went to the FISA court, but I digress....

The official investigation notes that prior to Times article, the investigation was crap. We will never know if it would have stayed crap, but I think theres some reason to suspect it might have. If you beleieve that the pentagon doesn't try to sweep nasty shit under the rug on a regular basis, I think you are a rube. Appease the media? Cover up bloddlust? Nothing so complicated, dramatic or grandiose. Avoid bad PR. Reflexively, habitually. I think that's uglier, personally.

Hmm, I recall you saying the initial investigation was wrong, but then I asked you to support that and you didn't. Something about how the roadside bomb fit into the picture......? Maybe you could work on that.

As for the general practice of the Pentagon, I dunno. I think you're probably right. Is that right? No. Does it make us the bad guys? No.

"One side criminalizes the targeting of innocent life, and the other glorifies it."

Not exactly. One side criminalizes the deliberate targeting of innocent life. The accidental taking of innocent life is seen as an unpleasant biproduct that some policies try to avoid and others embrace with open arms. We use weapons we know for a fact are maximal killing machines like cluster bombs, we actively try to fuck up land mine treaties. They glorify the taking of human life, were casual about it. AND THIS IS MY COUNTRY!

AND YOUR COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH A "VERY REAL ENEMY", MAX!

PERSPECTIVE!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

But you are a bit off there. My distaste for arrogant "my side is ALWAYS right" lines of thought does not actually equate to wishing ill upon our country, and I think it's jsut the smallest bit absurd that you believe that.

Refresh my memory, aren't you the one who constantly compares a suicide bobingin Iraq to a rare abortion clinic bombing in, I dunno, South Dakota???

I think your specific problem Ziggy is that you're paralyzed by history and what you perceive to be the great satan's role in this war. At least max acknowledges that we have a "very real enemy" in all of this. I'm not so sure about you, b/c every time it's mentioned that the terrorism we face is closely linked with radical Islam*, and Islamic nations*, and the Middle East*, and Arabs*, and basically Islam* as a whole, you seem to get a little uptight and start reminding us of the crusades ang gee guys, not all muslims are bad.

We know Ziggy, we know. Now let's have a grownup conversation about it.

In my opinion (to which I believe I'm still entitled) what our enemies do is exactly as relevant as what we do. Deliberately targetting and killing innocents for whatever reason is terrible. Our enemies doing it certainly does not justify our doing of it, IF that's even happening (which I hope it isn't, but hope in one hand, right?)

There's a sharp distinction between what we do and what thay do. What we MAY have done is criminal, and violates our laws, our mores, and our code of conduct.

This is the rule book they play by. I don't mean this as to say we should overlook the bad things our troops do, but once again.....perspective. We are at war, at war with a "very real enemy"!

Those two wars I mentioned with Max, ya know the ones that are nothing like this one and were far more important? Well we killed a lot of innocent people in one of them, and certainly didn't spare them in the Civil War.

Tell me, does Dresden make us wrong for fighting the fight we did?

[Preechr]

Honestly, the biggest problem I have with the public debate on American "War Crimes" is that it looks just a little too similar to the public debates on everything else we've been having lately. Yellowcake, War for Oil, Plamegate, retired Generals, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo... the list goes on and on... All of these SCANDALS wind up being, more than anything else, political muckraking.

That the "War Hero" Murtha is at the forefront here makes me nauseous. Murtha is a creep, and his "War Hero" status makes John Kerry look like Rosie the Riveter... as nobody could make Kerry look like Jessica Lynch, much less Audie Murphy.

Slamming Marines in the brig and clapping them in shackles goes WAY beyond the spectacle "endured" by the dust mote of the Plame family. I have had my fill of Democrat pseudo-scandal, and this fits the pattern of the immediate past much to closely for me to avoid suspicions that there is no more scandal here than has been in any of the other efforts to cast the war, and thus the Bush Administration, in a negative light.

If I am wrong, fine. Prosecute anyone guilty of war crimes and move on to win the war on the high road. If I am right, then Murtha needs to be sitting in a brig somewhere, alongside whatever Democrat hacks came up with this plan. If I am right, and it turns out that these soldiers acted within the code of military conduct, then I want investigations into the Democratic Party and the media.

War is a serious business. People die. I feel I can be a libertarian and still object to "Freedom of the Press" and "Freedom of Speech" when it is abused in such a way. We have laws against lying that results in theft of property or loss of life, and I see no reason to extend the press or any politician any more liberty in a time of war (ESPECIALLY in a time of war) than the liberties they enjoy in peacetime.

