Author
|
Topic: "I enjoy killing Iraqis"
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 20 July 2004 01:01 AM
Good ol' boys discussing bringing freedom and democracy to an oppressed people. quote: "I enjoy killing Iraqis," says Staff Sgt. William Deaton, 30, who killed a hostile fighter the night before. Deaton has lost a good friend in Iraq. "I just feel rage, hate when I'm out there. I feel like I carry it all the time. We talk about it. We all feel the same way."
The article is about the complete lack of training for post-traumatic stress in US troops. It seems they are worried about the mental state of combat troops when they come home. They don't seem to concerned about the gleeful participation in mass-murder. Apparently, the excess use of force isn't a problem. Anyone who says that Iraqis are better off now than under Saddam should read these statements, and try to understand what kind of sickness has been unleashed upon the world. I seriously wish that Staff Sergeant William Deaton comes down with a most painful cancer, starting at the testicles, which will slowly eat him from the inside out. That would be a merciful death for that fucker.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962
|
posted 20 July 2004 05:43 AM
quote: I seriously wish that Staff Sergeant William Deaton comes down with a most painful cancer, starting at the testicles, which will slowly eat him from the inside out. That would be a merciful death for that fucker.
There but for the grace of God go you, and I, and many others. Without in any way defending his words or actions, you're not there, I'm not there, we can sit back comfortably and wail about how this man has been dehumanized. You want to wish him a painful death, a simple solution, equivalent to saying 'you're hopeless, let's throw you in the trash and hope next time it works out'. I want to wish him life, and a chance to redeem himself. quote: The men's commander, however, worries about them. "During the heat of the battle the adrenaline is such you don't really think about it," says Capt. Brandon Payne, 28. "Once that adrenaline wears off, though, it gets tough. Some kids, it rolls right off their backs. Some, it's like they break down a little more each day."
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 21 July 2004 12:27 AM
Would you say the same thing about Marc Lepine? If that Sergeant said "I enjoy killing women", I don't think you would. Why the empathy for this scumbag?Yeah. The poor guy. Killing all those people without any repercussions, with the encouragement of his superiors, and the approval of his peers, for no reason other than they can kill whomever crosses their sites. I feel real sorry for him. After all, he is the real victim in all this. It isn't his fault that Iraqis made him go over there to kill them. Must be some sort of mass-suicide pact. Fuck him. Fuck his family. Fuck his country. quote: you're not there,
That's right. See, I'm not a homicidal maniac. I don't want to kill any Iraqis. So I don't join the US military. Pretty simple.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 21 July 2004 12:54 AM
When Deaton gets back to the States, he'll still be a trained psychopath, just like the Vietnam vets who now represent about 70 000 of the VA's estimated quarter of a million homeless American veterans of various wars.Depleted Uranium lined shells, anti-tank ammo and bombs litter the Iraqi countryside. Iraq has been dubbed the most toxic battleground in history. Former American presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich has an especially gruesome and worrying presentation on the use of "DU" weapons in Iraq and elsewhere by the Yanks. This is very graphic and very terrible to look at http://www.kucinich.us/dkdu.html http://www.kucinich.us/dkdu.html
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 21 July 2004 12:25 PM
quote: Would you say the same thing about Marc Lepine?
Considering that Lepine was obviously not of sound mind when he went on his rampage (rambling, paranoid suicide note, previous history, etc.), it's always struck me as a bit odd that he's treated as though he were perfectly sane and rational, and did what he did out of sheer malice. Why would he be vilified for a mental illness he presumably had no more control over than, say, Andrea Yates had over hers? Maybe you should use Bernardo. He did seem to enjoy what he did.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776
|
posted 22 July 2004 12:48 PM
quote: So in other words you're exactly like that sgt? Since he said he was full of hate and presumably because his friend was killed by someone who maybe kills for kicks? You sound identical. Maybe you should therefore have some compassion for someone who is hurting and expressing it through rage and hate, exactly like you do
The difference being that Jingles isn't sitting behing a heavy machine gun that allows him to "express" himself on other people. I certainly see where Jingles is coming from: in our lovey-dovey liberal minded ways, we're told that it's not the troops fault they are rabid killers, it's the leaders who sent them their. Bullcrap. They have a choice. Everytime someone strays into their sights, they have a choice. Shit, they had a choice when they first joined up (and as much as I sympathize with folks like Hinzman, the fact is he joined the Army of his own volition). So, while I may not actively wish ill on the asshole Sgt. quoted, or any other soldier, if he happens to get his, I wouldn't shed a tear.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 22 July 2004 01:01 PM
quote: The difference being that Jingles isn't sitting behing a heavy machine gun that allows him to "express" himself on other people.
