Pictures of American Soldiers tortureing Iraq POW's

Here's a link to some of the images, for those who haven't seen them before.

*Warning: nudity, disturbing images of forced sexual acts, etc*

http://www.livejournal.com/users/throwingstardna/513278.html

People say that we shouldn't judge the U.N. by the crimes of individuals within it. I think the same should be done for American troops.

it's so sickening. How degrading! Posing nude in gross sexual positions...fucking 'orrible that! Imagine their gross smell since they were unable to wash and there were no real toilets for them to use. Just awful.

Whether or not we judge the army by these individuals, you can be sure that many angry people in the Middle East will. As if we weren't having enough problems over there already.

I am not judging the army on the actions of individuals, I just don't want people to judge the individuals on the basis that they are American troops so it is OK.
Yes it is shocking and degrading, lets hope these troops are made to pay dearly for both their actions and the bad reflection it puts on all troops ... in some peoples minds.

mikimouse: Strange, I don't recall you being so outraged about the Americans who were burned to death and strung up from bridges for days.

No matter who did it, it is still wrong. Hopefully, those kind of american solders is very rare.

People say that we shouldn't judge the U.N. by the crimes of individuals within it. I think the same should be done for American troops.

Yeah but the trick is, you and other major critics of the UN DO hold the whole UN accountable for the alledged actions of individuals.

That being said, every war has these incidents, it doesn't really matter who's fighting the wars either. We aren't as civilized as we'd like to make ourselves think, which is of course proven best by the fact we go to war in the first place.

We aren't as civilized as we'd like to make ourselves think, which is of course proven best by the fact we go to war in the first place.

How civilized do we make ourselves think "we" are? Who is "we"?

When you speak for "we" do you include yourself? For the record, I'll exclude myself from your "we".

How does war illustrated that our concept of the amount "we" are civilized is inaccurate?

VES

How civilized do we make ourselves think "we" are? Who is "we"? When you speak for "we" do you include yourself? For the record, I'll exclude myself from your "we". How does war illustrated that our concept of the amount "we" are civilized is inaccurate?

Dear Ves,

Let me accommodate you by addressing your questions in a structured fashion:

- With "we" I was referring to the inhabitants of "our" "civilized" "western" world.

- Yes, I live in one of those countries so that makes me a part of it. I ususally like to attach a dissident-disclaimer though.

- How strange, you exclude yourself after admitting you don't know who "we" are. Is that your common way of thinking or did you save this gem for just this special occasion?

- It is my opinion that going to war, in other words bringing out the guns & bombs to kill a lot of people "we" don't agree with, is not very civilized. I'm a bit weird that way. Obviously, as you are not like "me", you're quite fond of it so I don't imagine you'd understand, but I feel there's a painful discrepancy between all those great words from "our" leaders, assuring us we are all striving for this better world full of freedom and democracy and happiness for all and their pets, while at the same time bombing some poor fucks in the Middle East to the ground.

I've seen these pictures all over the place.  Does anyone know who took them?  I wasn't able to find the originating site.  It almost makes me believe that this is some type of stunt.  It wouldn't be hard to do, since you can't prove that these people are Iraqi's or US soldiers.  All the "Iraqi's" have bags on their heads.  This is very much different than how we treated POW in the Gulf War, why?

60 minutes seemed to think they were real...Don't know if that's good enough for you, but here it is

Link

Corio, thank you, that was what I was looking for.  All the sites keep distributing the pictures with their own take on the story, but don't point back to the source.  I'm a bit too cynical to blindly believe what I see with out credentials behind it.

Mr. Dela Crappe,

How strange, you exclude yourself after admitting you don't know who "we" are. Is that your common way of thinking or did you save this gem for just this special occasion?

Not strange at all. You see, when one person claims to be speaking of or for many people, they often have many people who don't agree with their thinking or opinion. See, while you may be speaking for yourself, unless you have a mouse in your pocket it's kind of difficult for you to speak on the "we" behalf. Therefore, it didn't matter what your opinion of "we" was, you weren't speaking for me or my thinking.

