American Captive Beheaded in Iraq

[Jaradu]

[img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img]

Oh, man... Call me sick and I'd agree with you - I downloaded the video of it [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img]

I shamefully regret doing that and my utmost respects go to the man. Come to think of it, there were no shortages of sources of it. I guess it's just human nature that some people would want to see it. I respect whoever hasn't seen the video and managed to show good signs of humanity.

If there is such thing as heaven or he's a ghost or something (not meant to be religious or anything), I wonder how he would be feeling knowing that people across the world are downloading videos of him being murdered. Would you like it if someone downloaded a video of you dying a horribly painful death? Thought not: me neither. That's why I really regret doing it. It's also lowered my self-esteem. I thought I was strong enough to withstand the urge. If you don't want to see it but want to know what happens, prepare for some descriptions. Moderators: If this is not suitable for a family forum, delete it by all means:


EDIT: I have shaded the below as a precaution. I'm not sure that you had to go into such graphic detail, Jaraku, but I guess the link is there for people to click on. - MEMNOCH

-
-
-
-
-
-
-

First, for about three or four minutes, an Iraqi speaks in his language about something I haven't yet discovered. Maybe I'll find a translation of it somewhere. All of a sudden, instantly and unexpectly, the five (I think) Iraqi's pounce on the man and high-pitched screams can be heard as a long knife cuts. The screaming stops and it is obvious he is dead or unconscious. They could have just left it at that, couldn't they? Their main purpose was to kill him and they had achieved it. They could've stopped at that. Did they stop? NO! Pure animals, all of them. If they had to kill him, kill him, but did they have to go the whole horse and cut his entire head off? [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img]

It took quite a while, I'm guessing the spine took a bit of work. After cutting his head off entirely, they cheered and laughed! [img]graemlins/jawdrop.gif[/img]

What freaks are these people? For one race we are extremely different. One of the Iraqi's held up the head to the camera and he held it high so you could see the flsh in his neck. The camera panned down so you could see the severed neck - it was sickening. You're so used to seeing heads on bodies that to see the two apart seems... wierd, wrong, incorrect and disturbing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
End of description.

Well, again, I'm ashamed of myself and I vow never to see that footage (or any other footage of murder) again. The annoying thing is that it's downright impossible to negotiate with these terrorists so we can either kill them all or leave them alone. I have no idea what's best.

[ 05-15-2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: [QB] Originally posted by Skunk: Since you question the validity of Timber's sources, could you provide a link (or an excerpt with appropriate documentation) for your sources supporting the 9 month allegation? [qb] My mistake - I thought that the delay was only nine months - but as it turned out, it WAS LONGER. The Red Cross began filing complaints in MARCH 2003 - AND REPEATEDLY COMPLAINED since then. "The Red Cross has emphasized that the report was only a summary of its repeated attempts in person and in writing from March to November 2003 to get U.S. officials to stop abuses. Those earlier interventions by the Red Cross far preceded the Pentagon's decision to investigate after a low-ranking U.S. soldier stepped forward in January. http://asia.news.yahoo.com/040511/ap/d82g22a00.html *slaps head* - Sorry, I'll try to more accurate next time.

You still did not go read the report I posted. Or even my post. March 2003 was still during the war -- and there was a criminal investigation that resulted in 4 arrests prior to any of the Abu Ghraib stuff happened. Those investigations were identified in the March 2004 report of the AR investigaton by the IO. The Abu Ghraib investigation began almost a year later than 2003, but only 2 months following the December allegations about Abu Ghraib -- THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS.

Larry, I think the inappropriate thing in my post was calling Skunk a "twit," so I'll grant you that.

But telling him to f-off for making me do his reasearch to defeat baseless allegations is fair and appropriate. Anyone can come here and toss lies around making us all backpedal -- isn't that forum abuse as well? As you can see by my reply to Skunk in this post, he still refuses to read the facts and make baseless allegations which, in the face of the PROOF I've offered, border on OUTRIGHT LIES. It's uncalled for. Facts are facts.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: Bear in mind that: "between 70 percent and 90 percent" of the detainees in Iraq "had been arrested by mistake." (Associated press)

MORE LIES!!!

The [RED CROSS'S] report says some coalition military intelligence officers estimated "between 70 percent and 90 percent" of the detainees in Iraq "had been arrested by mistake.

You present this as FACT reported by the AP. Actually it is ALLEGATION of the Red Cross based on ITS INTERPRETATION of SOME intelligence officers' ESTIMATION. Shame on you -- there are 4 or 5 levels of variables here, any one of which could have been "tweaked" by the person wanting to write the report toward one slant or another. Your irresponsibility is getting annoying!

[promethius9594]

Originally posted by Faceman: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't AP a news agency (like Reuters) rather than a newspaper?

yeah, but you knew what i meant... they are the group that alot of newspapers directly take their stories from. i used to read the AP online, and then turn around and read my state's newspaper and read the same story copied word for word.

