So, in case you haven't been following the news, here's three links for ya.

British soldiers killed innocent Iraqis
So did the Americans! Well, at least were abusive to them.
And so the retaliation happens.

What follows is a rant, mostly distilled from my LJ as of late.

I'm not sure who to be more angry with. American soldiers for the horrors of Abu Ghraib or these five extremists for doing this. Doesn't either side realize that darkness bred in darkness gives forth darkness?

This cycle of violence must end, and this is only going to perpetuate American anger. Which, in turn, will perpetuate violence against Iraqis. Which will, in turn, perpetuate more vengeance strikes by extremists.

"The dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls."

For crying out loud. Do you really think this redeemed them? Leave redemption and justice to Allah.

It doesn't surprise me that what happened at Abu Ghraib, happened. People who join the army generally aren't pacifists. Not that they're "bad" people, but it wouldn't surpise me if there is a tendancy among soldiers to be unnecessarily violent. If it hasn't already been done, someone should perform a psychological profile on those people who are attracted to a life in the armed forces.

There are good people in the army, I don't deny that. I personally know peace-loving individuals who are proud members of the Armed Forces who do their job to promote peace and security in the world.

Apparently not those at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq. These abuses are a complete and total violation of human rights and the Geneva Convention.

In an interview last December, General Karpinski, who was in charge of running the jails, said that, for many of the Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib, "living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to leave."

A month later, Karpinski was quietly suspended from her duties and an investigation was launched into the tremendous human rights abuses that were taking place at the prison.

Reports of "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; . . . sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."

We now have the photographs. We can see the soldiers giving thumbs up signs to the camera as the naked prisoners are forced to masturbate, or pile on top of each other in mock orgies. We can see male prisoners being posed to appear to perform oral sex on each other. Humiliation, especially to Muslim men in the Arabic world. Forced sexual acts. Rape.

These are war crimes.

At one point, Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. The reply? "Don’t worry about it."

Of course Bush and the American government are quick to put up a front. The actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the military as a whole. Bullshit, I say. The reports show collective wrongdoing and failure of army leadership at the highest levels.

Besides which, shouldn't soldiers be aware of the Geneva Convention?

Shouldn't they be made to comply to it?

American and British soldiers commited human rights abuses and no one stopped them. It should be of primary importance to the world that the leaders of the armed forces enforce human rights and the Geneva Convention. I'm sure that none of the generals "were aware of what was going on." Well, maybe they should have been. Ignorance does not excuse this abuse.

It would be wonderful if events like this could trigger something. Some notion of sanity in the spreading neoconservatism. But American Foreign Policy will hold strong, and abuses like these will continue.

The occupation of Iraq becomes more and more like Vietnam with every news report.

This isn't new, none of it is. In Vietnam, "double veteran" was slang for a US soldier who had raped and then killed a civilian woman. Army culture is both racist and reactionary, and things go horribly wrong when a force is occupying territory - even though the people of Iraq are largely not hostile to the occupiers, at least from what I have heard.

It is my hope that every soldier, British or American, that was involved in these horrific abuses will face military trial. It is for this kind of crime that firing squads are maintained.

hoho ... yay! ... go tiger! ... go commie! ...

This isnt spam. Its a vote in favour of what has been said. I couldnt possibly put it better myself ...

I don't think you're going to get much disagreement here. Fancy re-framing the thread with a question so's we can get a debate going? Friendly suggestion.

Aw, but I'm sure some of our friendly neighbourhood, erm, conservatives would like to comment.

Well, maybe not, since a lot of them seem to have vanished bye bye.

Um, it was more of a rant than anything... so, how about...

What are your feelings on the retaliation move by the extremists who decapitated the American hostage? Will this spark more American intolerance?

Discuss. Er, something.

I fear it will only give Americans more "right" to kill and abuse prisoners. A false right, of course. Eye for an eye is barbaric in a bad way. Violence to violence...everyone's going to end up dead. We are doing no good by harming Iraqis. There is no excuse for what was done, or any acts of violence in the future. Well, it is a war. And the tone seems to be set that violence has to credit more violence. So that is the way I think it will be until we find another way. But it really sickens me to wake up and know I live in a country that did such a thing, that ever did such a thing, that will do such things. Personally if you are going to wage a war (which is clearly not the answer anyway) leave it to your armies. I hate it when it's taken out on citizens. They will try to put limits on war *coughcoughGENEVAFRICKINCONVENTIONcoughcough* but there's nothing stopping people from breaking them.

Hrm. Well... I sort of think that most of this *should* have been forseen. Abu Ghraib was a travesty. As was the beheading of the American. I don't know. As soon as I heard about Abu Ghraib, I remember thinking that it was going to spark off some other atrocity. This was one time I wish I wasn't right. I don't know if this cycle of violence can or will be stopped. I hope it will be. But I don't have much faith in people during a war.

I've met a man who worked on another part of the prison, I'll try to get his story out of the paper soon.

A man from my hometown, which is very small, was killed recently protecting American engineers who were re-building power lines I think.