Secondly, I'll simply state war in defense as well as war to "impose" liberty is quite civilized when dealing with a corrupt, brutal, barbaric government. That is because liberty is NOT an imposition. The fact that you simplify the purpose of the conflict as simply "people we don't agree with" is indicative of exactly why you can't speak for people other than yourself, or about which acts of war are civilized or not.

Lastly, you left the first question unanswered. I assume this is because again, it's impossible for "you" to quantify exactly how civilized "we" make ourselves think we are.

You'll note throughout that I spoke for myself rather than inclusive of other folks who don't agree with me. I know their are other folks, but I let them speak for themselves, and I don't lump them all into a "we" category because they don't all fit.

VES

KarmaGirl: No problem. Good for you, when it comes to politics we should all be a little cynical.

Actually, I'm a bit cynical about all photos.  Today's technology makes it a bit too easy to edit photos, or make them look like something they are not.  I also prefer to see views from different sources before making my mind up about political events.  Every report is biased, so you really need to see different points of view.

Well, supposedly, that's what's happening with pictures of UK soldiers abusing Iraqis. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.photos/index.html

Yeah, the Mirror is a pretty sketchy paper. They also were hyping up the non-existent Kerry intern scandal a few months ago.

Hello again Ves!

Let me go back to what we (that's you and me baby) started with:

That being said, every war has these incidents, it doesn't really matter who's fighting the wars either. We aren't as civilized as we'd like to make ourselves think, which is of course proven best by the fact we go to war in the first place.

Now guess what. I agree that it is very irritating when people use "we" in an argument in which there are distinctly different sides and where claiming everybody agreeing with you is out of order. However, there are instances in which "we" seems to be a perfectly acceptable word, for example like in "we are all members of the human race". Of course, you can rigidly hang on to your ban on the "we" word, however I think a very vast majority of people will concur with the statement, it's not really an item for discussion.

If you check the above statement, I use "we" in two cases:

Case 1: We aren't as civilized as we'd like to make ourselves think.
Let's face it; the vast majority of the people posting here are from the US and Europe, with only very few exceptions. Now to get myself into hot water; I think a vast majority also consider these parts of the world to be civilized. Now I might be wrong, from your wish to be excluded from this "we" I gather that you do not think of these countries as civilized at all, which by the way kinda clashes with your later statements.

Case 2: Which is of course proven best by the fact we go to war in the first place.
Again a generalisation? How many people here are NOT from a country that has been in a war recently? I am from Holland, we have troops in Iraq, we have some in Afganistan, we have had plenty in Bosnia and just about every hotspot of the past years.

Lastly, you left the first question unanswered. I assume this is because again, it's impossible for "you" to quantify exactly how civilized "we" make ourselves think we are.

Yep, quite impossible to quantify indeed. Just as it is impossible to quantify "democracy", "freedom", "happiness" and whatever. I join you in a pact to never ever again say that "we" want these things, ok?

As the great philosopher once said, War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. And he's The Boss, you listen to him.

Mr. Dela Crappe,

Now guess what. I agree that it is very irritating when people use "we" in an argument in which there are distinctly different sides and where claiming everybody agreeing with you is out of order. However, there are instances in which "we" seems to be a perfectly acceptable word, for example like in "we are all members of the human race". Of course, you can rigidly hang on to your ban on the "we" word, however I think a very vast majority of people will concur with the statement, it's not really an item for discussion.

Yes, I will "rigidly" hang on to my ban, but I think your missing the context. I'm not saying that I'm not a member of the western world (nor would I say I'm not a member of the human race). That was NOT the context. I excluded myself in a more specific context which was, I'm not a member of the western world who is deluded about how civilized I am. As you can see, there is a difference. Context is everything.

Case 1: We aren't as civilized as we'd like to make ourselves think. Let's face it; the vast majority of the people posting here are from the US and Europe, with only very few exceptions. Now to get myself into hot water; I think a vast majority also consider these parts of the world to be civilized. Now I might be wrong, from your wish to be excluded from this "we" I gather that you do not think of these countries as civilized at all, which by the way kinda clashes with your later statements.

