Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

After what the US Gov have cliamed that they are going to investigate about the torturing in Abu Ghraib Jail in Iraq. and telling the nations that the soldiers who have been involved in this will be taken to court.. the Australian TV reveals the new pictures of theprisoners tortueing in jails.


Do you still believe that this is a personal action of the soldires, if yes.. what kind of Amry is this?!!! they dont know whats happening in their own jails by their own ppl... by their own soldiers!!!!!



the media braodcasted a news yesterday about the US soldiers using the personiers children in interegations to pressurise them and make them confess about things they never did.... what kind of people are those...


ENOUGH EXCUSES PEOPLE.... ENOUGH




My Question is: how would u feel if this man or women.. is ur friend or relative?!

My God Curse the American vermin, their infidel backers, and their Jewish puppet masters.

I spit on all these governments and those who back them. Damn them to the deepest depths of the deepest level of Hell. May they spend their eternity under the shadow of Satan himself. May Satan haunt their nights until their death, painful I hope, and possess their already decrepit damned souls.

Those pictures are terrible! I feel angry that those men have been abused.

Army personnel from every country are trained to be violent killers. Then their governments wonder why they have these kinds of problems when their army personnel are on missions in various countries? There have been torture and abuse scandals in all conflict zones by various different militaries.

Along with the understandable revulsion at these photos, I also am shocked at the sheer stupidity of the soldiers who thought it was a good idea to take photos as momentos of their handiwork.

That is the scary part - the photos show they didn't think it was wrong and cleary showed how far they are from being humane.

It will take a long time before the US troops (or occupying forces) regain any semblance of a moral authority in Iraq.

Shafique

there are devils in disguise everywhere.

The intelligence of these animals is shown in the 2nd pic down.

Sadly they have branded the guy a rapist as written on his thigh............pity they dont have the brains and intelligence to spell it properly!!

Is the American army mostly made up of, not men who want to solely defend their country but men who have no qualifications and its a last resort for them...........

Answers on a post card pls!!

I would like to ask the Western Media & Custodians of Freedom Of Expression that Geneva Convention Laws are to be followed only by the Third World countries and they will meekly defend the actions of the only Dictotorial Power of World

SheikhaS wrote:The intelligence of these animals is shown in the 2nd pic down.

Sadly they have branded the guy a rapist as written on his thigh............pity they dont have the brains and intelligence to spell it properly!!

Is the American army mostly made up of, not men who want to solely defend their country but men who have no qualifications and its a last resort for them...........

Answers on a post card pls!!

Unfortunately you have hit the nail on the head - Yes, many recruits in the army are from deprived areas and have no other choice but to go into the forces. The U.S. had major recruitment problems and people from run down poor areas are easy targets as they have no other choice. So they get trained up, become yes sir, no sir guys - bearing in mind many are just out of their teens, and they know no different.

shafique wrote:Along with the understandable revulsion at these photos, I also am shocked at the sheer stupidity of the soldiers who thought it was a good idea to take photos as momentos of their handiwork.

That is the scary part - the photos show they didn't think it was wrong and cleary showed how far they are from being humane.

It will take a long time before the US troops (or occupying forces) regain any semblance of a moral authority in Iraq.

Shafique

Shaf, This also brings up the point, that these sorts of things have always gone on during wars - why are people so surprised to hear about or see it? While it's no justification and what is being done is truly horrific, the advances in technology - digital cameras, small videos cameras are the only reason people now know about this stuff, and anyone who thinks this is all new is totally naive.

It's happened in both the world wars and the first gulf war, tales of torture on 'BOTH' sides.

But as you said, yes the guys doing it are dumb, to take pictures and then think someone will not blow the whistle is just silly.

Choc - war is ugly, no doubt. However, we have the Geneva conventions (which the US flouts with Guantanamo Bay).

What makes this conflict a little different is that many think it was illegal and unnecessary and that the US and allied forces went in under a banner of 'liberation' and freedom.

Some liberation, some freedom.

Cheers,
Shafique

I agree with you Shaf, but also in the first Gulf war do you think Saddam kept to the Geneva Convention and how to treat prisoners of war - certainly not.

As you said, war is an ugly business, it's up close, violent and horrific, unless you're in that situation no one can know what it's really like. But certainly the things that are happening are unacceptable and something needs to be done about it.

I dont see Americans i see Nazis, or both in that matter. America is very advanced nation in tech but in humanity i wont comment. Dont worry What goes around comes around. America will pay for all its actions in one way or another. Nothing lasts forever.

Shaf

I hate to challenge your thoughts and opinions.

When you quote things like the Geneva Convention, you or anyone else should try to put this in context, and created a balanced discussion.

