Over here http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ you can read a blog from an Iraqi woman. It's interesting, especially, to read some of the earlier posts and see how it's changed.
Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :
I remember hearing something about that on another website...thanks for the link, Ace, I gotta check it out.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can- while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We�ll take our chances- just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.
Ouch.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
"Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can- while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We�ll take our chances- just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go."
Pity nobody could say this to the previous occupant.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or the future one, if we leave, as she suggests.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Pity nobody could say this to the previous occupant."
Pity that now that the Iraqis CAN say what they think, they're saying the same things they thought about said previous occupant, too.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well look at their source of "news". Al Jezerra is a whole lot more propaganda than even the old Soviet Union stations (from what I've seen at least).
Media plays a huge role in what they think of the war as well.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Except they have a second source that plays an even greater role: the streets.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The previous occupant's mass media didn't flood the papers/airwaves with every bad thing he did and every person he tormented.
If they had, they would have needed a 24-hr. "All Torture Network." (With Actual Death!)
Fortunately, they now have the Western Media Fifth Column - er, Fourth Estate - to do this for them.
Of course, this is the same media which admitted to intentionally not telling news stories about said occupant. The News We Kept To Ourselves
quote:Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.
Now that's "prisoner abuse."
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Except they have a second source that plays an even greater role: the streets.
Y'ever notice that the "Arab street" are all a bunch of peace-loving people who just want to go about their business, as long as you're talking about what the American opinion of them should be, but then they suddenly they become this dangerous, threatening, monolithic hostile force when people start talking about their own opinion?
Curious.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:My uncle had some unusual sense of humor that didn�t fit quite well in his somewhat religious family. He winked at me and turned to his son and asked him "What do you think of the Americans?" His son answered, "They are occupiers". "So you think we should fight them?" his father asked. Ibrahim said "No, but I don�t like them". My uncle said, pretending to change the subject "Do you like your new computer that no one shares with you?" "Yes of course dad". "Ok, are you satisfied with the satellite dish receiver we have or do you need a better one?" "This one is fine but I heard there�s a better one that gets more channels" "ok I�ll get you that next week". Then he said, "Is there anything else you�d like to have son?" "No dad I have all that I need". "Ok but how about a car?" Ibrahim was astounded and said "Really? a..a CAR.. for me!?". "Of course for you! I�m too old to drive now and my eyes are not that well and you are the older son. So whom else would it be for!?" "Oh, dad that will be great! When will that happen?" "Just finish you�re exams and you�ll have it". "I will dad". "Are you happy now son?" "Yes dad, sure I am!" "Then why do you hate the Americans you son of a b***h!? I couldn�t get you a bicycle a year ago, I could hardly feed you and your brothers and sisters. You didn�t know what an apple or a banana tasted like, I couldn�t buy you a damned Pepsi bottle except in occasions, and now you can have all that you wish, and a car of your own! Who do you think made that possible!?"
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Somehow, that does'nt read like an actual blog from anywhere except mabye the Rush Limbaugh show.
What's the source?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The source is the link at the top of the quote.
The gentleman, Ali, is apparently a doctor.
quote:Now I know this is still a very low figure compared to what doctors get in other countries, but look at the pace of the raises; 120, 150, 200, 300 all in one year! I mean it�s spooky. What will it be the next year, 500$? And what about 3 or 4 years from now? A thousand or can I dare and say few thousand dollars? Will we get more than what the Syrian, Egyptian Iranian and even Saudi doctors!? What a disaster will it be to the mullahs of Iran, Bashar Al-Assad and the king of Saudi Arabia?
He gives his and another doctor's impressions of the Abu Gharaib events on the May 8th entry.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The previous occupant's mass media didn't flood the papers/airwaves with every bad thing he did and every person he tormented.
It's almost as if the media deliberately WANT the Iraqis to think negatively about the current occupant, isn't it?
Of course, this is the same media which admitted to intentionally not telling news stories about said occupant.
Yeah, because CNN is the only western media network, right?
Now that's "prisoner abuse."
Nah, the abuse that went on at A-G wasn't really that bad, was it? And those few prisoners that were tortured, pffft, compared to what Saddam was capable of, they were LUCKY to be at the mercy of American soldiers, weren't they?
Y'ever notice that the "Arab street" are all a bunch of peace-loving people who just want to go about their business, as long as you're talking about what the American opinion of them should be, but then they suddenly they become this dangerous, threatening, monolithic hostile force when people start talking about their own opinion?
I notice they become this dangerous, threatening, monolithic hostile force when people talk about Israel. I notice they become this dangerous, threatening, monolithic hostile force when people talk about Iran. I notice they become this dangerous, threatening, monolithic hostile force when people talk about Afghanistan. And I notice that the "Arab street" are only a bunch of peace-loving people who just want to go about their business when people talk about how much the American presence in Iraq has benefited them.
Curious indeed.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: The previous occupant's mass media didn't flood the papers/airwaves with every bad thing he did and every person he tormented.
It's almost as if the media deliberately WANT the Iraqis to think negatively about the current occupant, isn't it?