Yes, you are erroneous. I think the US and Europe (many countries) ARE civilized. Again, your premise addressed being deluded about HOW civilized "we" were, not are "we" or are "we" not civilized as an absolute.

Case 2: Which is of course proven best by the fact we go to war in the first place. Again a generalisation? How many people here are NOT from a country that has been in a war recently? I am from Holland, we have troops in Iraq, we have some in Afganistan, we have had plenty in Bosnia and just about every hotspot of the past years.

Your premise here appears to be that if a nation goes to war, then said nation is uncivilized if it is to fit into the context of your "Case 1" (again skipping quantity (not to mention reasons) and making it an absolute which is again inconsistent in context of the statement taken in it's whole original form. And this is probably where I largely disagree with you. The act of going to war (in general) does not in my mind make one uncivilized. The reason is ever so important. If you are familiar with Ayn Rand, I'm referring to the concepts of the initiator of force and the response to force. Those are topics unto themselves, the finer details of which you will have to read Rand to learn (if you were so inclined) as I'm not going to give an Objectivism lesson here ( partly due to how lengthy that would be, and partly due to qualifications). However, I will point you in the direction a couple of links that address that to which I refer:

http://www.wetheliving.com/pipermail/losangeles/2003-March/000513.html

http://www.ios.org/special/war-civ.asp

Obviously you are free to peruse and / or reject these ideas altogether.

Yep, quite impossible to quantify indeed. Just as it is impossible to quantify "democracy", "freedom", "happiness" and whatever. I join you in a pact to never ever again say that "we" want these things, ok?

Huh? Your first sentence addresses partially why I challenged your statement and usage of the word "we". In clarifying that, it invalidates the your original statement to which I took exception. Since you are saying you can't quantify a value of how civilized we are, it cannot be compared to the value at which "we" perceive ourselves, hence the delusion to which you referred. Your last sentence in the above quote is non-sequitor.

As the great philosopher once said, War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. And he's The Boss, you listen to him.

Sorry, I dont consider the musical group War to be great philosophers. Your mileage may very. The quote you use indicates that they didn't think much about what they were saying, thinking being quite an essential task for a philosopher or group of philosophers as it were.

VES

Sorry, I dont consider the musical group War to be great philosophers. Your mileage may very. The quote you use indicates that they didn't think much about what they were saying, thinking being quite an essential task for a philosopher or group of philosophers as it were.

The musical group War, that one cracked me up. I'm pretty sure that's one description that has never been used for Bruce Springsteen before.

What amuses me a lot more though is the fact that you are going ballistic about something that is completely besides the point. I'll not get into another sentence-by-sentence debate here about the use of the word "we", they are lengthy and frankly quite boring, I'll instead concentrate fully on what my post was actually about:

It is my opinion that going to war is an uncivilized act. I know this too absolute for you, I suggest you'll either live with it or disagree. I am familiar with Rand, and you are welcome to agree with him, I however like to make up my mind about these things based on my own feelings and beliefs. Please bear in mind that I am talking about GOING to war. Defending yourself is a different issue. For me, chosing to go out to kill people is not a civilized actn ot for an individual, not for a nation. Is it necessary sometimes? No. There are wars because there are wars. Wars cause wars.

Zooming in on the matter at hand; Saddam had never attacked or even attempted to attack the US. This is not a case of selfdefense. The White House has done it's best to spin it into something like selfdefense of course, dragging it into the "war on terror" and calling it a pre-emptive war, but reality is really simple. America saw a situation, didn't like it, decided it wanted to change it and chose violence and killing people as the means to do so. In all its' basics, it isn't any more civilized than Hitler blitzing Poland, Napoleon marching on Russia or the Romans conquering Europe. Even the rethoric surrounding the wars haven't changed; it's tough now but once we have won, we'll be a lot better of.