Originally posted by Faceman: Also, aren't people "innocent until proven guilty" anymore?

no, only in america does the rule innocent until proven guilty apply specifically to all american citizens and legal aliens. outside of america, or for non citizens, this rule has no standing. talk to the man who has been in jail in mexico for nearly twenty years now without trial for making a wrong turn and accidently bringing his hunting rifle into their country before trying to turn around.

second, we can't try these people. they will be tried by the iraqi court once it has been established. they are not necessarily innocent if they are released, but they are deemed to be too small a case to hold around that long. the sooner the new government is formed, the sooner the detainees can get their trials.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by promethius9594: international red cross can bite me for all i care... they blow everything out of proportion anyway.

I think that's a little harsh...they go out of their way to stay neutral and not make their findings public. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/3717439.stm Worth reading that article.

As for the 'innocent until proven guilty' discussion..as far as i'm concerned, a country either has a justice system or not. To mete out justice to a second standard where non-american's are concerned is immoral and doesn't do any PR favours as far as the families and friends of the 'terrorists' are concerned. It's policies like these that are making it an uphill struggle...

[promethius9594]

i would counter, shamrock, with this:

The report you linked (which was, by the way, very informative and very worth reading) stated "The Red Cross delegates will not spend time on the justice or otherwise of your imprisonment, but they will do their best to ensure you are not beaten, that you have food, water, and fresh air, and that your family knows where you are. "

in this case they have carried that duty, they are also ensuring that prisoners get a diet tailored to an ends which is unheard of in prisoner treatment, they are saying that solitary confinement is paramount to psychological abuse, that threats constitute traumatizing psychological violence and that allowing a few nights without sleep is going to be catastrophic. come on, please. I'm a college student, i'm subjected to bad food at our dining hall, no sleep OFTEN, threats of all sorts, and solitary confinement due to excessive amounts of physical labor (homework). yes, they have some items right, and yes, they blow some things way out of proportion as well.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: But telling him to f-off for making me do his reasearch to defeat baseless allegations is fair and appropriate. Anyone can come here and toss lies around making us all backpedal -- isn't that forum abuse as well? As you can see by my reply to Skunk in this post, he still refuses to read the facts and make baseless allegations which, in the face of the PROOF I've offered, border on OUTRIGHT LIES. It's uncalled for. Facts are facts.

If you think that the Red Cross is lying - that's fine - I'm merely reporting what they claim to have seen with their own eyes and the alleged failure of the US authorities to answer what they claim have been repeated requests to end abuses a whole NINE MONTHS before the US began it's investigation.

If you have been to the prison yourself, or have special information that proves that their allegations are untrue - please post it - I'd like to see it.

But I'm just the messenger - and I've quoted my sources. So to call me a liar under those circumstances is absurd and inappropriate. Redirect your anger to the Red Cross - they're the ones that made the allegations - NOT ME.

The Red Cross reported on the general treatment of prisoners in all detention facilities - and incidents like this were never investigated by the US authorities despite complaints by the ICRC:
22-09-2003 - A 61 year old had been tied, hooded and forced to sit on a hot surface of what he surmised to be the engine of a vehicle, which had caused severe burns to his buttocks. The victim lost consciousness. The ICRC observed large crusted lesions consistent with his allegation.[/i]

Also note in ICRC report, the section from OCTOBER 2003 with regards to Abu Grahib and note that again, NO IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION FOLLOWED.

You can find the leaked ICRC report here:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...ICRCreport.pdf

It's a catalogue of abuses going back to the start of the war that is frankly disturbing - even more so when the US/UK military refused to either investigate or end the abuses. Furthermore, the abuses did not simply take place in Abu Grahib, but also the detention centres of Camp Cropper, Al-Salyhyye, Tasferat, Al-Russafa, Umm Qasar, Camp Bucca, Camp Condor...(you'll note that some of these are/were British run). Do you know about the investigations into those places too? I havn't heard anything about them.

But, if you think it's all lies, you are free to hold that opinion of course.
But I didn't write it - so don't blame me.

And finally - why would the ICRC write a biased report that the ONLY THE US/UK AUTHORITIES WOULD SEE? This report was *never* destined to be released to the general public - but to be kept secret in line with strict ICRC policy - as a matter between it and the coalition force governments.

[ 05-15-2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

That report is dated prior to the Army's report I posted. I read it. I suggest you read the one I posted, which I note you still have not done. There are some possibly-contradictory facts in them. This is the last time I'll ask -- please read it before speaking about FACTS. The facts here need to be sorted out.

For one, your 9 month time period is still obvious BS. There were allegations in 2003, and the army investigated those and filed criminal charges against 4 officers in late 2003. The abuses at Abu Ghraib in 12/2003 had a 3-month turnaround to a full report -- which you will note is dated 3/3/2004. I'm not saying these two inspections caught everything, but I am saying your 9 month allegation dealing with Abu Ghraib is just wrong -- and you should show your caliber by recanting it.

