jk
Novice
Posts: 84
|
POW's
May 7, 2004 7:12:22 GMT -5
Post by jk on May 7, 2004 7:12:22 GMT -5
Im just looking for thoughts on these pictures that are surfacing of iraqi pow's being mistreated. Mistreated seems like an understatement doesnt it?
|
|
|
POW's
May 13, 2004 20:41:57 GMT -5
Post by H-Zence on May 13, 2004 20:41:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
POW's
May 13, 2004 21:01:09 GMT -5
Post by sanmiguel98 on May 13, 2004 21:01:09 GMT -5
i think "mistreated" is more of an overstatement. the prisoners are all prisoners in the first place because they were captured while attempting to kill somebody. i don't see what the big deal is about posing them in embarassing, demeaning, or otherwise uncomfortable positions.
are there any military people on here that went through SERE training? or howabout vietnam vets? i think people who find those pow pictures disturbing have been too sheltered in their lives.
besides, those prisoners aren't pow's in the first place. the war against iraq ended last year, and that makes the detainees illegal combatants. the geneva conventions don't apply to them.
|
|
|
POW's
May 13, 2004 21:15:52 GMT -5
Post by Lynnet on May 13, 2004 21:15:52 GMT -5
Ah, so that's why Bush "ended the war." So he could dodge all the rules of "war." The thing is, we still have people fighting over there, and Iraq's people are still fighting back. While the "war" might be over, the battle has only just begun.
I personally am not appalled at the photos or treatment of Iraqi prisoners by the Americans; I am also not surprised by the retaliation. I simply view them as wrong. Humans can be such cruel beings, especially in a war setting. With all the things that go on there, people are damaged, their morals, their judgements. I've read/heard various things about the American woman in the photos with the Iraqi prisoners. All her family members and friends back here were shocked that she would participate in something so demeaning.
Whether in peacetime or war, respect and dignity are constants which should be upheld.
|
|
|
POW's
May 13, 2004 21:36:36 GMT -5
Post by sanmiguel98 on May 13, 2004 21:36:36 GMT -5
iraq's people aren't fighting back, the extremists are. many of the combatants aren't even of iraqi descent, incuding the jordanian that decapitated nick berg. the vast majority of iraq's people are glad we are there. it's just not wise to be open about supporting us, lest the extremists find out. iraq has been oppressed for so long, it's second nature to keep your mouth shut about supporting the "great satan."
sad to say, but respect and dignity in war ended sometime during WWI. chivalry on the battlefield is long gone, especially now with opponents that use schools and holy sites as ammo depots and fighting positions. following the rules against an opponent that doesn't is a sure way to lose. like the british army during the revolutionary war, for example.
|
|
jk
Novice
Posts: 84
|
POW's
May 14, 2004 21:32:14 GMT -5
Post by jk on May 14, 2004 21:32:14 GMT -5
ok i see demeaning positions and humiliation that is bad enough, these people are out there killing your friends. Demoralizing; i can rationalize so that i can see why that would happen. But there there are pictures showing men having their testicles mauled by dogs while us soldiers look on smiling. While i can somewhat understand why this happens i am appalled by it. These people are prisoners if not of war they are prisoners none the less. they are at the complete mercy of the will of their captors. Since we have yet to produce evidence of weapons of mass destruction the us has changed it's reasoning to ousting an evil dictator that tortured his people. No doubt getting rid of a bad man that maims people is never a bad thing, but when the reigning force that displaced the dictator then starts maiming people in return one gets confused by the measage that is conveyed.
|
|
|
POW's
May 15, 2004 10:18:29 GMT -5
Post by sanmiguel98 on May 15, 2004 10:18:29 GMT -5
i'll admit that posing in the pictures with big cheesy grins is totally inappropriate. "weekend warriors" are far less disciplined than active duty soldiers, and react to certain situations like japanese tourists (gomenasai, nihon-jin).
but still, breaking the wills of people that are as determined as these prisoners is far more difficult than it would be under normal circumstances. they are not afraid of death, and in some instances embrace it. when you die a martyr for islam, you spend an eternity in paradise with 70-some-odd wives. treating such people with dignity and comfort accomplishes nothing, as far as finding out where his buddies are, who trained him, and what his next target is.
george bush is an idiot, and the whole wmd thing was a mistake. but beyond that, the situation has evolved. iraq is the new front line for terrorists. any islamic extremist that hates america can cross the border into iraq and join a militia to take a stab at american soldiers. they can pose as iraqi civilians, (i won't lie, they all look the same to me. can't tell a jordanian from a libyan), while planting roadside bombs or striking an iraqi police station.
|
|
|
POW's
May 16, 2004 15:19:12 GMT -5
Post by Satori on May 16, 2004 15:19:12 GMT -5
i think "mistreated" is more of an overstatement. the prisoners are all prisoners in the first place because they were captured while attempting to kill somebody. i don't see what the big deal is about posing them in embarassing, demeaning, or otherwise uncomfortable positions. Well, from a political point of view, it's hard for the coalition to maintain the moral high ground (and condemn Saddam's regime's prison torture) if they indulge in it themselves. That aside, it's hard to comment upon something like this. If you see your friends getting killed and maimed by Iraqi extremists it is understandable that you may have a desire to exact some sort of revenge on captured enemies. But that applies to both sides. However, we (The West) are supposed to be leading the way in discipline, human rights, the Geneva Convention etc., so it smacks of hypocricy when we're caught doing this. On the good side though, we are being held accountable for this alleged prisoner abuse; it has been made public and disciplinary action will result, which never would have happened to any of Saddam's goons who tortured folk in prison. Then there is the fact that by extracting important information out of a prisoner might save lives that would otherwise have been lost to terrorist attacks. Does the suffering of one person justify the saving of many lives? Although it doesn't appear that these prisoners were being tortured for information, merely for pleasure, and that's appalling.