If you mean the western media, you betcha.
As for the "Eastern" Media, Al-Jazeera and such, well, they really don't care just as long as they can hate somebody in the west.
quote:Yeah, because CNN is the only western media network, right?
Merely the largest, most "respected" and most-watched television news network outside of the US.
quote: Nah, the abuse that went on at A-G wasn't really that bad, was it? And those few prisoners that were tortured, pffft, compared to what Saddam was capable of, they were LUCKY to be at the mercy of American soldiers, weren't they?
Considering that many of them, specifically those captured in action against US forces and not wearing any standardized uniform, the US would be well within their rights under the Geneva conventions to shoot on sight... perhaps so.
quote: I notice they become this dangerous, threatening, monolithic hostile force when people talk about Iran. I notice they become this dangerous, threatening, monolithic hostile force when people talk about Afghanistan.
That doesn't surprise me. You seem to notice a lot of things that aren't there.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Nah, the abuse that went on at A-G wasn't really that bad, was it? And those few prisoners that were tortured, pffft, compared to what Saddam was capable of, they were LUCKY to be at the mercy of American soldiers, weren't they?
Considering that many of them, specifically those captured in action against US forces and not wearing any standardized uniform, the US would be well within their rights under the Geneva conventions to shoot on sight... perhaps so.
So, just to be clear, you're saying that it was okay to torture them, because, hey, at least the troops didn't shoot them on sight?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote: Nah, the abuse that went on at A-G wasn't really that bad, was it? And those few prisoners that were tortured, pffft, compared to what Saddam was capable of, they were LUCKY to be at the mercy of American soldiers, weren't they?
Considering that many of them, specifically those captured in action against US forces and not wearing any standardized uniform, the US would be well within their rights under the Geneva conventions to shoot on sight... perhaps so.
Let's get this over with: do you believe that this abuse of prisoners was despicable and not what our troops should be doing to prisoners? Just a question, to get your opinion on the issue.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: So, just to be clear, you're saying that it was okay to torture them, because, hey, at least the troops didn't shoot them on sight?
From what I'm hearing from the right-wing, that's just about right.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Shh. Let Rob answer these points first, before we do anything else.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Now that's 'prisoner abuse.'"
Yes, it is. Not too unlike what happened at Abu Ghraib.
Although, to play devil's advocate, one could point out that at least that Kuwaiti woman was charged with something, even if it wasn't anything we would call a crime. Apparently, 70-90% of the Iraqis we've arrested are innocent, and we've just picked them up in the hopes that they'll know some insurgents.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"You seem to notice a lot of things that aren't there."
A hilarious insult coming from someone who sees media plots to discredit the US everywhere he looks. Nice attempt at throwing up a smokescreen, though.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Let's get this over with: do you believe that this abuse of prisoners was despicable and not what our troops should be doing to prisoners? Just a question, to get your opinion on the issue.
Yes. Absolutely. The things those guards did were not only sick, but terribly, incredibly stupid.
However, I believe this incident is being blown far out of proportion to many other crimes which don't seem to bother anyone much. I also believe that this is being done for mostly political purposes (although also to sell newspapers and get ratings.) As atrocities go, this is an extraordinarily minor incident. There haven't even been any deaths linked to anyone's actions yet.
It certainly doesn't rise to the level of Mai Lai, nor is it Hue, Halabja, Birjinni, Nanking, Dresden, or Auschwitz or even Waco. Or, for that matter, Algeria.
I am also rather certain about what I said about the Geneva Convention. Combatants (that is, those of the prisoners who are insurgents) apprehended not wearing uniforms are not protected. Legally, we could do virtually anything we wanted to with them, including summary executions.
That may not be moral, but its permitted.
And quite frankly, if they can summarily execute Pearl and Berg, well, then... I don't have a serious problem with "tit for tat."
I'm not one of those people who believes that I have to play at a "higher moral level" than my adversaries. Especially when my 'higher level' is their 'sign of weakness.' That's fine for low stakes, but not high. It's not, ultimately, a winning strategy.
If this makes me prime recruiting material for Section 31, so be it. Somebody has to save the world from the idealists. Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:I am also rather certain about what I said about the Geneva Convention.
I trust you've read the relevant parts before coming to this conclusion?
At any rate, the changing nature of modern warfare means that the non-uniformed excuse becomes less and less a reason that we can "do what we want to" with prisoners.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I am also rather certain about what I said about the Geneva Convention. Combatants (that is, those of the prisoners who are insurgents) apprehended not wearing uniforms are not protected. Legally, we could do virtually anything we wanted to with them, including summary executions."
Only if they were, in fact, combatants. Which the vast majority apparently weren't.
"However, I believe this incident is being blown far out of proportion to many other crimes which don't seem to bother anyone much."
Name one. And it has to be something relevant. No more of that "someone else in some other place or some other time did something worse" bullshit.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I'm not one of those people who believes that I have to play at a "higher moral level" than my adversaries.
And yet you are one of those people who believes in the moral superiority of everything the good old US of A does in the world. How... ODD.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Only if they were, in fact, combatants. Which the vast majority apparently weren't.