Now, feel free to disagree, feel free to call me naive and impractical. As Jeb said in another thread, there is no such thing as a good war, I'll stand by that.

Mr. Dela Crappe,

The musical group War, that one cracked me up. I

I stand corrected on mistaking the origin of the song. I still however disagree that even "The Boss" is a great philosopher.

What amuses me a lot more though is the fact that you are going ballistic

What fact demonstrates that I'm going ballistic about anything here? I'm challenging a statement you made by use of logic and reason RATHER than emotion, and you call that going ballistic? I think not. I haven't cursed, I haven't called you names and I haven't attacked YOU, I challenged something you said, plain and simple. I think you appear to be overly sensitive in that regard.

It is my opinion that going to war is an uncivilized act. I know this too absolute for you, I suggest you'll either live with it or disagree.

I know, that's why I disagreed with your use of the word "we" in your statements. It's YOUR opinion. And please don't be offended if I don't limit myself to your choice of my options. I decide what my options are.

I am familiar with Rand, and you are welcome to agree with him,

Ayn Rand was female. Ms. Ayn Rand.

however like to make up my mind about these things based on my own feelings and beliefs.

And I suspect that's where we differ greatly. I use reason and reality on which to base decisions, to the greatest extent at which I am capable. You use "feelings and beliefs".

Please bear in mind that I am talking about GOING to war. Defending yourself is a different issue.

That's called changing the context. You original statement does not make the distinction. Context is ever so important, which is why it's important to realize that when you state absolutes. Incidentally, defending yourself can involve "GOING to war". So, if I understand you correctly, using war to defend yourself is not uncivilized, correct? Or is it civilized not to use war, and allow others to walk over you?

Saddam had never attacked or even attempted to attack the US. This is not a case of selfdefense. The White House has done it's best to spin it into something like selfdefense of course, dragging it into the "war on terror" and calling it a pre-emptive war, but reality is really simple. America saw a situation, didn't like it, decided it wanted to change it and chose violence and killing people as the means to do so. In all its' basics, it isn't any more civilized than Hitler blitzing Poland, Napoleon marching on Russia or the Romans conquering Europe. Even the rethoric surrounding the wars haven't changed; it's tough now but once we have won, we'll be a lot better of.

You can ignore the history of Saddam, Irag, and why we went there the first time, but despite how the war was sold (which for one, I don't agree it should have to be "sold" and two Bush hasn't done a bang up job trying to sell it), there were solid REASONS for finishing what we started the first time around. I don't view this as the start of a new war, I view it as the continuation of the previous war because Saddam failed (and miserably so) to abide by the sanctions placed upon him which stopped us from fighting previously. Saddam DID kill his own people, he DID started killing his neighbors, was either acquiring/developing or trying to acquire/develop WMD's for the expressed purpose of killing more people and threatening us, and up until his capture, he was NOT been able to be held accountable for that activity. A simple principle of defense is that you don't necessarily have to wait until the punch is thrown before you take action. All you have to look at is intent and potential capability. Feel free to disagree with history and / or it's use as justification for the action taken. I think the links I left last time offer a better overall explanation than I afford, but there is no need to repost them.

Now, feel free to disagree, feel free to call me naive and impractical. As Jeb said in another thread, there is no such thing as a good war, I'll stand by that.

I'm not going to call you anything. Is it your suggestion that I would resort to an ad hominen attack for some reason? And my disagreement won't be based on feeling.

What I will say is that you yourself admit that you decide things based on "feelings and beliefs" when reasoning is the cognitive ability upon which decisions should be made. Are your beliefs also founded on your feelings? I suspect I'm taking your words too literally, and that you do include some level of logic in your decision making and belief formation. The question then would be are your emotions overruling your logic and reasoning ability at some point. That's rhetorical, I'm not asking for a response. And Jeb can express his opinion that there is no good war if he wants. That matters naught to me.

If I put some smiley at the end of this will you feel this is less "ballistic"?