Yes i think it is disgraceful that people are treated like that, but when you bring in things like the GC into the frame, and to back up the comments made by Chocco, you have to ask yourself what right did those 000's of muslims have, that got gassed with chem weapons in Nothern Iraq.

I didnt see the rest of the world including the Muslim world, coming to their rescue. OK, i agree the war was iffy in terms of the reasons they "went in".

Everyone seems to want focus on "the war" and the US and their crappy reasons in particular (ie weapons of MD). I dont recall anyone defending the murder,torture and massacre's of 000's of innocent good people that existed in Iraq prior to the invasion.

(sorry to be vague about my reference to other muslims, i dont know enough about the different types ie Sunni etc)

Arniegang,

I used to work with Kurds in the late 80s and 90s when they were being oppressed in Iraq and Saddam was being armed by the West. I have no love lost for Saddam.

That said, I'm not sure I get your point - Saddam was bad, agreed. He killed many people, again agreed. In fact he got the gas he used against the Kurds from the west.

Iraq was supported by the US in the Iran-Iraq war. I did not hear the US object when Saddam gassed the Iranians - the gas was again supplied by the west.

The WHO said that sanctions against Iraq before the invasion killed over 500,000 Iraqi children under 5. The US and Britain have chosen not to even count the number of Iraqi's killed in and since the war.

You say you are challenging my opinion and thoughts - my opinions and thoughts are that Iraq is hardly any better off than before the invasion and as far as I can tell, the only progress that has been made since the invasion is that the oil is under US control. The Kurds in the north enjoy as much freedom as before the invasion, the Shias in the south happen to be in power, but are in the throes of an awful civil war with many thousands being killed each year - so not much better off...

The hundreds of thousands that have been killed are certainly not better off.

Which of these opinions is being challenged?

If we are really concerned about human right's abuses by those in power, then we should invade Zimbabwe and North Korea - don't you agree?

My other opinion and thought is that these pictures portray to the world the similarities between the 'liberators' and those who they over-threw. Are you challenging this thought?

Apologies if the above come across as harsh - not meant to be, just trying to clarify which thought/opinion is being challenged.

As always, looking forward to your clarifications..

Wasalaam,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Choc - war is ugly, no doubt. However, we have the Geneva conventions (which the US flouts with Guantanamo Bay).

What makes this conflict a little different is that many think it was illegal and unnecessary and that the US and allied forces went in under a banner of 'liberation' and freedom.

Some liberation, some freedom.

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry on reading back my writing made it unclear. My first objection was with reference to your comparing the Geneva Con with regard to G. Bay.


I think however if you apply your observations fairly, and in reference to say for example the US, one may have to look deeper.

The second was your rather flippant remark "some liberation, some freedom".


However, your reply above has basically addressed some of my thoughts and opinion. It was my opinion theat in what you wrote previously was not a fair and balanced viewpoint.

Its always earier to write and look for the easy target and scapegoat. But as you further correctly clarified there are issues on both sides of the coin.

I believe your initial post in reply to Choc did not achieve this


Going off topic, i found your post re lack of intervention within the arab/muslim world quite interesting.

There is an old saying "its better to have loved and lost, than not loved at all".

This i see has a twisted relevance to the position of the UK and US. Yes i agree about the supply of Chem weapons to Saddams regime etc and its consequenses etc etc.

But at the end of the day rightly or wrongly it is/was our powers that deal with those issue's, this is in contrast and referenced in another thread regarding the Middle East etc, and nothing being done and/or no interevention is given by other friendly nations/states.

The invasion of Kuwait was a prime example.

shafique wrote:
The WHO said that sanctions against Iraq before the invasion killed over 500,000 Iraqi children under 5.

Shaf i consider this sort of example/comment to be a bit of a cheap shot with the greastest of respect.

Western denial at work...

No Liban you are wrong, i dont dispute Shafs' comment or dispute the figures. I merely think it was a cheap shot because of its one sided implication. The statement seeks to aportion blame purely on the basis of the "blockade" authorised by the UN.

I think its unfair within a discussion to slip in singular statements like that without it being within a topic.

It has nothing to do with denial.

It is something that can be discussed.

Shaf i havent addressed all you point for which i apologise.

"My other opinion and thought is that these pictures portray to the world the similarities between the 'liberators' and those who they over-threw. Are you challenging this thought?"


Yes i woulld like to challenge this point if i may. Again i want to make it clear i do not believe there is any justification in any form for the way those young boys were treated, it is disgraceful.

But Shaf, i challenge your thought on the basis that this is not truely representative of the army or troops as a whole". For example we could liken your example to the barbaric scenes shown on our TV transmitted by Al Jazzera of hostages being shot or be-headed.