Machine guns are hard to come by, but it sounds to me like Jingles would take one if he could get it. quote: Fuck him. Fuck his family. Fuck his country.
Ok, him and his country I get. But his wife? His kids? Over the top much??
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799
|
posted 22 July 2004 01:02 PM
quote: Well, you remember in Fahrenheit 9/11 where those good ol' army boys played heavy metal and blasted Iraqis to smithereens to the tune of guitars and whatnot... Same principle. Utter disregard for human life.
It is not an utter disregard for human life, in general. It part of the specific dehumanization of the enemy that is one part of the military structure to convince relatively sane people to kill other people. There is a very enlightening book about this process by Lt. Col Grossman, called "On Killing". Link to Book on Indigo In it he describes that prior to Vietnam, the majority of soldiers in combat did not fire their weapon! Or they fired it - but not at the enemy. Nonfiring rates in combat prior to Vietnam were very high. He suggests that the new training techniques of post-Korea, post-WWII, military changed this. For example, replacing shooting targets with silouettes of people, rather than the traditional "bull's eye" target. Grossman is a physcologist, I think, and a military man. From a military point of view, he understands why this works, and why the military likes it. He is not too concerned about these "trained killers" when they come home, because there are many factors on top of this training that encourage soldiers to kill (although his research did find that there are a small percent of people - psychopaths, I suppose - who are "natural born killers" and need very little encouragement). His key concern is that the same techniques used to train soldiers are being used for entertainment in the TV and Gaming industries. He suggests that part of the reason for the level of violent crime in America is due to the de-sensitization of these techniques on America's youth. In one example he points to one case where a kid took his dad's rifle (at age 12 or something) and sniped a bunch of his friends at school - with a hit-miss ratio higher than that of the average police officer! (or perhaps that kid was a NBK?) Anyway. My point, I suppose, is that while this dehumanization of the enemy, and the bragging about the ability to kill, is DEFINATELY DISTASTEFUL, it is part of the "building up" of oneself to enable them to participate in the killing. This Sgt may feel more insecure than others and so over reacts, speaks more agressively. Some military pragmatists believe this is all fine and dandy, after all their job is simply to kill whomever the govt tells them to, not to be diplomats. Others however believe that a military force must represent the nation, adhere to internationl law (genevas), and use force with discrimination. Given the stage of the American military's development, it is not surprising that there are more of these "pragmatists". But you'd be surprised by some of the differences (and disappointed by the similarities) in other nations' military. At least the US military is somewhat professional - no, its true - imagine what the Botswana military or the Bangladeshi military must be like. (Their UN service record is not exemplary). So it is a question of leadership. The US military needs to crack down on these sentiments - but it is rather too late, because they used just such rhetoric, like the poor Sgt here, to excite and mobilize the forces. It is all a bloody shame. [ 22 July 2004: Message edited by: wei-chi ]
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baldfresh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5864
|
posted 22 July 2004 02:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by Melsky: My grandmother was on Ambien and she had to stop taking it because she was seeing strange stuff. When she tried to read the books would breathe, and she saw a golden cat in her living room.
