World Sociaist Web Site reports alleged torture and murder by British troops in Iraq Harvey Thompson, of the World Socialist Web Site reports on a number of reports of improper conduct by British troops during the most recent invasion of Iraq: And so on, and so forth. All in all, it's a pretty grisly report, and only the first of two parts. In fact, f@ck it, it's downright sick. Right now, Mr. Blair should be thankful that this is only in the Socialist press; if it breaks legitimately in the New York Times or Washington Post, it officially becomes a problem for him. Look, war may be hell, but this story better turn up bogus because the stuff it talks about--that ain't fucking right. Civilization is supposed to be beyond this kind of crap. Goddamn it. I just had to check in on the goddamn Socialists this morning .... Oh, well. At least the sun is shining.
Its not normally a source you usually read if you want to walk away feeling happy about world events. Whilst it's not a shock to me some people out there are shaming our uniforms by acting this way if it's as bad as they say then its a whole different thing to a few individuals so likewise i'm hoping its exagerated but part of me says too much of it "could" be true for my own liking. And yes if this made Tabloid press it would be very very painful for Blair indeed, didn't the fact a few UK Soldiers tierd up hooded and beat a few iraqi prisoners then took photos of it and sent it to a normal lab for processing hit the mainstream press a while ago?
Well, firstly if this article was true it would be all over the newspapers of the world. To give it the benefit of doubt this event sounds possible when the allies are fighting a cowardly enemy which dresses in civvies and hides behind civilians and children. How do the allies know who is the enemy and who is civilian, war is war, take no chances. Thirdly we have no right to be there at all, this war started without reason, it's a shit world we live in.
Part two of the WSWS story: • http://wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/iraq-m11.shtml It seems to me that these articles are merely a rally cry, a particularly gruesome set of "talking points." These acts are already out in the major press, but nobody's compiling them together and looking at the larger picture. On the American side--yes, we understand poor Mr. Covarrubius, who, pressed in the pitch of battle had time to ask an Iraqi to courteously submit to being executed. Or the unnamed soldier who boasted in the press of killing a mother "because she was in the way." As individual cases, yes, we understand, but when you put the composite together, it's a very grim picture. And those who wish to say that such things as killing mothers or taking the time to execute someone in the field (Covarrubius' story is just .. bizarre) is "part of warfare" need to realize that those useless casualties, the alleged torture and murder of innocent civilians by British troops ... if it's all part of warfare, then it's what we endorse when we go to war, and suddenly the bloodthirsty dogs of the future Petrol Republics don't stick out quite like the sore thumbs they actually are. I don't disagree with Vienna, for instance, on any count. But what we want and what we get and what we are are different things entirely. How do the allies know? You don't. But you can't simultaneously claim noble cause and treat people this way. It is a shit world we live in, but more than arguing with any one point right now, it's worth looking at the litany of abuses and crimes and pointing to the war party: This is what you wanted. I'm sorry I can't hope you're happy with the result. What happens when we're down to quoting Phil bloody Collins? "This is the world we live in And these are the hands we’re given Use them and let’s start trying To make it a place worth living in."
Tiassa, the point I was trying to make was if you were so unsure about the guy you were facing, whether he would take your life or not, you would react. All the military training in the world cannot replace survival instinct. We had no right to declare war on Iraq, and we have no right to be there now. Yeah the worlds a shit place and its getting shittier. Phil Collins is a great guy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nice quote, but I still prefer Lennons "Imagine"
Marginally less risky than another Dennis DeYoung hit And the point is well taken. But in one aspect, there's a question of where that crosses the line. At some point, survival instinct can go haywire. Beyond that, it's just an occason to moralize. I recognize that people aren't going to solve the problem of wars during my lifetime. But if they're ever going to solve the problem of wars, they're going to have to get used to the fact that all of this stuff that some find appalling and despicable is part of what we ask for when we go to war. Personally (as I dust off my soapbox) there are a number of grim realities I recognize about war. A short list: • The faster the invasion, the taller the friendly-fire ratio. The slower the invasion, well, the more people are usually dead. • "Civilian casualties" are unavoidable. Who are we kidding? Wholesale massacres of the innocent are unavoidable when dropping tons and tons of fire from the sky. • Sometimes, despite the best of efforts, your allies are going to gun your best friend down. And, sometimes, just to make sure, they'll get him on the second pass. • Some individuals show insufficient judgment while standing in Hell. My heart would go out to them, but for the moment I"m worried about the people they hurt. • Nobody says it's easy. These are all reasons why I despise warfare. Oh, heavens, "Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy" was bombing civilian neighborhoods in an effort to incite the people to rise up against President Taylor? As nonsensical as it sounds, that's about the measure of warfare. Bombing prisoners of war to dust? Getting hopped up and dropping a bomb on some Canadians? Yep. Sounds about like a war to me. And some of the people who do think the US should be in Iraq often wish to dismiss or avoid discussion of such grim realities. Yes, it's part of war, as many of them opine. But that's why wars are supposedly bad things. Hell, put two volunteer armies in the middle of nowhere and let them hack each other painfully to death with handmade stone tools? Let 'em. But war doesn't work that way. But this is what three-quarters of Americans surveyed wanted. This is what Americans and the British government (we hear the British public outcry, and thank y'all greatly) wanted. A war without these things? It's tough to imagine. Lastly, I only pick on Phil Collins because he picks on himself. He actually said once that he knows he's a joke. I respect him for that. He made a ton of money and didn't forget the fact that he did it making a sick joke of himself. But quoting Genesis is generally regarded as only marginally less risky than quoting The Scorpions or Styx, especially when Lennon will do just fine.