Reports conflict. I tend to give preference to the ones which don't automatically give credence to everything anybody says, as AI and the Red Cross do.
quote: Name one. And it has to be something relevant. No more of that "someone else in some other place or some other time did something worse" bullshit.
Now of course you realize that you've asked for the impossible, as everything in the universe other than that specific crime occurred in some other time and/or place.
Please explain your definition of "relevant" in a manner more coherent within this space-time continuum, and I'll be better able to respond.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: I'm not one of those people who believes that I have to play at a "higher moral level" than my adversaries.
And yet you are one of those people who believes in the moral superiority of everything the good old US of A does in the world. How... ODD.
How odd that you believe that. I would consider it indicative of your disorder.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
OH BURN OH BURN OH FUCK
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: And quite frankly, if they can summarily execute Pearl and Berg, well, then... I don't have a serious problem with "tit for tat."
So your entire argument boils down to two children pointing at each other saying "he started it!"?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I would consider it indicative of your disorder."
Fortunately, the only diagnosis you're officially allowed to make is wether a book has been properly shelved or not, so I'll live.
I'm glad you cleared that up for me, though. I used to think you were just misguided, but now I know you're nothing but an ego-centric hypocrite. After all, if you don't believe you should have the moral high ground while playing with your adversaries, you really don't have a leg to stand on when you condemn said adversaries for also not playing by the rules and, say, beheading people, do you?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
No, his argument boils down to "terrorists did bad horrible things, so it's ok if we do some bad things too because, well, we're the good guys."
Even though it was written about the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto, the following works well here.
quote:Does Taranto really believe that we should hold American soldiers to the same moral standards as terrorists -- that this is the best we can do? That we can win the war on terror without showing and proving to those who are suspicious of our power that we are a force for good in the world? That so long as no one apologizes for the hideous murder of Nick Berg, Americans need not feel remorse for the torture or ill-treament of Iraqis who, if U.S. officers who spoke to the Red Cross are to be believed, probably should not have been in Abu Ghraib in the first place? Isn't this what conservatives used to call "defining deviancy down?"
I'm no fan of Lindsey Graham, but he said at least one thing right about this situation.
"When you are the good guys, you've got to act like the good guys."
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:"When you are the good guys, you've got to act like the good guys."
Of course then you have to make the assumption that the US is the "good guy"
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"OH BURN OH BURN OH FUCK"
You forgot "OH SNAP".
"Reports conflict. I tend to give preference to the ones which don't automatically give credence to everything anybody says, as AI and the Red Cross do."
Well, I'm going by what the Red Cross says, which is:
"Certain CF military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their estimate between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake."
70-90% is a damned big number. Are you saying you think the MI guys were really that far off? That it was less like 70-90% and more like, e.g., 10-20%, or something?
"Please explain your definition of 'relevant' in a manner more coherent within this space-time continuum, and I'll be better able to respond."
Well, for one thing, something happening in the present day. You say that other crimes are being ignored in favor of the Abu Ghraib story and such. Those other crimes must be something happening at approximately the same time (or, at least, at the same time the Abu Ghraib story came out). Also, it ought to be something done by the US, or our allies. After all, it's not as much a big deal when the "bad guys" do bad things as when the "good guys" do bad things.
Why don't you just tell me what "other crimes" you had in mind when you made your original statement, and we'll see.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I just read Graham's bit ... WOW!
quote:SEN. LINDSEY O. GRAHAM (R), GEORGIA: Thank you, Senator.
I think they've left, but just a few minutes ago there were some foreign military officers that came to the hearing and I would just want to say for the record that I'm very proud of the fact that our military command system, civilian and military, comes out in the open -- fast, hard questions -- has to appear before the public.
And you've documented, General Taguba, some failings.
I think we're failing the country ourselves up here a bit. I think we're overly politicizing this. This should be what binds us, not what tears us apart. I think Republicans and Democrats have a different view of a lot of things, but it seems to me that investigating a prison abuse scandal, when you say you're the good guy, should pull you together, not tear you apart. And I would just hope my colleagues can understand that when you say you're the good guys, you've got to act as the good guys.
General Taguba, how long have you been in uniform?
TAGUBA: Sir, this is my 32nd year.
GRAHAM: Saddam Hussein is in our control. How would you feel if we sick dogs on him tomorrow?
TAGUBA: Sir, on Saddam Hussein?
GRAHAM: Yes.
TAGUBA: Sir, we still have to follow the tenants of international law.
GRAHAM: As much as you and I dislike him, as mean a tyrant as he is and you know he'd kill us all tomorrow, I am so proud of you.
What are we fighting for, General Taguba, in Iraq? To be like Saddam Hussein? Is that what we're fighting for?
TAGUBA: No, sir.
GRAHAM: Our standard, General Smith, can never be to be like Saddam Hussein, can it be, sir?
SMITH: No, sir.
GRAHAM: How long have you been in the service?
SMITH: 34 years.
GRAHAM: Is it OK with you if the International Red Cross comes and looks at our prisons?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)