Cool! I've had to pay good money for experiences like that. On a serious note, not to defend this guy's actions or words in any way, but like others have said: we're not there. He may be one of only a few on record saying such things, but I'm sure the sad truth is when you're the hostile force in a warzone nasty thoughts spring up with alarming regularity. It doesn't mean that he, or anyone else who has thought about violent revenge, has repeatedly acted on it and is regularly spraying crowds of civilians with gunfire. Nonetheless, the situation over there is totally fuct up and the US needs to leave. The longer they stay, the more people will die on both sides, and it is only a matter of time before more "extreme" ( ) acts of US "revenge killing" happen and get reported by the media, and things get, well, much uglier. And I don't think I'm alone in the fear that we haven't seen the worst of it yet.
From: to here knows when | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Malek
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6497
|
posted 29 July 2004 09:07 PM
This is why the world is concerned when a US president decides to send his storm troopers out amongst the planet's population. Americans who don't join the Army are taught early in their education that America and its people are the greatest at everything, and the indoctrination is more extreme for those that do join its armed forces. The rest of the world and it's people and their lives simply don't matter one iota. Ask the survivors and families of the Panamanian invasion during the 80s as US soldiers blasted away thousands of them in the hunt for one man, Noreiga. Ask the Somalis for their version of black hawk down as thousands of men, women and children were mowed down by helicopter gattling guns. Ask the Vietnamese, Grenadians, Columbians, Nicaraguans, Salvadorians, Iraqis, Iranians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Koreans, Syrians, Afganis, and Pakistanis for their view of the American soldier. If that doesn't convince people, ask a Canadian on the street.[ 29 July 2004: Message edited by: Malek ]
From: Upper Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799
|
posted 30 July 2004 01:13 AM
How about:Canadians who don't join the Army are taught early in their education that Canada and its people are the greatest, and the indoctrination is more extreme for those that do join its armed forces. Sounds true to me. You don't seriously think that war crimes are isolated to the American Military do you?
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 30 July 2004 01:38 AM
quote: How about:Canadians who don't join the Army are taught early in their education that Canada and its people are the greatest, and the indoctrination is more extreme for those that do join its armed forces. Sounds true to me.
Were you in the forces? I was never taught that Canada was the greatest at anything but hockey, and 1972 disabused me of that ideal. The only indoctrination I heard in the military was that we were peacemakers, Russian Commies would do anything to kill me and that Arabs were perverts. But yes, most armies commit atrocities. It's part of the job description, as is dying for your country.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799
|
posted 30 July 2004 01:00 PM
Malek, suggesting that american soldiers commit atrocities because they've been "indoctrinated" somehow is useless. One, you lend support to a defence which says "hey, I was just following orders," - when in fact EVERY soldier is responsible for his/her actions. Two, I think it just demeans the concept of freewill and the individual the lay a blanket statement on 250M+ people.AQ: Canadians have intense pride in Canada. We think it is the "best country in the world". Surely most of us realize we are not the "best" at everything. But, for example, I've heard (some on rabble I think) many fantasies about a US invasion of Canada and how "Canada would kick their ass! We'd all be like guerillas and shit, man!" Which in my mind is the basic equivalent of expressing world supremacy. In a similiar way, some Canadians commonly denounce the USA as morally corrupt or whatever, and take comfort in Canada's "moral supremacy". The only difference are the details, the end result is the same. In my many travels abroad with other Canadians, I have noticed that Canadians are ruder than Americans abroad. Most Americans realise they are disliked, but Canadians just wave their maple leaf and say "I'm not American, I'm Canadian," and then trash a bar, or spit on the sidewalk, or tell the locals that their country is stupid. Sinful pride and vain conceit are not American monopolies. It makes no sense, of course, I'm just commenting on the statements by my fellow Canadians. I speak from my experiences, and of course they are not applied to ALL Canadians.
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799
|
posted 30 July 2004 10:37 PM
quote: For that matter, what makes determination not to be dominated either morally or semantically identical to determination to dominate?
It doesn't. But going around saying "we could kick your ass American (under certain circumstances)" is the same My-country-is-the-best-country process as Malek is suggesting occurs at the root of some all-consuming US "groupthink". IMHO. quote: How do you explain a lynch mob then?
