+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? (/thread-8751.html)
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - SwissMercenary - 05-06-2004
How was the Pentagon a building full of "innocent civilians"? It's the HQ of the US military, no? I'm sure that most Americans would have no qualms whatsoever of an Iraqi military center (if Saddam even had something that could be called that) getting bombed. Even though it could have had a good deal of "civilian" staff.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - --Pete - 05-06-2004
Hi,
Well, the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 gets little press and little mention because most people are intelligent enough to realize that it *was* a valid military target (although the civilians aboard the hijacked plane that was used to attack it were not).
However, it requires a fair bit of amnesia or stupidity to ignore the attack on the same day on the WTC. That was not a military target.
Now, you are entitled to your opinion, but if your opinion is that since they attacked the Pentagon at the same time as the WTC, then that combined attack was an acceptable operation of war, EDITED OUT.
--Pete
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - Kevin - 05-06-2004
Pete,May 5 2004, 02:01 PM Wrote:While in WW II, massive firebombing of civilian regions was considered a valid military tactic to cause the bombed country to lose the "will to fight". The fact that that never worked didn't deter anyone on either side. Now that policy would be considered "barbaric".I should be careful of the nits I pick because my knowledge isn't always as sound as it should be, but I seem to recall that both sides tried desperately to keep bombs out of civilian areas early on. I recall reading that it was a bomber off course mistaking a target and hitting a civilian aread that dominoed to the rockets and firebombing. Certianly there were early manufacturing targets in civilian areas but it was still attempted to keep the civilain hits as low as possible. Leaders on both sides knew that it would be ineffective to and possibly counter productive to hit civilian areas. There were fears that it could snowball out of control if it did start. When it did start, they were right, and it carried too much inertia to stop.
I could be mistaken on some of this, but that is what I seem to recall learning, and it seems to stack up with the facts that I have checked. I'm not sure it was ever considered valid until after it was too late to do anything about it, which is something in itself to ponder.
Other than that, I agree with the rest of what you said (especially the end of it), but that was a large enough point in my mind to warrant bringing it up, even on shaky grounds. It makes a difference that the leaders of the war efforts didn't want to have the practices that ended in the war start. The failure to prevent it and keep it controlled are also lessons that should be heeded as well if you are going to try and wield the tool of war.
I think many people are thinking of the Geneva convention and the rules and military laws that came out of that in this discussion as well. There are several sources out there, but this one seems to have the whole text it was just one of the early hits on a google for it.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - SwissMercenary - 05-06-2004
Well, there's a good reason for why I have not mentioned the WTC. It was a combined attack, yes. That did not make it an act of war. Yet, if the attack was simply against the Pentagon, would you really think that it would be called anything but terrorism?
Maybe we should turn to the bombing of the USS Cole. Can't get more military then that.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - Cryptic - 05-06-2004
Do some research on Dresden. It's the most horrific tale of firebombing that I know of, and it's an atrocity that was committed by our side.
I'm sure someone will chime in about how Dresden's populace was a valid military target, but I've never been able to see it that way.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - eppie - 05-06-2004
Sir_Die_alot,May 5 2004, 05:43 AM Wrote:You must be #$%&ting me. Gas prices are at reacord highs even though the oil fields are well within our hands. If this was about oil we would already be stealing it, letting the rest of Iraq rot, not be paying the BILLIONS of dollars for troop support that comes with it, and I would not be paying $2.07 for a gallon of gas at the cheap gas station! You are freaking crazy if "no blood for oil" is STILL ringing this loudly in your ears!OOh poor you: 2 dollars for a gallon of gas. We pay 1.30 euro for a liter.
:D
Your comments about the "war for oil" are a simplification of the cause. It does not mean that when the US goes to Irak your oil gets cheaper all of a sudden. It is supposed to be for future profits and to stop the oil trading currency changing from dollars to euros. Further (I have said this before, and probably I will be accused of thinking in conspiracy theories again) the US government looses money, but that is money which comers from the US tax payers. US companies make money out of this war, and seeing as they are the ones paying for Bush' campaigns and are very powerful they are also very much involved in this conflict I think.