That does seem to be the problem, doesn't it? We might note: You should have stuck around for part two of the article, and also the commentary here, Stokes. More to the point, though ... you're just a little late--it would appear that it is, indeed, time to take the situation seriously.
Once it's corroborated by a reputable source of journalistic integrity I will agree with you. The WSWS has a vested interest in cultivating whatever anti-west/anti-American/anti-capitalist sentiment they can get. If this means aggrandizing or misrepresenting dodgy anecdotal evidence from a disgruntled Iraqi who may be a former Ba'ath party member, so be it. Pardon me if I don't doff my hat to a journal who creams their shorts every time the west looks bad.
Stokes I'll let you choose from the following list, as even I have doubts about some of them (Murdoch's Sun, for instance): - The Indepenent (UK) - The Guardian (UK) - The Sun (UK) Admittedly, all British, but we're looking at British troops in this case. Robert Fisk's article for the Independent is available at: http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles358.htm The Australian Associated Press carried this Feb. 19, 2004 article: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/19/1077072756769.html The same article was carried by Agence France Presse: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_55027.asp Both refer back to the Murdoch-owned Sun. Guardian Unlimited (UK) ran the following story on February 23, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1154024,00.html The Sun ... I've been trying to dig this one up. It seems ... important to other articles: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004081087,00.html So the primary credibility issues you have are liberal, liberal, and whore. But these reports are based, in part, on military reports; you can decide witnesses are liars. I just find your expression rather jingoistic, considering that it's merely an editorial decision of whether or not to put the pieces together for the public or continue pandering to the official line. One of the things even I forgot at the outset is that WSWS does very little original journalism of its own. They haven't the budget for it. Instead, they raid newswires and try to put things together according to their perspective. I could get the same from lots of people if I subscribed to one or another pundit's weekly mailing list or some-such. The point is that the stories are out there, and while you can say what you might about the Guardian or Independent, the British public that opposes this war in the first place finds them reputable enough. The Beeb even carried the obvious stories about the torture photographs developed in Tamworth. As long as the press continues to allow Blair--in this case--to play each incident off separately, there is obviously no reason for concern. These things happen, ad nauseam, &c. But to put together a collective picture, things start to look a little different. No, we can't expect every soldier to be Hawkeye Pierce. We can't exactly expect any soldier to be Hawkeye Pierce. That's why Captain Pierce is a fictional character. But beyond that, I think it's fair to wonder how deeply these problems run. I don't pretend for a minute that we're seeing the whole story; that includes factors that would naturally downplay any one of these situations, and also the idea that we shouldn't fool ourselves for a moment into thinking that the press has uncovered every abuse. No, we don't know how big the iceberg actually is, but for once it would be nice to think of people instead of slogans, gods, and causes. Because while I am quite sure that the Coalition is, in fact, doing better with its occupation and human rights than anyone else could do, those basic rights of civilization are well and fine with the powers that be until they require a little effort. Treat the accused with all the prosecutory zeal the Coalition treats accused terrorists and the Iraqi enemy. Cuff 'em, hood 'em, interrogate them in a like manner. And then let's see what their lawyers have to say come trial day. Would it sound more reliable to you coming from a British or American mother's lips? "My boy has been beaten and tortured!" I dare Blair and Bush to treat their own accused wrongdoers equally to the Iraqi and Afghani prisoners. I guarantee you that people would be outraged at such treatment of an accused war criminal who was part of the Coalition. I think it would be a great test. Call down the BBC and have them document the whole thing. After all, none of it's "wrong." Or so we are to believe. And when the weeping comes from white American and British mothers, will it be any more compelling? Nonetheless, we are looking at reports from sources that do not "cream their shorts" every time the West looks bad, unless of course we account for the Guardian and Independent by limiting the idea of the "West" entirely to Bushlike blue blood and the British government's obedience to Washington instead of its people, and account for the Sun inasmuch as it just wants a headline that will sell. Actually, that's something I'm figuring out using the particular heap of trash I've got in front of me right now. At home, on my