Perhaps, I was too flippant. But a lynch mob setting - limited by time and heightened emotions - is different than what Malek is suggesting. He is suggesting national, persistent, and constant groupthink apparently consciously devised and implemented. Which wouldn't be groupthink anyway, but more like brainwashing.
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
hopebird
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6565
|
posted 06 August 2004 01:50 PM
While I find it hard to stomach Sgt. William Deaton's words, let alone defend him, I do think we need to consider circumstance and how it affected who he has become and what he feels today. Would Deaton be a killer today if Bush wasn’t a warmonger? If his country didn’t care about oil more than it did about people? Had his President not spent months convincing the American people that Iraq was connected to Sept. 11th, that Sadam and his “people” were evil and were truly threat to American families, to the American way of life. Had his government not chosen to send under-prepared “kids” over there to deal with “forces” unlike those the U.S. usually engages and one that I and others believe they could never possibly “win” against. Had hatred not been used as a motivator for the troops (we see it in prisoner abuse, we see it is his statements). Had he and his fellow troops not been told or not come to believe that it was kill or be killed, would he be a killer today? I hate war. I hate what it does to innocent civilians. I hate what it does to the men and women fighting on both sides (those who die as a result and those who “survive”). But I can’t hate everyone who reacts in a highly negative way to being put in a situation that their friggin’ country should never have put them in. People don’t exist in a vacuum and to hate the person and ignore their environment is not a radical thought (it does not get to the root of the problem). It is also a little too similar to those who criticize terrorists like those who were part of Sept. 11th- were they evil men or were they part of an environment that led them to terrorism. I don’t condone either but to simply throw away the men (and women) and not condemn the environment that “created” them is simplistic and useless. I also think we can't blame everyone who goes into the military for the situation they end up in. Having a choice or choices is subjective. Maybe if you lived in a country, came from a poorer family and grew up with "Be all you can be" and the belief that the only way you can get a college education and do better for yourself was to enlist, you might not even think that joining the forces was a "choice" but your only option at prosperity. (If you have even seen any of the documentaries on U.S military recruitment you would know that they sell service as the only choice for those looking to get out of bad neighborhood, poverty, etc.). I don't think we can overlook the economic and social factors that influence (force?) peoples' choices. Hopebird
From: Regina, Sask | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
yiya
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4663
|
posted 06 August 2004 04:14 PM
This argument reminds me of Argentina and the "due obedience" law, whereby soldiers and policemen who tortured and killed where not tried for their crimes when democracy returned because they were merely following orders.I understand that after a crime of huge proportions is perpetrated on a people, blame should be placed with the assholes who planned and carried out the crime at the highest levels. I get that. I also get that most soldiers and policemen were recruited from the poorest sections of the population. They themselves had few choices in life. That's fine. And yet, nobody I knew would speak or talk to these sob's in the street. They were scum as far as everyone was concerned. Traitors to their country and to their class not to be understood or forgiven. They stood in stark contrast to the militarymen who refused to follow orders and suffered the consequences. If those soldiers, like the American soldiers, were to be killed, I wouldn't cry. Their death wouldn't end the war or the dictatorship. But, I gotta be honest, it doesn't break my heart.
From: toronto | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799
|
posted 07 August 2004 01:00 AM
quote: At some point, individual soldiers should decide that orders to kill unarmed civilians are bad orders to follow.
At some point? That point is always the starting point. If given such an order every soldier in the world has the legal and moral obligation to ignore that order. If possible that soldier should ensure that no one carries out said order and that the on-site commander is reported to the higher officers. quote: The training of these soldiers seems to have no room for concepts outlined in the Geneva Conventions.
It does leave room. At least: every Canadian soldier is educated and quized on the Geneva Conventions. Prior to any deployment as well they are 'refreshed' on the matter. Now, I don't know about America, but if they don't leave room, they oughta. I imagine this huge internal battle going on within America and within their military about just such things as Camp X-Ray, Geneva Rights, Prisoner Abuse - are those "conveniences" worth the moral costs? I hope they answer definitively, soon, and "no."