About the crimes: I'm shocked to see that so many of you say something like "it is war" or "can happen, not my problem". First as a civilized country (US) this should not be tolerated, also for the fact that you lose a lot of credibility and goodwill from the arab and western world.
I was not suprised by the way. We know that these things also happened in Vietnam, Nicaragua, and more or less any dirty conflict in the world (not only involving US). But as I said, as leader of the modern free world the US should not involve itsself in these things.
If these tortures were ordered by high army officers or just done by some sick soldiers I don't know jet.
I saw a docu on television about the recruitment of soldier for the marines, and I must say, I changed my opoinion a bit and think that these tortureings are done just by these marines and were not ordered.
The US government should, get these people out of irak, put them on trial for war crimes. They should show the rest of the world that they don't allow these malpractices. (I think Bush is allready taken measures by the way).
Finally we have seen some fotoos and video's now but I wonder how many times these things happen when there is no camera around?.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - NiteFox - 05-06-2004
Call me crazy, but didn't I see this video during the first Gulf War?
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - SwissMercenary - 05-06-2004
Quote:Smear campaign.
Doesn't change the nature of what it is, though.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - Kevin - 05-06-2004
Did I say we didn't firebomb? No, I didn't. Did I say firebombing was a good thing? No, I didn't. Did I claim we didn't commit atrocities? No, I didn't.
Actually Dresden is a perfect example of why we didn't want to start bombing civil areas in the first place. Once you start marginalizing things get worse and worse and worse. Dresden was also late, heck nearly the end, in the war after everything had already snowballed and the people were rationalizing the very thing they didn't want to happen as a valid tactic. I agree it should stand out a prime example of "tactics" that make no sense and shouldn't be repeated. But I think you missed the point of my nit.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - kandrathe - 05-07-2004
Dresden while more intense, was no more immoral than the blitz on London. If we are recounting American atrocities, I think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty horrific acts of war, as well as the relentless conventional fire bombing of Tokyo. I'm just surprised it worked to make Japan capitulate. My take on it was that the Japanese military perspective was one of the image of a noble Samarai and a rallied fanatic population defending the shores of Japan to the last. The US, by demonstrating the willingness to continue to drop nuclear weapons on Japan until it was naught but a radioactive cinder, not only broke their will, but presented the true ignobility and the monstrosity of modern warfare. If you consider Hiroshima alone, one plane, and one bomb killed about 66,000 people and caused mostly catastrophic radiation and flash burn injuries in about 69,000 more. How do you treat 69,000 burn victims? How do you cope with 120,000 people instantly made homeless?
It was not noble, it was not fair, and for the US then, and even up to right now in history our use of military power has been entirely one sided. This video and many others I've seen clearly demonstrate our ruthless total dominance of the modern battlefield. I don't think many of us could imagine what it might be like to weather a modern B52 strike, let alone what Baghdad has been through.
Oh, and as for the video. As Pete said, before I'd judge it I would want to know more details about the context. In military jargon this video would be called close air support, or taking out most of the "bad guys" from the air to make way for the infantry. I'd like to see a world where no one needs to be unfortunate enough to be facing down an Apache, or being ferreted out of a cave complex with a fuel air MOAB.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - Taem - 05-07-2004
The way I see it, thereâs "war" time and "peace" time.
In Wartime, to me this is where we bomb the living hell out of the enemy and kill indiscriminately to lay waste to the enemyâs moral.
In Peacetime, to me this is where we enforce our will upon this nation and crush the remaining few who still oppose us.
The difference? The difference is the amount of firepower and the size of the opposition. 'Peace' is in fact 'war' when we occupy a hostile nation! It would seem America is the worldâs police!
So, in a state of 'peace', it can only be concluded that American soldiers will do what they have to do to protect themselves from the enemy. If the enemy is gunned down but still alive and able to shoot a weapon, you can bet they will probably do so again. How can America ensure peace without enforcing it? They can't be soft and understanding to the musings of extremists or the rights of religious fanatics, nor the freedom of thousands who oppose the American invasion. They canât listen to what the country or its neighbors want, or any other country for that matter. No, they must be hard handed and deal out a swift justice, setting right what is wrong in that country. Make sense to you? Nope, didn't think so. Doesnât make any sense to me either, but neither does this war.
