American Captive Beheaded in Iraq

[Lanesra]

Originally posted by Azred: Terrorists understand only one language: violence. They may cloak themselves under the guise of religion or some political agenda, but they want nothing more than to shoot guns and kill people. Trying to deal with these rabid dogs with rules, regulations, democracy, or "the moral high ground" is simply a waste of energy. The only effective way to deal with them is to raise the price of poker and see how long they are willing to play. This view of mine has nothing to do with the unfortunate man who lost his head; I have had this view for quite some time, because I have never seen or heard of anyone successfully negotiating with a terrorist to any positive outcome.

So tell me, when was the last IRA bomb in the UK ? when was the last time a soldier was shot in Northern Ireland ?, they haven't stopped because we battered the IRA into submission, they've stopped because we sat down and talked, so there's your positive outcome, and if you've never seen or heard about that you don't watch the news, or don't know there's a big old world out there.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Lanesra: quote: Originally posted by Azred: I have never seen or heard of anyone successfully negotiating with a terrorist to any positive outcome.

So tell me, when was the last IRA bomb in the UK ? when was the last time a soldier was shot in Northern Ireland ?, they haven't stopped because we battered the IRA into submission, they've stopped because we sat down and talked, so there's your positive outcome, and if you've never seen or heard about that you don't watch the news, or don't know there's a big old world out there.[/QUOTE]You know what? Lanesra is right...and when you're right, you're right. Alas for my beautiful little hypothesis, shot down in the prime of its life by an ugly fact.

I think what helped in that situation was the fact that reasonable and level heads finally prevailed long enough to sit down together. I strongly doubt that will ever happen with terrorists from the Middle East...but I am not a fortune teller. We'll all just have to wait and see.

[Donut]

Are the words syntax and grammar completely alien to you? You said:

Originally posted by promethius9594: 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.

Come to BriTain and you will be afforded the same treatment. It isn't only in America that this rule applies. In fact you nicked the idea from us!!

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Donut: Are the words syntax and grammar completely alien to you? You said: quote: Originally posted by promethius9594: 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.

Come to BriTain and you will be afforded the same treatment. It isn't only in America that this rule applies. In fact you nicked the idea from us!! [/QUOTE]I believe the point he is making was in response to a post by a member that basically suggested "Doesn't the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" apply to the prisoners at Abu Gharib and other facilities." And while the subject dealt specifically with the Iraqi prisoners, the implication seemed to be that "innocent until proven guilty" is supposedly a universally accepted concept of justice...and the fact is that simply is NOT the case. Mexico is a good example. I believe Turkey is also guilty of imprisoning first and asking questions later (sometimes much later), and let's not even talk about the "criminal justice system" in countries like China.

So "innocent until proven guilty" is NOT universally accepted by all governments.

And it is my understanding that even the UK has some pretty harsh enforcement of their laws. My former g/r from college went to Oxford on an excahnge programe in the late 80's and one thing the students were strongly warned against was being caught smoking pot or using other drugs. Because the school said you WILL be thrown in jail and there won't be ANYTHING the university her can do to help you. That could have just been over-exaggerated scare tactics, but the warning was clear enough.

As for the Iraqi prisoners themselves - yes, many of them are innocent. But you also have to look at the circumstances surrounding their arrests. This is not a stable country with an established gov't and ruling documents. These arrests occurred during and right after a WAR, when there was excessive looting and other crimes being committed by many of the citizens. In this situation, the most expedient means of curtailing the activity is to catch EVERYBODY and then weed out the guilty ones. While many of the those caught may very well be innocent, there is at least a reasonable degree of suspicion to believe that some of them are guilty. As mentioned before, you can't tell a terrorist from a civilian.

So the military does the best it can - catch everybody and THEN sort them out. Now that still does NOT condone the treatment of the prisoners in any shape, form, or fashion. In fact, it does quite the opposite. Since the military KNOWS that at least SOME of the detainees ARE innocent - it shoud treat ALL the prisoners with as much dignity and respect as warranted by the situation. I agree with the allegations that the Red Cross is severaly exaggerating some of the "abuses". The American Justice System has followed a lot of the advice they are suggesting (more luxuries for prisoners, better food, less solitary confinement, etc) and it doesn't take much effort to see how INeffective those measures have been. Prisoners shouldn't be tortured, humiliated, or degraded - but they should STILL be treated like prisoners. If the military officials have reason to believe one of the detainees may be a terrorist (or have information about terrorists) and that prisoner refuses to cooperate, then solitary confinement IS an acceptable option - used in moderation. If solitary confinement or sleep deprivation are used excessively, any information you get must be viewed with skepticism - because the prisoner will eventually reach a point where they will say whatever they think the captor wants to hear - even if that means making stuff up.

