posted
Which bit, dkw? the bumper sticker support? I meant it as a tangent. A lot of people (not hatrack particularly more or less than anywhere else) will run down that kind of thing as mere jingo flag-waving. It's not... and it's especially not to the people who wear the uniform.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, okay. You mean "support our troops" type bumper stickers and songs. I read it more as bumper stickers and country music in general and thought you were making some kind of analogy.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah... I was talking about the yellow ribbons and songs like Alan Jackson's "Letters from Home". Apologies for being vague.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot of people (not hatrack particularly more or less than anywhere else) will run down that kind of thing as mere jingo flag-waving. It's not... and it's especially not to the people who wear the uniform.
I find this very frustrating, because I know a few of the troops and I do support them in the sense of respecting them and wishing them well. But where I live "Support the Troops" translates into "Support Bush"... and I don't.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any way you paint it, war is murder and soldiers are murderers.
Anything else is just trying to justify something without justification.
Unfortunately, the USA is a culture based primarily on war, so as a murder-culture, we are more prone to justify it eh?
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't bother Jim. He lives in Mexico. Has an unbelievable amount of antipathy for the USA. Click on his profile and read several of his posts. I've had difficulty engaging him in any sort of continuous dialog, so frankly I just gave up.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Abu Ghraib is NOT "business as usual." And for all their marvelous teamwork and interoperability, your military forces are NOT a monolithic entity. Yes, they do share values and vectors, but they are composed of individuals...individuals taken from American society as a whole, I might add. Just as any group of Americans is...your Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are all microcosms of humanity as a whole. Some humans, when circumstances and internal motivation allow, do horrible things. That does not mean those things were directed to them, or even permitted, beyond that echelon.
I'm not a ground pounder, but several of my compatriots have served on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and you have assurance from them that it's an aberration, not "business as usual." War IS hell, but your military is not composed of soulless demons.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Lyrhawn, I wanted to just briefly say that I'm not ignoring you and you made some thoughtful points... they are just on a different scope than what I am concerned with here.
Thanks for the recognition
I'll have to start a "Haditha, the continuing saga" thread.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Tatiana, on what basis do you say that Abu Ghraib seemed like business as usual? What on earth would give you the idea that Haditha is the status quo? An unsubstantiated rumor, likely based on the movie "Three Kings"?
I believe Abu Grahib is based on more than a few rogues because it isn't just one place. There are reports of torture in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Abu Grahib was much more news worthy because there were pictures. Under conditions of anonymity, higher ups have admitted to policies that violate human rights- "if you aren't violating someone's rights you aren't doing your job." The pictures of torture show techniques that the CIA used in the 70s. That indicates research and training, which isn't typical rogue behavior. Human Righs Watch, AI, and Red Cross are still reporting abuse pretty much everywhere American troops are. Ghost prisoners (ie vanishing prisoners) requires someone higher up as well, since getting rid of the paper work on a prisoner takes some effort. So, I have trouble believing the gov does not have policies that include abuse. However, I do not blame the troops, I blame the higher ups (specifically Bush cause I think the buck should stop there). As far as Haditha, I haven't heard enough evidence to judge yet, but the torture seems policy.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
scholar is right about the reasons I suspect what went on at Abu Grahib is widespread and sanctioned at the highest levels.
As for the other, I heard it from more than one eyewitness, telling about different incidents. I find it very worrying. I wonder who we are becoming, as a country.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Really, the point about the military being a cross-section of the US is partly true, but partly not. There is certainly a broad demographic there, but I also have to point out that because it is an all-volunteer service, it is by definition a self-selected sample of Americans.
There are people in our population who would never be in the military under any circumstances and their "input" is not really part of the US military as it is composed today.
There are also people who the military will not take, and their input is not part of it either.
I would hesitate to say, however, that the average person in the military is any different from the average person in the population on a variety of metrics I would find meaningful (intelligence, propensity for violence, for example). But there are a few that they DO differ on:
- proportion female - proportion female in combat positions - proportion female officers outside the medical and selected other fields. - proportion of homosexuals. - proportion of illegal aliens - proportion over 40
Some of these make me doubt the true "representativeness" of our armed forces. But then, I don't worry so much about that. If we're going to have an all-volunteer service, I'm okay with self-selection and non-representativeness in general.
If there is active discrimination (as is the case regarding homosexuals), then I do have a problem.
But that's not what this discussion is about.
I believe that there are more incidents than we know about, and that more incidents are likely as this conflict continues.
But I don't believe for a minute that we could ever drive the probability of things like this to zero. Any situation involving humans and weapons has some non-zero probability of going in an undesired direction.
What I do believe, however, is that in many of these situations, one word or action at the right place & time can cause it to stop, or make it far less damaging overall. And for that reason, I support the idea of generalized training for every troop.
I also think we need more scrutiny of our people who are over there, and (obviously) ways to weed out the bad actors than we have now.
I don't know what those ways might be, but I can think of a few things that might be worth trying:
- find out who comes from abusive homes and pay closer attention to them during their training and first few deployments. - Study the backgrounds of the folks who do go bad and see whether there are some common threads worth researching. - Look at long vs short deployments; hot zone time; other variables and see if there's a pattern that increases stress to the point where we should be worried about tipping a few of the more susceptible folks over...