If a political party campaigned for an election on the basis that we should burn all gays or ship all the blacks back to Africa in hopes the race dies of AIDS, the violence that would stir would be unnacceptable... If the wholesale media is involved in such a thing, then it should be judged to have violated the contract it holds with the society that supports it. I feel this sort of political attack, if it proves to be unfounded in reality, is just that disgusting.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Slamming Marines in the brig and clapping them in shackles goes WAY beyond the spectacle "endured" by the dust mote of the Plame family. I have had my fill of Democrat pseudo-scandal, and this fits the pattern of the immediate past much to closely for me to avoid suspicions that there is no more scandal here than has been in any of the other efforts to cast the war, and thus the Bush Administration, in a negative light.

You make a valid point, but unless I'm horriibly mistaken, the bulk of these charges were brought up by the US Marine Corps and the US Army, not by Democrats or by the liberal media.

Which is why I'm curious why there's been what has been described as a "sudden spate of investigations and charges". Is it representative of a top-level crackdown on military misconduct, is there just extra media attention and this has been going on from the beginning, or are more and more troops reaching a breaking point?

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Refresh my memory, aren't you the one who constantly compares a suicide bobingin Iraq to a rare abortion clinic bombing in, I dunno, South Dakota???

Ugh. I barely even want to respond to this, if that's all you get from my posts. But no, I think you've missed the point every time you've read something I've written because you apparently have some sort of strange filter built up in your mind to translate "what I say" into "what I really mean". The ONLY point in that comparison is that fanaticism (be it Islamic, fringe Christian, or even secular) in and of itself is as dangerous as a wildfire.

I think your specific problem Ziggy is that you're paralyzed by history and what you perceive to be the great satan's role in this war. At least max acknowledges that we have a "very real enemy" in all of this. I'm not so sure about you, b/c every time it's mentioned that the terrorism we face is closely linked with radical Islam*, and Islamic nations*, and the Middle East*, and Arabs*, and basically Islam* as a whole, you seem to get a little uptight and start reminding us of the crusades ang gee guys, not all muslims are bad.

So wait a minute. You have a problem with me wishing to keep a clear distinction between "radical Islam" and "basically Islam as a whole"? You can stop with all the asterisks, by the way. I really don't need you to say "I swear I'm not a bigot" every time you say something that seems even a bit bigoted.

But I'd hardly say I'm paralyzed by anything here. I still go to work every day. I enjoy my spare time, and generally try to stay out of political bullshit self-gratifying banter such as this, but this forum is an old habit that is hard to break.

We know Ziggy, we know. Now let's have a grownup conversation about it.

What an immature way to call someone immature! Kudos on the (un?)intentional irony there.

There's a sharp distinction between what we do and what thay do. What we MAY have done is criminal, and violates our laws, our mores, and our code of conduct.

This is the rule book they play by. I don't mean this as to say we should overlook the bad things our troops do, but once again.....perspective. We are at war, at war with a "very real enemy"!

Those two wars I mentioned with Max, ya know the ones that are nothing like this one and were far more important? Well we killed a lot of innocent people in one of them, and certainly didn't spare them in the Civil War.

Tell me, does Dresden make us wrong for fighting the fight we did?

I can't even tell what the fuck you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say the Dresdens and Hiroshimas and My Lais are just a necessary part of warfare and I should just get the fuck over it?

Also, why do you keep saying we are "at war with a very real enemy"? We are at war with ideologies here at home, but our troops are really at war with serveral factions of insurgent fighters, not all of whom are motivated purely by "Islamic extremism" let alone "basically Islam as a whole". I don't suppose you would consider that fully understanding their motivations better allows us to eradicate them? Cuz that's my take on it. Our enemy is not "every Muslim kid who might some day become a terrorist." Our enemy in Iraq is composed of many discreet factions, both domestic and foreign. I would think if you've read up on the events leading to Zarqawi's death, you might agree that the lack of true unity in these groups can be to our advantage.