So in the context of your thought i do not draw similarities between those that do such awful things and the 99.9999% of good muslims, therefore i think your thought is unfair.

Chocoholic wrote:I agree with you Shaf, but also in the first Gulf war do you think Saddam kept to the Geneva Convention and how to treat prisoners of war - certainly not.

Dear Choco... all the prisoners were released by Saddam, no single one complaind about a bad treatment. on Tv they were offered even Tea, Cigys and what ever they wanted.

even those "terroriest ppl", they were very nice to them.. that was the testimony of ALL the ppl who have been released... one of those became a muslim.. she is british .. and staying in Kuwait now..

she was very amazed by the way those ppl treated here while she was captured.

I like these types of debates - I am glad that so far people are reading each other's opinions and no personal insults are being exchanged.

I'd like, however, to justify and clarify what I said in previous posts for Arniegang - so there is no misunderstanding and also to explore where we may have disagreement.

1. Geneva conventions and 'Gitbay/ Camp Delta etc'

This was not meant to be a flippant or cheap shot, but a very serious point. Geneva Conventions cover prisoners of war and their rights. The US did declare war in practice against Afghanistan and Iraq and it is therefore highly facetious to artificially call the inmates 'unlawful combatants' and to house them in Cuba so that US laws cannot apply to them.

The UK government shares my view that this is illegal and immoral. The UN just a few days ago agreed with this view and Kofi Annan reiterated that it should be closed down.

Now, leaving aside the legalities - no one, I mean no one, disagrees that GitBay was set up to get round giving legal rights to the inmates - like any charges against them, access to lawyers etc.

The relevance in my point is that it is linked to the motives for the wars - people can rightly ask why, if the reason for the incursions was 'liberation and return to law', why then is there not rule of law for the people in Guantanamo Bay.

The UN report says that the treatments meted out to the prisoners there amounts to torture - again in breach of the Geneva Conventions.

2. 'Some liberation, some freedom' etc

Arniegang - no where in my posts do I say that the majority of the troops etc condoned or took part in the abuses. I however talk about the fact that these abuses took place and the impression that it gives given the background of all the other killings etc.

The reference to the infants dying is also relevant in my view - as a counter to the 'we went in to liberate the Iraqis' argument.

I was trying to make the point of what good, actual good, has been achieved and whether it has been worth all the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Getting rid of Saddam was great - however I am with Hans Blix and all the other UN weapons inspectors who say that Saddam was not a threat, was not harming his people and was being contained. Given this consistent view at the time and since, the invasion has not helped the Iraqis in any way at all - far more have died as a consequence of the actions than would have died if we had continued to keep Saddam under UN observation (these had actually worked and all WMD had been destroyed, we now know!)

Overall though arnie - the main point that I was making (and perhaps not well) - is that these photos, the presence of Gitbay, the total disregard for counting Iraqi casualties, the fact that all oil is controlled by US companies and not Iraqi companies etc etc make a mockery of the argument that the invasion was to help Iraqis rather than helping US interests.

That is what people think and I do have sympathy for the argument.

Looking back at the aftermath of the invasion, the scenario that sums it up for me is the sight of US troops around the Oil Ministry buildings, not allowing anyone to enter whilst within earshot and sight the Iraqi national museum was being looted.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

The majority of your facts are indisputable Shaf and would be unreasonable for anyone to challenge them.

However, i feel you use other examples to give clarity and underpin those facts, when the issues are at best unrelated, and have a tendancy to portray a slight bias.

Shaf, have you ever run for Parliament ?

Point taken Arnie - and no, I haven't considered running for parliament!

It annoys me when people argue using false analogies, I shall be more careful to link my examples.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

Shaf

I think you need to consider a career in Politics mate.

Intimacy wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:I agree with you Shaf, but also in the first Gulf war do you think Saddam kept to the Geneva Convention and how to treat prisoners of war - certainly not.

Dear Choco... all the prisoners were released by Saddam, no single one complaind about a bad treatment. on Tv they were offered even Tea, Cigys and what ever they wanted.

even those "terroriest ppl", they were very nice to them.. that was the testimony of ALL the ppl who have been released... one of those became a muslim.. she is british .. and staying in Kuwait now..

she was very amazed by the way those ppl treated here while she was captured.

WTF!!!! Are you kidding me! Go and read Bravo Two Zero! The way these guys were treated and abused was horrific!!! Blind folded, beaten to a pulp oin a daily basis in a bid to get intel out of them, forced to lie in stinking excrement and bug ridden cells.

You are truly blind.