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 07 August 2004 11:52 AM
"Orders to kill unarmed civilians".Wei Chi et al, you're talking as if the Americans are deliberately murdering civilians My Lai style. I'm wondering if you have any specific examples of these "orders to kill unarmed civilians." The closest I can see so far is the targetting of "insurgent / terrorist safe houses" carried out I assume by pilots or by cruise missiles. I'm not justifying any action that kills civilians, but I'm particularly curious about soldiers on the ground deliberately killing civilians. Can you point me to any news stories of such cases?
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297
|
posted 07 August 2004 03:39 PM
I have been tempted to join in this topic for awhile now. It is difficult to join at this late point in the debate; however I come at this from a slightly different viewpoint than most of the posters and thought a different perspective may be insightful. First easy stuff first. wei-chi, the Americans do get law of war brief. An example of such a brief can be found on the USMC site in PowerPoint format. http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/cce/references/ref_pme.asp Look for the Law of War download. It is an interesting read, and will give you a good inside look at what the soldiers receive as their law of war training. Also in every operation the JAG will do up a rules of engagement (ROEs)document. That is most often a hefty and complicated document. Soldiers, on operation will get a card with a simplified version of those ROEs, this will provide them with guidelines on tactical level. The US, IMHO has a problem doing thing other than war fighting. They are the best force in the world when it comes to breaking things and killing people. However they seem to think of all operations as warfighting. After they defeated the Iraqi military they did a very poor job of transitioning into operations other than war. A lot of the present problems they face arise from this. An another example of this lack of ability to think in terms other than warfighting; I was at a luncheon a couple of weeks ago, with ~12 officers, both Canadian and American. Conversation turned to the Sudan and the possible operations in the area. I noticed all the Americans in discussing the mission were thinking of warfighting, not stabilization, peacekeeping, or humanitarian aid. The quote that stuck with me was “we could roll over the whole place in a week or two”. That is the framework that many of them think in. I guess when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The more difficult stuff: I think invading Iraq was a mistake; however I don’t think demonizing individual soldiers is the right path. The decisions that brought Staff Sgt. William Deaton to Iraq, were made by people far above him. According to the article he had been in country 14 months, way too long. That amount of time in a war zone, especially one without any front lines, is going to have effects on ones mind set. His statements about enjoying killing Iraqis should be taken within that context. There was nothing in the article that suggested that he was talking about targeting non-combatants. I spoke a little while ago to a guy was in Iraq, he said that a lot of the frustrations, of being continually extended got projected on to the enemy. If they could kill enough of them, maybe they could go home. I know the logic does not make sense, but I can understand how it would seem if my date to return to home kept getting pushed back, and every time it moved someone else I knew got killed or wounded. People on this board seem to have a lot of empathy for victims of fortune. I would hope some of it could be used on soldiers who find themselves in situations not of their own making. (I of course am not trying to excuse real war criminals. However, I think it possible take part in an unethical war, without being a war criminal; just like not every German soldier in WW2 was a war criminal.) I would hope people could save their anger and judgment for the people that placed them there. Also, it is why I think that more people should be vocal about where and when we deploy. Soldiers serve the public, and we have to trust that the people will choose to use us in a manner which is just. (The Sudan for example.) Thanks for reading through all this confused ranting on my part. Edited to Fix link. [ 07 August 2004: Message edited by: Rand McNally ]
From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 08 August 2004 12:14 AM
Thanks, Rand. Bravo Zulu. quote: There was nothing in the article that suggested that he was talking about targeting non-combatants.