Also, note that the Red Cross only interviewed prisoners/detainees. The official Army report contains interviews of all parties. That gives it a wee bit more credibility in my view.

Nevertheless, the one thing we can say here is that there are some facts alleged by each party which are not lining up. I think it would take a compare/contrast of these two reports to sort it out properly. If you've got the time, you are welcom to do it. I don't know when I will be able to (and want to) spare that kind of time.

[ 05-15-2004, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber: Also, note that the Red Cross only interviewed prisoners/detainees. The official Army report contains interviews of all parties. That gives it a wee bit more credibility in my view.

The Red Cross's duty is not to investigate for the purpose of bringing criminals to justice - but to inspect and to report what it sees, and bring about changes rather than charges accordingly.

It reports any abuses it finds to the Coalition governments, on the expectation that those government's will bring about reforms that prevent further abuses. Whether those governments decide to launch an investigation with a view to charging guilty parties is not its concern. The Red Cross did did indeed speak to officers and men on conditions of anonymity - and does not mention their names in its reports. In this way, officers and men can speak freely and candidly without jeopardising their respective positions - and are less likely to be 'guarded' as they would be in an actual military investigation or if they thought that their comments would lead them to be questioned by an investigating officer.

The Red Cross does however provide the names of those alleging abuses for the purposes of conducting an investigation should the CF desire it - but does not demand the investigation itself. It uses those names and cases to highlight the abuses and provide definitive examples so that the CF governments have solid reason to believe that a problem exists.

The ICRC is in the business of securing the humane treatment of prisoners - not taking sides or acting as a police body. It has no axe to grind and submits its report in complete confidentiality to the detaining governments - the 'other side' never get to see its reports. That gives it enormous credibility.


I did read the (very professional) report that you posted but, as you say, it doesn't square up with the ICRC. What's more, while the ICRC reports mention 'widespread abuse' from capture to detention centre, the other report mentions *very few* actual investigations by comparsion.

Furthermore, the report you quoted also notes that even when an investigation concludes that abuse took place, no structural changes were implemented to prevent further abuses or unneccessary 'incidents'. The author's exasperation at the state of affairs was self-evident.

As far goes marrying both reports, I rather suspect that to be an impossible task. One would have to have all of the ICRC correspondance to hand as well as the full military report (the suppporting documentation is missing) to do that.

What can be said (from the basis of the conclusions of military investigation), is that from June 2003 the Abu Grahib facility (and others) were maintained by a poorly trained and ill equipped body that lacked clear rules of conduct and responsibility with a command structure that had broken down. Whether this translated into abuses at this early stage is a matter between the ICRC and the CF governments. We can argue it to death without agreement.

The important issue (in the end far more important that bringing charges) is that both the UK and US have demonstrated a serious determination to stamp out any further abuses and to implement the reccomendations of the ICRC [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Let's hope that this is the end of it.


[ 05-15-2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Link]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Link, relax mate. To be fair, there have been few posts in this forum "glorifying" America in the last few days. In fact, the majority of posts here lately have been very critical of America, and rightly so based on the latest situation. The Americans here have kept their cool reasonably well for the most part, given the subject matter. It's difficult to understand the American psyche unless you actually move there and live there - you will understand their perspective, even if you disagree with it. Sure there are soma appalling things that have greatly tarnished their image in recent days but They believe they still have a lot to be proud of, and that's fair enough too - they do. You also need to realise that while you don't like hearing America "glorified" (to use your term) that most likely Americans don't like hearing their country slagged off. Both emotions are equally legitimate. Now seeing as we like to allow a modicum of freedom of expression here both things are likely to happen, and both sides will likely have to live with it. These are just words on a message board. If these issues genuinely upset us then we shouldn't be here. Self control please. Cheers mate. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QB]

I'm willing to control myself, sure. Just note that I was never implying that I was talking about this forum as a total. I never mentioned that the place where I was looking at (concerning the glorification) was Ironworks Gaming Forums. My frustration was more a rant to society in general, than a rant pointed to someone else.
That's also why I can't believe you never stepped in and pointed a warning finger at Yorick for attacking me without any reason. Although you state that the Americans have kept their cool reasonably well, I beg to differ about keeping their cool when it comes to allegations that aren't even pointed directly at them. I was sincerely hurt by the fact that a comment by me (with not the worst bit of 'extremist aggression' in it) lead to a pretty downright insult. You obviously chose to ignore that particular one, because I've seen both Larry and you ignoring it.

To get things straight: I'm not accusing you (Memnoch) or any other mod or member of pulling me through the dirt: it's just that I loathe the fact that things like these have to happen. And for this particular case I know I'm NOT exaggerating for once.