VES

What I will say is that you yourself admit that you decide things based on "feelings and beliefs" when reasoning is the cognitive ability upon which decisions should be made. Are your beliefs also founded on your feelings? I suspect I'm taking your words too literally, and that you do include some level of logic in your decision making and belief formation. The question then would be are your emotions overruling your logic and reasoning ability at some point. That's rhetorical, I'm not asking for a response. And Jeb can express his opinion that there is no good war if he wants. That matters naught to me. If I put some smiley at the end of this will you feel this is less "ballistic"?

Hehehe, the "ballistic" was merely pointing to the enormous effort you seemed to put in your very lenghty responses to my rather short statement, not to the use of bad language or anything. So I could now easily say you went ballistic over my use of the word ballistic but I'll try to resist

As for my decisionmaking process, rest assured that I am hardly some testosterone-driven bag of emotions. Frankly, I like to think I am basing my beliefs solidly on reasoning, even if this sometimes clashes with emotional arguments. Abortion is a great example, as a father I have an emotional problem with it but it is my belief that it is a woman's choice to make. But really, I think you are kidding yourself when you claim to base yourself only on logic and reasoning. You don't exist in a vacuum and you are (I presume) not from the planet Vulcan, emotions always play a part, as do beliefs and morals instilled in your childhood for example. Like you I try not to let them rule my decisions, but they do play a part. How else is it possible for so many highly educated and intelligent people to disagree on just about everything happening in the world?

My emotions tell me to quit now because you have offended The Boss and you just don't deserve my respons, however logic dictates that my referring to him as The Great Philosopher was just a poor attempt at irony so I will just add one more paragraph.

That's called changing the context. You original statement does not make the distinction. Context is ever so important, which is why it's important to realize that when you state absolutes. Incidentally, defending yourself can involve "GOING to war". So, if I understand you correctly, using war to defend yourself is not uncivilized, correct? Or is it civilized not to use war, and allow others to walk over you?

Here is what I said: " We aren't as civilized as we'd like to make ourselves think, which is of course proven best by the fact we go to war in the first place." Not a lot of context there I'm afraid, I meant what I said; I don't think going to war is civilized. I didn't touch the subjects of selfdefense or anything else in that sentence.

Let's not get into a debate about what defines a war. When someone invades my country, he is bringing war to me, is me defending myself making war as well? I guess. For me, it's not about war, it's about going to war. You feel pre-emptive wars are selfdefense and therefore ok? Well, not in my book. There are ways, better yet there should be ways instead of war to prevent war. For me, it's the same lunacy as with capital punishment: "You killed someone, that is very very bad so as punishment, we kill you". Now I don't doubt that there's many people out there, perhaps even yourslef, who will say this is an excellent example of supreme logic, I however fail to see it.

I won't get into a debate about the "reasons" for the invasion of Iraq with you, let's agree to disagree here as there's many more better suited blogs for that topic.

Now I know, I added more than one paragraph, please, don't go ballistic over it.

Mr. Dela Crappe,

"ballistic"

The normal use of the idiom "ballistic" implies anger and irrationality. Since you have a unique usage of the word, it's probably best you define it when you use so as to avoid this confusion again.

But really, I think you are kidding yourself when you claim to base yourself only on logic and reasoning.

Your free to think what you like, but you have to understand that unless you base that on something you can prove, you will oft be wrong. For instance, you didn't even include the entirety of my statement which was: I use reason and reality on which to base decisions, to the greatest extent at which I am capable. This is an acknowledge that sometimes feelings may be a part, but I have learned to analyze what those feeling are, and whether they are rationally based. I can only guess it served some purpose for you to take what I said out of the context in which I said it by not looking at the whole statement.

Let's not get into a debate about what defines a war.

Why then are you telling me what "war" is to you, if you aren't inviting response? If you open the door, you open the opportunity to debate it. You can't just expect to get you statement out and while telling the other person don't debate with me.

All of this is however irrelevant at this point. You have already admitted you can't quantify the concept of being civilized which alone invalidated your original statement.

VES