The problem is that they clearly don't differentiate between combatants and nan-combatants. When the soldier says he hates Iraqis, he doesn't mean the resistance fighters, he means all Iraqis. The mentality of the GI is the same whether he is in Iraq, Vietnam, or fighting the various Native tribes, since before the revolutionary war. White supremacy (carried out by proxy by their own underclass) is the ideology so integral to the mythos of the United States. A nation which considers itself the greatest nation on earth, indeed the pinnacle of all human achievment, cannot look upon others in the world as fully human. Since those others have not reached that superior level to which all Americans have risen by virtue of their blessed birth, they are by definition inferior. Their racism is obvious, institutional, and very deep. That is something for which no ROE can account. That they have forced their underclass to carry out their racist wars for them doesn't make it any less so. A German deserter during WWII would immediately find themselves shot. The legality or illegality of their leaders' actions was irrelevant, as their ideology overrode such "quaint"(as the Geneva conventions were described by the US Justice Department) considerations. An American soldier has what no German soldier would have had: the widely-available information that his war is a crime against humanity. He has options. He can refuse to serve, he can desert (good enough for the POTUS), he can claim CO status. Hell, he can get himself medically exempted if he was imaginative enough. To participate and then claim ignorance is no defense.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 08 August 2004 01:47 AM
Yeah, Jingles, it's that easy. Just be a conscientious objector. Desert.Come on, think about it for god's sake! You expect some 18 or 20 year old poorly educated individual who's probably read nothing other than the sports section of a newspaper to just take your point of view on the war and act in a way that will result in jail and a dishonourable discharge? That he should in fact reject the world as he knows it, reject his peers, and go down a path that could only mean disgrace from his frame of reference? So that he can do what, after? Go to university and be a doctor? Give your head a shake. Of course they hate Iraqis. They were told that they were freeing Iraq, that Iraqis would greet them as liberators probably as the Dutch greeted us in WWII. Then once the war is supposedly "over" they get shot and bombed, and they see their buddies getting killed. What, they're supposed to maintain your objective and enlightened viewpoint on the situation? I'm sure that they want nothing more than to go home. But to do what you're suggesting would require a psychological profile that most individuals in their situation just don't have. Obviously you've never been in the military yourself. On top of that, I'm still waiting for any evidence from anyone here showing that ground troops - such as the sergeant quoted in the original post - are engaging in the deliberate and intentional killing of unarmed civilians. Now officers may be a different story. From what I've heard, many had thought that invading Iraq was a bad option even before the war. Collin Powell was apparently not in favour of the invasion. The question may be asked: how much resistance did the generals who knew this was not a sound policy offer to the administration? And then again, how much resistance should the military offer? After all, civilian control of the military is an essential element of any democracy. Your notions that basic soldiers should be held responsible for the very war itself is ludicrous. Soldiers who commit atrocities or any type of crime should be held accountable by the military. But the war itself - that lies squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration. [ 08 August 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 08 August 2004 02:36 AM
quote: But the war itself - that lies squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration.
I never said it didn't. That the war is Bush's responsibility doesn't relieve the responsibility of those doing his bidding. Every soldier is taught that it is his or her duty to refuse an unlawful command. If you commit a war crime by following an unlawful command, you have no defense. Since the war itself is unlawful, any command given in its execution is also unlawful. Following orders is no excuse, nor is ignorance. quote: Obviously you've never been in the military yourself.
Obviously, you are wrong.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 08 August 2004 02:42 AM
Sure, what - you were in the reserves for 5 minutes?Soldiers can refuse to follow an unlawful order. If you want to use that rule to reject going to war, or to leave once you're in one, truly because of your moral conscious, then I salute your incredible integrity and strength of character. To expect that of your average G.I. is, again, absolutely ludicrous. Which is why, of course, the vast majority of German soldiers were not prosecuted after WWII. [ 08 August 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799
|
posted 08 August 2004 03:28 AM
1st P, I think you are reading too much into what's being said. Although several posts may imply a blaming of the ordinary soldier, I believe that those posters on further clarification would make it clear that they blame the politicians for the war.What seems to get people's back up is the visceral "hatred" of Iraqis. (Jingles' intial reaction is therefore ironic) On the other hand, though I'm unsure of Jingles' reasons for declaring the Iraq War a "crime against humanity" and "unlawful", I probably disagree. The war was definately a bad idea, or at least the idea was not a good one, but I'm unaware of what circumstances place it into the categories that Jingles places it. BTW, I don't think you should make assumptions about a person (ie, Jingles' military service) on here. [ 08 August 2004: Message edited by: wei-chi ]