His father has put some of the blame on The Daily Mirror for obvious reasons.

i dont see why evryone is so upset about the torture and the beheding. this is war bad things will hapen. where is teh public outcry for all the iraq soldiers who wer killed by british and american troops? whatever happend to the good old days with th kgb?

The soldiers were in the armed forces during wartime. Their deaths are regrettable, yes, particularly to those who - like me - opposed the war, but nevertheless they were soldiers. They knew they could die.

The prisoners were just that - civilians. Their basic human rights were being violated in a way that the rights of the soldiers were not. The soldiers were killed in battle, while doing their best to kill the other side. The prisoners were helpless and tortured.

Eeeuuurrrgghhh. A guy just posted this on some other forums I go to:



I haven't seen anything about that on the news...but granted, I haven't turned on my TV today. The guy who posted it is a very reliable source, however. Still, has anyone else heard this other than him?

This whole mess is becoming more and more like Vietnam. Apparently we learned absolutely nothing from that whole thing. The words "Mai Lai" keep flashing in my head. =/

ya know, we should just go ahead and fir our nukes at russia and noth korea. then everyone all fires their missiles and we blow up teh world. were just delaying the inevtable anyway

Because destroying ourselves is the best way to solve a problem? I'm sure you're joking, but I just think it's rather... well, nevermind. And why Russia, by the way?

because they're clearly communist and evil, thought everyone knew that

russia's no threat, you should have seen their eurovision entry, and i thought ours was bad

So true... We should never have tortured them, that goes against the Genevia convention. We should have shot them on site. That doesn't. And that's my non-conservative, non-liberal, non-moderate take on the damned thing. I don't like Bush, I don't like any politician. I don't care for war but then, I don't like people who go around killing other people because some holy bullshit book tells them they have a right to do it. That includes Christians, Jews and Muslims in one big ol' lump. Anyone who practices any of the major religions should just be taken out and shot in the head. Yeah, that's it. That'd work. Hmm, well, we'd have an awfully peaceful planet if that happened though wouldn't we? Think about all the wars and murders that have happened in history. Most of them have some connection to one of the major religions.

Personally, I don't think putting Islamics on leashes is a good idea. You don't take a rabid dog for a walk you just put it to sleep.

If there was a possibility that the prisoners in Abu Grahib were actually Bathists, Insurgents, radical Shias or Foreign Fighters linked to Al Quaeda - then they need to be put into detention, if they surrender.

However, most of the prisoners were simply arrested on suspicion of being hostile to US / Coalition troops, Iraqi Police or the Provisional Authority.

As such there is a strong likelihood that some or all of them could be innocent.

Certainly not the rabid dogs that need to be put to sleep, but potentially innocent men and women who must have their rights observed and respected.
________________

Just killing them outright, would also be contrary to the Genieva Conventions. These people were often arrested at night, dragged from their homes or just picked up off the streets. Murdering unnarmed civilians (even unarmed uniformed combatants) in cold blood is despicable and against both US military and International Law. The Genieva Convention specifically prohibits the killing of civilians, and seriously limits the killing of unarmed soldiers.
________________

None of the main religious books actually instructs their devotees and followers to go out and murder others. The Koran specifies that Muslims should only take a life in self defence (including the defence of other innocents and in limited cases ones country). When you see the hordes of loonies running around chanting that God or Allah has told them to kill the non-believers - you are not looking at religious people... you are observing a pack of easily led often brainwashed, blood thirsty cretins, who should be re-educated or put down in a humane manner. And that includes Christians (like some of the far right supremists in Europe, Africa and America), Jews (like the nutter who murdered Pres. Rabbin), Hindus (like the RIS), Buddhists (like the Burmese extremists) and Muslims (like Al Quaeda and friends).

...


...


...



Aye, but wouldn't annhilating religious believers single handedly be killing more people than any religion has ever cost humanity? Easily. Why? Because we're talking about 3-4 billion people. Where as, if we shot all those bloodthirsty would-be tyrants, who would have people executed on any whim, well, there would be markedly less killing and a great deal more good done for humanity... and yes, I am referring to you, Cthulhu. Why don't we? Because we're objective and benign enough to hope that people like you never get into power, rather than simply quashing any chance of it in the first place.

Yes, we'd kill off 3-4 billion people, but don't you see, that's the beauty of it. All the resources available afterwards. And if we converted to cannibalism, well darnit, no hunger either. It's a beautiful plan. If only I could convince you to follow me. Ok, look into my eyes... No, the other eyes, no no, a little higher... Yes, there, those eyes.

Conform... Consume Humans... Obey!

Mr. Cthulhuburger

I just read this now and...

EXCUSE ME?

First off, they are called Muslims, not Islamics. Islam is a religion, the word means "To Surrender [to the Will of God]."

Muslim means "One Who Surrenders [to the Will of God]."

I can't believe you just insulted 1 billion people on the face of the earth.

"If anyone harms (others), God will harm him, and if anyone shows hostility to others, God will show hostility to him." Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith 1625

(EDIT: On second thought, if you're not referring to the people, but rather to an Islamic nation state, you can use the term Islamic. But "Islamics" as referring to a group of people is never used. So I concede this may be more of a grammar issue than anything else.)