I'm sure this war had more to do than anybody expects, but was it justified? For the reasons given by the lying Bush administration, hell no! It is because of this administration I donât trust or believe that I don't see any actions our military takes in Iraq to be justifiable by any means. All I see is us crushing innocent Iraqis, their lives and their freedom, which ironically we are trying to instill a Democracy. Maybe Sadam and his Generals needed to go, but why an all out war? Ever ask yourself that? Why not send special OP's to take him out? I remember in the first Iraq war, the CIA said they had the opportunity to "take Sadam out," but the first Bush told them not too. There had to be some reason to start this war, and it definitely was not for the reasons stated by the Bush administration. Why are they spending so much of our money now on that country instead of letting them rebuild? Do they fear warlords or maybe they think the country will revert to its same old ways? If the latter was true, then why try to change the entire countries beliefs? Wouldnât that require also âchangingâ the surrounding countries beliefs as well? I could see how America must look like a threat to the eyes of all eastern countries, if not every country in the world.
Why why why? I suppose the answer will never be known, but to get back to the original point, I think in a war like situation, even one called 'peaceful', it is necessary to take whatever means deemed appropriate to protect yourself and your men. If that means killing unarmed women and children who "might" be strapped to the teeth with bombs, so be it. If that means shooting a wounded gunman until he's dead or torturing Iraqis by making them stand on a chair and shocking them, so be it. I'm glad I'm not in Iraq right now, thatâs for sure. I can rant and rave all I want, but my voice will never make a difference in the scheme of things. What I'm trying to say is that the soldiers are justified in protecting themselves how they deem necessary, but the war is not justified, making any actions by the soldiers, IMO, illegal in a world court.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - kandrathe - 05-07-2004
Quote:...but was it justified?A better question is; "When is war justified?" I'm pretty sure "Pearl Harbor" justified our response to Japan, and the sinking of our shipping by German U-boats might have justified our actions against Germany. Most Americans at that time did not think that just the threat posed by Hitler and the Nazi's justified going to war against Germany.
I think as a answer to your musing about the US as the world's police you can look to the former Yugoslavia. This is Europe's Haiti, and Europe tried and was unable to do anything about it. Clinton was eventually pressured into taking on the task of stabilizing that region, and we still have about 1500(of 2500) soldiers in Bosnia now. In Kosovo, we have 4350 of 18,500 troops. Ask a Rwandan if they might have liked some US intervention during their genicide 10 years ago. Ask some non-Islamic Sudanese if they would like the world to take notice of the mass slaughter there. What does Iraq have that many other hot spots in the world do not? Hmmm. It is not just about oil, but oil has everything to do with it. Oil provides power in many senses of the word, but I mean political power.
Quote:Why why why?There is seldom just one simple answer. One might also pose "Why, why, why did the Reagan administration prop up this madman, help him with (or at least not stop him from obtaining and using) chemical and biological weapons, rather than let Iraq fall to Iran?" What would it mean to the world if 1/3 of the worlds oil supply was controlled by a small group of religious extremists?
Oh, wait! It is. But, at least they are extremists willing to do business with us, rather than plotting our destruction. Although, it seems they are not beneath funding those that are plotting our destruction.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - NiteFox - 05-07-2004
"You didn't miss much. It was snapshots a soldier took last year of generic stuff you see in a war: tanks, soldiers, corpses, wounded children, that kind of thing. Noble cause or not, it's never pretty."
- Matt Boyd
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - kandrathe - 05-10-2004
When I was at University as a part of my Latin American studies courses I read some materials of the CIA and DIA on interrogation (torture) techniques. This is one American who believes that it is time for us to walk the talk that Bush proclaims for what "American" means in the way we treat other human beings. It's just some of the things I've heard about the treatment at Abu Ghraib rang true to what I've read. There are whole chapters devoted to the psychology of nudity and sexual abuse in interrogation.
School of the America's Watch
I'm not saying that we definately have a policy of torture, just that we do not distance ourselves from it enough, or clearly condemn it enough.