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 08 August 2004 11:40 AM
I normally try to avoid expressing such assumptions, but in Jingles case it's rather obvious. No one with military experience would suggest what he's saying. It's so laughable; you don't even need that experience to know that he's being quite silly.The disobeying an unlawful command rule is explained in basic training as part of the military rules and regulations. It applies to orders that are obviously and clearly unlawful, such as killing women and children. The My Lai massacre was a clear example. The rule does not apply, obviously, to one's personal political viewpoint on whether a war is justified or not. To try to apply this rule in such a way as Jingles does is not just disingenuous, it's completely ridiculous. In fact, why doesn't he provide a single example of a basic soldier being prosecuted for obeying orders to go to war? There are none, that's why. The whole debate on this thread also appears to be based on the assumption that American ground soldiers are out of control, going around deliberately murdering unarmed civilians. I've asked for examples of this, but none have been provided. Now I think that Jingles may have a case for pilots who are deliberately dropping bombs on residential targets. In reality, of course, they do what they're told and they won't be prosecuted. But I can see a valid debate on the culpability of their commanders at least who are ordering such bombings, as these strikes inevitably lead to the deaths of civilians. (This is quite apart from whether or not the war is "justified".) As for the sergeant's expression of hatred, only the naive would feign shock at such words. The guy's in a war zone and he's seen his friends killed. Unless he's Jesus Christ, you better believe he'll feel hatred - just as you, Jingles, or I would if we were in his boots. To simply say "Well I'd never be in his boots" is just too easy. [ 08 August 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 08 August 2004 10:58 PM
quote: It applies to orders that are obviously and clearly unlawful, such as killing women and children. The My Lai massacre was a clear example.
My Lai is a good example of what I'm talking about, actually. quote: Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired at the civilians. He put himself between Calley's men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother.
CWO Thompson showed tremendous courage placing himself between the civilians and his own fellow soldiers. He could have joined in the massacre, or kept his mouth shut, but he didn't. He knew an unlawful order when he saw it, why didn't the infantry on the ground with Calley? Why didn't Calley? Why didn't his men challenge him? We can, and did, ask the same questions about the Shidane Arone murder. Would you say that Matchee deserves sympathy, not sanction, for his acts? I'm tired of this bullshit.
quote: No one with military experience would suggest what he's saying.
PAYBACK You listen to Joker, new guy. He knows ti ti.Very little. You know he's never been in the shit,'cause he ain't got the stare. RAFTERMAN The stare? PAYBACK The thousand-yard stare. A marine gets it after he's been in the shit for too long. It's like ... it's like you've really seen beyond. I got it. All field marines got it. And you'll have it too.
You brought it up, asshat. Bite me. [ 08 August 2004: Message edited by: Jingles ]
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 09 August 2004 12:01 PM
Jingles, you're now only re-iterating what I've already said. I brought up My Lai precisely because that is an example of a legitimate case of disobeying an unlawful order (or in this case, the warrant officer helicopter pilot trying to stop unlawful actions).But that's not at all what you've been saying. You've stated that the refusing an unlawful order rule should be used to hold every soldier guilty of a crime just for being in Iraq in the first place. That, of course, is not what the unlawful order rule is for; nor could it in fact be used in this manner. Nice to see that you're getting all your military info from movies. Take your meds with your popcorn.
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 09 August 2004 01:20 PM
Thanks for that link.Indeed, I thought of the various checkpoint shootings when I read the accusations of American atrocities. But these incidents have more to do with fear and lack of proper training and fire discipline than with the deliberate intent to kill unarmed civilians. As the Human Rights Watch report states: "The individual cases of civilian deaths documented in this report reveal a pattern by U.S. forces of over-aggressive tactics, indiscriminate shooting in residential areas and a quick reliance on lethal force. In some cases, U.S. forces faced a real threat, which gave them the right to respond with force. But that response was sometimes disproportionate to the threat or inadequately targeted, thereby harming civilians or putting them at risk." This fits with the reputation of U.S. troops as being more like cowboys than of properly trained and disciplined soldiers. The U.S. bombing of our troops in Afghanistan is a prime example. In another incident, U.S. soldiers opened fire on a British helicopter in Iraq. (The British pilot landed on the scene and punched out the American machine gunner, yelling at him that Iraq does not use this type of helicopter.) The issue here is training and perhaps of failing to comply with the rules of engagement. However, it is clearly not the same as the deliberate murder of people known to be unarmed civilians.