Also, I can't be arsed at this point to find your exact quote, but you asked what this war should look like earlier. My guess, and it's only a guess, since I'm hardly aware of all the details, but this war should be invisible. Like 95% black ops. You dismantle terroist organizations with superior intel and targetted killings. Of course, I don't like those things, but speaking purely pragmatically, I think unconventional enemies warrant unconventional warfare. That last thing you wanna give a guerrilla fighter with a RPG is a tank to shoot at. Now does running that sort of campaign also require 100,000 boots on the ground? I don't know, but I wouldn't think so.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

But no, I think you've missed the point every time you've read something I've written because you apparently have some sort of strange filter built up in your mind to translate "what I say" into "what I really mean".

Last post on this for a while, I swear, but I just wanted to add that I'm fully aware I am guilty of doing this when reading either Kevin or ABCD's posts. I really enjoy hypocrisy, you see.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

if that's all you get from my posts. But no, I think you've missed the point every time you've read something I've written because you apparently have some sort of strange filter built up in your mind to translate "what I say" into "what I really mean".

Let's look at what you've really said then. This was in response to my statement that terrorism is deeply rooted in modern Islam:

" That just seems so wishy-washy.

"I'm not saying every Muslim is a terrorist, but if there weren't any Muslims, there wouldn't be any Muslim terrorists *wink wink nudge nudge* I'm not a bigot at all!"

There are prevailing themes and links, and to try and lay it all at Islam is shortsighted, ignorant, and maybe just a tad disingenuous, though it is incredibly easy and convenient to think of it in those terms.

If you're wondering what else there is to blame, try power. Plain and simple. Religion may be a tool, but power is the goal. Zarqawi was just a thug in a Jordanian prison until he met a cleric who showed him a better route to power. Before he died, he was urging Sunnis to step up the fight against Shiites. Can you tell me where in the Koran it says you're supposed to judge or kill other Muslims, or is this conflict maybe not really about Islam at all?"

See, this is why I made the "immature" comment below, primarily because you can't deal with Islam's relationship to modern terrorism.

Nobody, NOBODY, not me, abc, or anybody, has ever said that all of Islam is to blame for terrorism. But when Al Qaeda in Iraq took credit fr torturing and executing those two soldiers, who did they sayit was for???

The "*" is very necessary while talking to you, not because I'm disguising my own bigotry (which I don't believe I am, but whatever), but rather your inability to ook the problem in the eye.

i'll say it again-- nobody here has said that all Muslims are evil or responsible for terrorism. However, much as your good friend abc has already mentioned, Islam could use a good old protestant reformation. (which, btw, I truly believe we're seeing in some circles and nations).

I can't even tell what the fuck you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say the Dresdens and Hiroshimas and My Lais are just a necessary part of warfare and I should just get the fuck over it?

Per....nevermind.

I'm asking that you take an oath of loyalty.

Also, why do you keep saying we are "at war with a very real enemy"? We are at war with ideologies here at home, but our troops are really at war with serveral factions of insurgent fighters, not all of whom are motivated purely by "Islamic extremism" let alone "basically Islam as a whole".

Really? Well what is their cause, Ziggy??? Is it nationalism??? I honestly wish that were the case. Is it "Pan-arabism"??? What is motivating other muslims from Yemen, Syria, and Algeria to leave their homes and go to Iraq???

Why is it that the insurgents target mosques??? Why, again, is it that these insurgents kill in the name of Allah instead of iraq, or Arabism, or whatever..?

"Or maybe this isn't about Islam blah blah blah...."

but this war should be invisible. Like 95% black ops. You dismantle terroist organizations with superior intel and targetted killings.

Really? And who would you kill in these blackops, Ziggy? Would uou just go after people who say they are a part of "Al Qaeda," and call it a day???

Al Qaeda is a product of the problem. Focusing on "black ops" that would "dismantle terrorist organizations" would be good, but would it end jihadism*, Ziggy?

[El Blanco]

Ziggy's rtight about the black ops. We should just have Charlie Sheen and Michael Bein parachute in with their cloaks of invisibility and kill all of the terrorists with the intel that magically appeared in their possession.

Never mind what happens when the insurgents make a very public display by holing up in a mosque and blasting away at passer-bys or suicide bombing a market place.

We really don't need a very visible presence to show the Iraqi people we are there and working to protect them. And "black ops" make great defenses when gunmen pop up out of seemingly nowhere. Because intel is a perfect science and our people are omniscient.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Blanco, the entire war on terrorism is like an episode of Law & Order. if we busted Bin Laden, the whole thing would fold, and we could move on to the next global problem that has nothing to do with Islam*.