Mac, Sciforums looks very elegant. On this PC, it looks terrible. It was only after I nosed around in the fonts directory that the browser started recognizing the fonts. The font you're quoting from is Trebuchet MS at Sciforums default (size 3, I think), and in the block quote omitted, its whatever the standard font is in its default size for that (size 2, I think). But I tag for my Mac at home; I'm going to have to rethink that in the future. I seriously don't get what's wrong with this Windows box, except that it's WinME. But yeah ... I never realized how ugly Sciforums could be until I looked at it on a Windows box. I don't have a screen cap on this computer, that I know of, so I can't send you an image of what it looks like, but I'll have to take a picture of Safari's display of Sciforums, whereupon it will be instanty clear why I use the fonts that I do. However, most people I know don't keep a text-size button on their browser toolbar. I base my browser settings at home on how Sciforums and a couple other sites (e.g. Washington Post) look. Beyond that, I frequently have to jack the text size around when doing research. In the meantime, I was horrified at how large a couple of fonts came out on this computer. I've never seen Sciforums look like this before. So yes, I do in fact have to reconsider my fonts. Your timing is ironic. If I was at home when I read your post, I would have wondered what the hell you were complaining about.
Tiassa: "War is hell, but ...Civilization is supposed to be beyond this kind of crap" There will be further atrocities, because 1) forces occupying Iraq do not have the local or international mandate necessary to legitimately control events, 2) objectives laid out in Washington and London are not achievable at the street level using any sense of "purity of arms" (as the Israelis like to say), and 3) even at the highest levels, it is well-understood that always playing nice in every tactical situation would be seriously detrimental to the strategic goals. Actually refraining from brutal intimidation, whether the outside hears about instances or not, results in a breakdown of order in situations of hostile occupation. Certain resisting elements of Iraqi society are deterred not just by the threat, but use of brutality, and when time is of the essence, physical assault as proscribed in the so-called "rules of war" is uniquely effective in many ways. Obviously I am not making a moral argument, at least at this level of the discussion (but I'll come to it). Normal societal rules, sometimes touted as the US "installs democracy" in Iraq, goes right out of the window in many tactical situations, because ethics just can't survive at the flashpoints of a foreign occupation in such a place as present Iraq. Particularly in Iraq, where multi-dimensional domestic oppositions have long been suppressed by force, there's no good short-term replacement for the application of brutality and terror. It is utterly naiive to think that the above is not understood throughout the occupying chain of command. While a "civilized" persona must be presented to the wider outside audience, occupation forces must present to the "insurgents" in certain situations a persona just as fearsome as Saddam's most brutal agents once were. Just as there has been a woeful lack of good human intel in Iraq, there is also a lack of trustworthy Iraqis to do the Coalition's "wet" business- so throughout this occupation there will certainly be white men in dark places, beating the shit- and life, out of certain Arabs from time to time, or perhaps even continuously, for as long as this occupation continues. Without such violence, and the threat of it, this occupation cannot continue. Once Washington decided to invade and take over for Saddam, an irrevocable moral compromise was made: Only pervasive intelligence and the exercise of brutal violence- in violation of lawful norms- can keep Iraq intact. The entire occupation is what is immoral, especially considering the pre-existing fault lines of the Iraqi nation. Many things that occur and will occur under the condition of Western occupation of Iraq will be beyond the ethical boundaries of a normally functioning society. Those who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and continue to do so, are accomplices in these violations of civil rights, whether they admit or even understand it or not. When push comes to shove within this occupation/civil war prelude, there are no rules.
OT On the top right of the keyboard, the Print Screen button. Push it, then go to Programs, Accessories, Paint. Open paint, then use the Control/V shortcut. You will then have your screen print. Yes, the font you use is tiny on my machine. I use Netscape, and a 19" monitor at 1152x864 resolution.
How's this look? Alright, alright. I do jest. But I'll have to take it under consideration. I'm at home now, separated from that computer, so ... At any rate, attached is an example of what Sciforums looks like on my machine. Default, quote default, and Trebuchet MS as it appears on my screen.
Dish out a few court marshals for any soldiers known to have committed torture and any officers who gave orders for the soldiers to do so. That would be enough for me. Next case.