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885
|
posted 09 August 2004 02:28 PM
This may be My Lai, 2004 style.I can't believe that I forgot about this war crime. quote: "The bombing started at 3am," she said yesterday from her bed in the emergency ward at Ramadi general hospital, 60 miles west of Baghdad. "We went out of the house and the American soldiers started to shoot us. They were shooting low on the ground and targeting us one by one," she said. She ran with her youngest child in her arms and her two young boys, Ali and Hamza, close behind. As she crossed the fields a shell exploded close to her, fracturing her legs and knocking her to the ground. She lay there and a second round hit her on the right arm. By then her two boys lay dead. "I left them because they were dead," she said. One, she saw, had been decapitated by a shell. "I fell into the mud and an American soldier came and kicked me. I pretended to be dead so he wouldn't kill me. My youngest child was alive next to me." Mrs Shibab's description, backed by other witnesses, of an attack on a sleeping village is at odds with the American claim that they came under fire while targeting a suspected foreign fighter safe house.
Clearly, some of the victims of this were shot 'up-close-and-personal' by the ground troops involved. Clearly, this also includes the women and the children. [ 09 August 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 09 August 2004 03:14 PM
It may well be. My Lai seems so clear cut because it was in broad daylight and involved marines lining up women and children and gunning them down. This incident in Iraq occurred at 3 a.m. with soldiers shooting at people running out of a house presumed to be an enemy location. It's not as clear cut and will require a real and legitimate investigation. I have a real problem with the U.S. policy of bombing "safehouses". Even if there ARE insurgents there, they are knowingly killing civilians to get to their "target". The insurgents are just as culpable of course as they are deliberately using civilians as cover. They undoubtedly view each U.S. bombing as a public relations coup...too bad the Americans are falling for it.
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885
|
posted 09 August 2004 03:47 PM
quote: My Lai seems so clear cut because it was in broad daylight and involved marines lining up women and children and gunning them down.This incident in Iraq occurred at 3 a.m. with soldiers shooting at people running out of a house presumed to be an enemy location. It's not as clear cut and will require a real and legitimate investigation.
I agree there. I'd find it surprising if something exactly equivalent to My Lai took place in Iraq. First off, because the weapons of 2004 are way more sophisticated...there's no need to ever see the victims before they are killed. That's partly why I was surprised to read about the ground fire described by the victims at Mukaradeeb. Secondly, most troops are aware that stories do eventually get out, and cause problems after the incident is over. Abu Ghraib will remind them, even if they are ignorant of the excesses during the Vietnam War. I wonder though, if the 'accidental' bombing of wedding parties (or whatever) is not the moral equivalent of My Lai, given the difference in technology and warfare then and now. Someone somewhere presumably misidentifies the target as legitimate...at least that person should be held responsible for the crime (if not others).
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 09 August 2004 03:59 PM
"I wonder though, if the 'accidental' bombing of wedding parties (or whatever) is not the moral equivalent of My Lai, given the difference in technology and warfare then and now. Someone somewhere presumably misidentifies the target as legitimate...at least that person should be held responsible for the crime (if not others)."Yes, this is what I've suggested on this thread. WeiChi mentioned a book "On Killing" by Col. Grossman of the U.S. Army. It's a very interesting book on the psychology of killing. It's a lot easier for a pilot up in the sky to drop bombs, never seing the people he's killing, than it is for a person to stand in front of another , look at him, and kill him. So there's the psychological aspect, and then there's the tactical aspect. As far as tactics go, I don't agree with the deliberate bombing of civilian targets - whether it's done to inflict terror and destroy morale (which actually doesn't work too well anyway) as in Dresden or North Vietnam, or whether the civilian casualties are considered "collateral damage".
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|