Excerpt describing subsequent reworks of the CIA's KUBARK manual;
Quote:The two recently declassified CIA manuals make even more chilling reading. The CIA had written KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation in 1963 for use by US agents against perceived Soviet subversion. (KUBARK was the CIA's code name for itself. ) While it was not intended to train foreign military services, its successor, Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual --- 1983, which drew heavily on material in KUBARK, was used in at least seven US training courses conducted in Latin American countries between 1982 and 1987, according to a June 1988 memo placed inside the manual. This 1983 manual originally surfaced in response to a June 1988 congressional hearing which was prompted by allegations by the New York Times that the US had taught Honduran military officers who used torture. The 1988 hearing was not the first time such manuals had surfaced. In 1984, a CIA manual for training the Nicaraguan Contras in psychological operations created a considerable scandal.
These two CIA textbooks deal exclusively with interrogation and devote an entire chapter each to "coercive techniques." Human Resource Exploitation recommends surprising suspects in the predawn hours, arresting, blindfolding, and stripping them naked. Suspects should be held incommunicado, it advises, and deprived of normal routines in eating and sleeping. Interrogation rooms should be windowless, sound proof, dark, and without toilets. The manuals do admonish that torture techniques can backfire and that the threat of pain is often more effective than pain itself. However, they then go on to describe coercive techniques ''to induce psychological regression in the subject by bringing a superior outside force to bear on his will to resist.'' These techniques include prolonged constraint, prolonged exertion, extremes of heat, cold, or moisture, deprivation of food or sleep, disrupting routines, solitary confinement, threats of pain, deprivation of sensory stimuli, hypnosis, and use of drugs or placebos.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - Artega - 05-10-2004
Quote:I'm not saying that we definately have a policy of torture, just that we do not distance ourselves from it enough, or clearly condemn it enough.
Torture is a means to an end. It can be effective when used correctly; used incorrectly, it can make a reticent prisoner into a mute. Why should we outlaw or condemn a form of interrogation that is often highly successful? Because it clashes with the American public's ethical and moral fiber?
There is no honor, no nobility in war. If you think that people out there aren't going to shoot someone in the back, then you are a fool. In war, you kill people. It's as simple as the first rule of combat: shoot them before they shoot you.
Moralizing over what happens in a war or over interrogation "techniques" has no point. At least, not one that I am able to perceive.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - kandrathe - 05-10-2004
Quote:Torture is a means to an end.So is genocide. Both are banned by international law. I just think you have to draw a clear line about what is acceptable behavior. Sure, the enemy has and will do far more heinous things. I just don't think we should toss away the moral high ground, our values, and whatever shreds of dignity we have remaining by stooping to barbarism.
Quote:Why should we outlaw or condemn a form of interrogation that is often highly successful? Because it clashes with the American public's ethical and moral fiber?Um, yes? What do we stand for? I guess I would rather walk away and lose with dignity than sell my soul for victory.
If these prisoners were armed on a battle field I might agree with you. That is not the case, some of them were just picked up off the streets in the wrong place at the wrong time. Given a different place and time, it could be you standing on the stool, wired up, with the hood on. If you can justify it there, then someone can justify it here.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - Taem - 05-10-2004
Torture in regards to what is listed in that KUBART book is more like humiliation techniques combined with a bit of psychology. Threatening to inflict pain or humiliating another human being by making them run around naked, while I don't think itâs the healthiest thing in the world to do to another person or have done to you, is not torture by any stretch of the imagination.
While the first definition listed under torture is âextreme mental duress,â the rest of the definitions describe unbearable physical pain, suffering physical pain in agony, and the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to. When I think of torture, I picture electrocution, thumbtacks, pulling teeth, mutilation, anything inclusive with physical pain. I do NOT think physical torture is a healthy aspect of a war, nor does it work; as a matter of fact, it has been PROVEN not to work and usually has the opposite effect! What KUBART is describing is more of a psychological game with no real physical harm being done, and I see nothing wrong with that.