|
|
|
POW's
May 16, 2004 16:42:52 GMT -5
Post by sanmiguel98 on May 16, 2004 16:42:52 GMT -5
Well, from a political point of view, it's hard for the coalition to maintain the moral high ground (and condemn Saddam's regime's prison torture) if they indulge in it themselves. saddam's regime imprisoned, tortured, and killed normal iraqi citizens for minor infractions, (like not winning an olympic gold medal), or for no reason whatsoever. the torture included hanging by the limbs until joints popped out of the sockets, pins being inserted under the fingernails, and setting fire to genitalia. very few were ever freed, and the vast majority died. the mp's imprisoned people who were captured while they were attempting to kill either us, our allies, or the iraqi people. the "torture" included simulated electrocution (psychological), humiliation, and being hooded (sensory deprivation). the number of deaths (accidental or otherwise), compared to the actual number of prisoners being held is nominal. i don't see how the two can compare. Although it doesn't appear that these prisoners were being tortured for information, merely for pleasure, and that's appalling. that's an opinion based on 2nd hand information. information extraction is a process that doesn't begin/end when a prisoner enters the room with the single fading lightbulb. everybody has a defense mechanism in their minds, and it's necessary to psychologically bring those walls down. for civilians witnessing just parts of the process, it seems cruel and inhumane. but it works. the problem with modern warfare is that technology brings the battlefield into livingrooms, and everyone wants to be an "arm-chair quarterback". these prison "abuses" are nothing compared to any prison in any other war. i believe the mp's were not acting on their own for pleasure, because i understand how the whole process works. as any "mudfoot" knows, soldiers are not paid to think. an order can only be disobeyed if it is unlawful, and in their minds their actions were helping to break the wills of prisoners, and were encouraged by military intelligence (a large corps including units specializing in psy-ops and interrogation), and the cia. the only thing the scapegoats are guilty of is acting like giddy schoolgirls in inapproriate situations.
|
|
|
POW's
May 16, 2004 17:12:24 GMT -5
Post by desertfox on May 16, 2004 17:12:24 GMT -5
Dehumanizing the enemy is an important part of defeating our enemies.
|
|
|
POW's
May 16, 2004 17:25:16 GMT -5
Post by sanmiguel98 on May 16, 2004 17:25:16 GMT -5
actually, understanding the enemy is an important part of defeating them. dehumanizing them leads to arrogance, which in turn leads to a misguided sense of god-like superiority. it is then that the real abuse and atrocities start, with such things as ear necklaces & village razing.
|
|
|
POW's
May 27, 2004 21:27:57 GMT -5
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on May 27, 2004 21:27:57 GMT -5
i think "mistreated" is more of an overstatement. the prisoners are all prisoners in the first place because they were captured while attempting to kill somebody. i don't see what the big deal is about posing them in embarassing, demeaning, or otherwise uncomfortable positions. Okay i've heard enough of this. They were captured while trying to kill someone were they? Could you give me some information or proof of this? Could you please tell me sir, how you have any shred of an idea what these fellas did to be sent to the prison? For all you, or I know they were the ones who put down their guns, held their arms high in the air, and walked towards our troops to surrender. Do not justify these foolish and childish actions by saying "they're murders, they deserve it". Thats quite ignorant. besides, those prisoners aren't pow's in the first place. the war against iraq ended last year, and that makes the detainees illegal combatants. the geneva conventions don't apply to them. So.. we capture them during the war, we say "okay, the war is over" and then treat them however we want? Good plan, I mean I can't think of a more successful PR stance than that one. I mean, who gives a damn about human rights? Those men who decapitated berg sure don't, after all we're talking about the same people. ... wait.. no, thats right, these are different people. Uh oh, we seem to have made a boo boo.. we seem to have blown our cover as the "moral authority" in the situation.. we seem to be hypocrites, and liars.
|
|
|
POW's
May 28, 2004 2:01:40 GMT -5
Post by sanmiguel98 on May 28, 2004 2:01:40 GMT -5
whatever rules applied in the past do not apply anymore. if you can trust surrendering combatants to follow the rules just because they throw down their arms, wave white flags, and have their hands in the air, you'd be just as naive as the 3rd infantry division at the beginning of the war. those guys drove straight past "surrendering" iraqi units without thoroughly checking them. those iraqis later went on to ambush the 504th maintenance company, and made an american hero out of a non-deserving media darling. pressing attacks under the guise of surrender was a widespread tactic, and caused most of our early casualties. i don't recall anybody bringing up the geneva conventions back then.
the majority of regular iraqi soldiers "disappeared" rather than fight. they put on civilian clothes, and never came back. those who didn't stop fighting put on civilian clothes too, and attacked us from behind crowds of civilians, mosques, and apartment buildings. now we're up against various religious factions, foreign fighters, and civilian vigilantes who are out avenging the deaths of their human shield relatives. it is from these groups that prisoners are taken. for the record, abu ghraib is only used for storing "high risk" and important prisoners. "low risk" prisoners stay in outdoor tent-city camps that are surrounded by fences and concertina wire.
in my opinion, permitting humiliation and demeaning treatment will always be acceptable if it can save lives. if we were talking about torture, that would be a different story. as far as humiliating/demeaning treatment goes, if that really bothers you, you should try shutting down the college greek system. i personally don't view humiliation and torture as being on the same level.
the only thing i find "quite ignorant" about this whole thing is how people who were never out there in the first place are so quick to form such strong opinions. if you really want me to, I can explain my position and experiences. but i'll stop here for now. long responses on debate boards are often skimmed through and largely ignored.
|
|