I agree completely that the humiliation of the prisoners is indefensible. It certainly will NOT "soften the prisoners up". If anything, it only strengthened the resolve of the ones being humiliated. So whoever the C.O. was that ordered that kind of treatment (if it was ordered by the C.O.), should face a court martial and be stripped of their rank, because they obviously don't know anything about how to coerce hostile prisoners into providing useful information. Not that I'm an expert, by any stretch of the imagination, but this is a No-Brainer. Take a guy that has grown up HATING the U.S., have him captured by the U.S. and then degrade and humiliate him based on his religious beliefs and you haven't created a prisoner about to break and give you information - you've just created the next martyr or suicide bomber.

I understand the M.P.'s didn't recieve proper training for guard duty, but how much training do you need to realize it is WRONG to make a Muslim man pose nude on a LEASH held by a WOMAN. You don't agree with the Muslim stance on women - no problem - but you don't FORCE humiliation based on that religious belief and then expect the guy to suddenly become cooperative.

One father of one of the M.P.'s was talking about the lack of training his son recieved. He said "He was trained as a mechanic, not a prison guard". SO WHAT?? Does a mecahnic NOT know it is WRONG to force a naked man to masturbate in front of other men, especially the captors from a country he despises. How would the father react if his son were the one being subjected to that treatment in an Iraqi prison?

There is NO defending the actions taken by the guards at Abu Ghraib (or however it is spelled). But I do agree that even these horribly acts still pale in comparison to beheading an innocent captive and then cheering about it. It also pales in comparison to killing innocent NON-military personnel (the American contractors), dragging their bodies through the streets, dismembering them, and hanging their corpses from a bridge to be burned before a cheering crowd.

IF the Americans did that, their critics on this board (and around the world) would be saying we DESERVE to be blown up by terrorists, yet there was NO SUCH OUTRAGE expressed on a global scale towards the Iraqi citizens that committed those abuses on innocent Americans (at least not on the news that I saw - I am excepting IW from that accusation because I wasn't visiting C.E. during that time and the issue may well have been addressed here)

One last comment I have regarding the guards at A.G. and other facilities. Many are claiming they were just following orders. Sorry, that excuse didn't work at Nuremburg and it shouldn't fly here either. An order may be an order, but there comes a time when you HAVE to say "No, that is just WRONG..and I refuse to do it". (again, I note it is easy for me to say that having never BEEN in the military).

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Donut: Come to BriTain and you will be afforded the same treatment. It isn't only in America that this rule applies. In fact you nicked the idea from us!!

Well, at least we nicked the right idea. We coulda nicked "trial by ordeal," you know. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Felix The Assassin]

The video is blurry, and way to choppy. the sound does not seem to match the environment. Is this for real? Or just a hoax to get the media in a frenzy?
Where is the blood? There should be at least 1L of blood somewhere!
If there is better footage somewhere, by all means post it.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Donut: Are the words syntax and grammar completely alien to you? You said:

I couldn't understand what was said and so gave up.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Lanesra: quote: Originally posted by Azred: Terrorists understand only one language: violence. They may cloak themselves under the guise of religion or some political agenda, but they want nothing more than to shoot guns and kill people. Trying to deal with these rabid dogs with rules, regulations, democracy, or "the moral high ground" is simply a waste of energy. The only effective way to deal with them is to raise the price of poker and see how long they are willing to play. This view of mine has nothing to do with the unfortunate man who lost his head; I have had this view for quite some time, because I have never seen or heard of anyone successfully negotiating with a terrorist to any positive outcome.

So tell me, when was the last IRA bomb in the UK ? when was the last time a soldier was shot in Northern Ireland ?, they haven't stopped because we battered the IRA into submission, they've stopped because we sat down and talked, so there's your positive outcome, and if you've never seen or heard about that you don't watch the news, or don't know there's a big old world out there. [/QUOTE]But who were the terrorists in this case? The Unionists or the Republicans?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by promethius9594: quote: Originally posted by Donut: Only in America? You need to get out more mate!

yes, because im sure the american justice system applies ALOT of places outside of the united states. um, you should probably get out more if you think the french or the brittish send their citizens to american courts for trial. [/QUOTE]Perhaps you shuld get out more and read up on the case of DAVID HICKS.

[Yorick]

Let me give you an incentive.

Hicks is an Australian citizen, who - despite Australias "innocent until guilty" policy that we inherited from the BRITISH legal system (not American) - is being held by the Americans and is regarded as guilty unless proven innocent, as he has been held for TWO YEARS without a trial by AMERICA.

So much for American justice. No trial seems imminent either.