What disturbs me is stories Iâve heard of immigrants who have fled Cuba and other countries from a dictator who takes pleasure from harming others, mutilating parents in front of their children, raping and abusing women and children, scaring, starvation, and just terrible things I cant begin to describe. There was this one eight year old girl who watched her family murdered and mutilated in front of her, then she was raped and locked in a cage with her dying mother, dead father and brothers. She was rescued three days later and after recovering from broken bones, made it to the states a few years later. For the rest of her life she will not be mentally alright, and I believe she lost the ability to have children of her own. Now that makes me sick and that is torture. Donât get me wrong, if Americans are âtorturingâ Iraqis, then I hope they are caught and sentenced in an international court along with whoever ordered their torturing. However if they are just playing mind games with the Iraqis in a hope to gleam information, then I seen nothing wrong with that!
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - DeeBye - 05-10-2004
Artega,May 9 2004, 11:30 PM Wrote:Torture is a means to an end. It can be effective when used correctly; used incorrectly, it can make a reticent prisoner into a mute.And I'm sure you've seen it used both ways and can provide us with detailed accounts.
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - NinjaRooster - 05-10-2004
MEAT,May 10 2004, 01:00 AM Wrote:Torture in regards to what is listed in that KUBART book is more like humiliation techniques combined with a bit of psychology. Threatening to inflict pain or humiliating another human being by making them run around naked, while I don't think itâs the healthiest thing in the world to do to another person or have done to you, is not torture by any stretch of the imagination.Since it's so 'alright', would you like to play 'mind games'?
While the first definition listed under torture is âextreme mental duress,â the rest of the definitions describe unbearable physical pain, suffering physical pain in agony, and the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to. When I think of torture, I picture electrocution, thumbtacks, pulling teeth, mutilation, anything inclusive with physical pain. I do NOT think physical torture is a healthy aspect of a war, nor does it work; as a matter of fact, it has been PROVEN not to work and usually has the opposite effect! What KUBART is describing is more of a psychological game with no real physical harm being done, and I see nothing wrong with that.
What disturbs me is stories Iâve heard of immigrants who have fled Cuba and other countries from a dictator who takes pleasure from harming others, mutilating parents in front of their children, raping and abusing women and children, scaring, starvation, and just terrible things I cant begin to describe. There was this one eight year old girl who watched her family murdered and mutilated in front of her, then she was raped and locked in a cage with her dying mother, dead father and brothers. She was rescued three days later and after recovering from broken bones, made it to the states a few years later. For the rest of her life she will not be mentally alright, and I believe she lost the ability to have children of her own. Now that makes me sick and that is torture. Donât get me wrong, if Americans are âtorturingâ Iraqis, then I hope they are caught and sentenced in an international court along with whoever ordered their torturing. However if they are just playing mind games with the Iraqis in a hope to gleam information, then I seen nothing wrong with that!
I am willing to engage on a discussion of the consequences of these 'mind games' that you so easily dismiss to the inconsequential bin.
~NinjaRooster
Well, isn't this deeply disturbing? - Taem - 05-10-2004
Quote:I am willing to engage on a discussion of the consequences of these 'mind games' that you so easily dismiss to the inconsequential bin.
Do tell. I'm not sure what youâre getting at. What are the consequences of playing âmind-gamesâ on an individual? Perhaps my ignorance of the subject made me âjump the gun,â so to speak, and post without thinking about what I was saying, but I don't think so.
I can see psychological problems occurring to an individual subjected to long-term âmind-games,â however in light of the fact that we are in a war campaign and the driving force behind it is set on finding chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that could possibly threaten our country (even though their missile would never have any way to ever reach us :blink: ), I see the probing interrogation of hostiles to be adequate and even necessary if these WofMD are ever to be found. It's not like everyone in the Middle East is giving out hints freely. We still havenât found Bin Laden and spent a very long time searching for Sadam. Let me clarify that I do find physical torture to be despicably barbaric, evil, and inappropriate even in wartime.
So answer me a few question please:
1.) Do you think psychological torture is an effective way to gather information from someone unwilling to talk?
2.) Do you think psychological torture is immoral or necessary? How about in this war?
3.) Do you psychological torture will cause long-term mental health problems? If so, what proof do you have of this?
4.) In your mind, is there a difference between psychological torture and physical torture?