Anyway, there are no doubt people inside the military who think of these things as part of their job and probably have the data to work with too.
It'd be interesting to see what some of these studies show, if anything.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a bad list of things to do, Bob, and definitely one courageoous action at the right place and time can definitely prevent this type of thing.
As to Abu Ghraib, I'm going to be very preciuse here. What was done was wrong, and it was degrading. Characterizing that as "torture" betrays a gross misunderstanding of what torture actually is. Ask John McCain or Sam Johnson about what torture is. Read Into the Mouth of the Cat, the story of Lance Sijan, who went through such torture that when his cell mates came back and reported his story, he received the Medal of Honor (posthumously). Read the late Admiral Stockdale's work on the subject. Then come back to stories of "stress positions" and sleep deprivation and you might see how silly these accusations really are.
Now I'm well aware that Senator McCain has called for statements that we do not and will not torture people, and I think he is right. I haven't followed the debate that closely, but I'd be willing to bet that this very disconnect of definition is at work here-- I'd bet he doesn't consider these kind of things torture.
Off topic, try a stress position yourself for free: Stand about 8 to 12 inches more than arm's length form a wall. Then lean forward, supporting your weight with your two index fingers. That's a stress position. I've been in it.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry, but while I agree that there are different types of torture, denying that what went on in Abu Ghraib was torture is incorrect. It violates the Geneva convention for treatment of prisoners, it was intended to frighten, cause pain and humiliation -- to break down the person.
quote:The "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"(UNCAT) came into force in June 1987.
Article 1 1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Those who are pointing out that the Abu Ghraib situation violates the above are not being silly.
We are VERY SERIOUS. And we are appalled that our countrymen did this, and that there's a good chance that at least some of it WAS officially sanctioned -- the big question in my mind is how far up the chain of command in the military and the CIA this went, not whether it did or not. And if there was CIA involvement (not military intelligence) then I would also like to know a bit more about our command & control structure.
And, I'll also point out that there are many of us who look at the situation and think: well...that's what we KNOW about, what about the stuff we don't know about.
The US is still practicing "extraordinary rendition." Until that practice stops, claims about not using torture (which I realize you're just making a claim about Abu Ghraib, not our entire military and intelligence force) are going to lack a certain credibility.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: What was done was wrong, and it was degrading.
Again, I in no way condone what happened at Abu Ghraib.
I also think it's ridiculous that we are using words like torture to condemn our own troops when we have an enemy who beheads living people, known non-combatants no less, with a knife... a F$^*%$ KNIFE, mind you... to make a propoganda videotape.
And I think your "and this is just what we know about" statement is *exactly* the kind of unwarranted sentiment I have been warning against this entire thread. The implication of your statement is clear-- "I bet our people are doing much worse and it's just being covered up."
It is exactly that kind of atmosphere, that presumption of guilt, which colors the VAST majority of war criticism I have seen, and precisely why not a whit of it has swayed me from my support of this war.
Upon re-reading I feel I should add-- lest my profane emphasis be taken incorrectly-- it is not anger at you, but my continued shock and disgust at the incident I am citing which drove that stridency.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me, torture doesn't produce good information, and it's not good for any other military or political goal. In fact, it's extremely counterproductive. So what is its purpose? I know of only two purposes.
1. To terrorize a population. 2. Revenge.
Because the enemy is so much worse is that reason for us to do something that's militarily and diplomatically disasterous to our own cause?
I think if the military doesn't want the public to assume there's more guilt there that is being covered up, they could start taking episodes like this (breaches in discipline, if that's what they are) much more seriously. Always they are there after the fact, when the press uncovers something, or the public, it seems. Never do they seem to uncover these incidents first themselves.
posted
Well, torture CAN produce good information. But I've yet to be convinced that it's the best method of extraction.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I also think it's ridiculous that we are using words like torture to condemn our own troops when we have an enemy who beheads living people, known non-combatants no less, with a knife... a F$^*%$ KNIFE, mind you... to make a propoganda videotape.
But based on the pictures and descripions, we did torture them. Just because the enemy also does some very bad things does not change the definition of torture. Nor should it change what an honorable nation should or should not do.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did we have any evidence to suggest that the people we tortured had performed vivisections on anyone? Otherwise, the comparison is just prejudice against a whole group of people for the actions of a few -- same problem you seem to want to avoid when it is the US under criticism.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did we have any evidence to suggest that the people we tortured had performed vivisections on anyone? Otherwise, the comparison is just prejudice against a whole group of people for the actions of a few -- same problem you seem to want to avoid when it is the US under criticism.
Right on, Bob. Especially because the Iraqi insurgents are not one big, organized group -- they're a bunch of smaller groups with roughly the same goals. I would imagine their methods vary from one insurgent group to another.
If one mob family assassinates a judge's wife, this doesn't license the police to say "We're fighting the kind of criminals who would assassinate a judge's wife," even when they're pursuing another mob family that has never done anything this bad.
quote:And I think your "and this is just what we know about" statement is *exactly* the kind of unwarranted sentiment I have been warning against this entire thread. The implication of your statement is clear-- "I bet our people are doing much worse and it's just being covered up."
It is exactly that kind of atmosphere, that presumption of guilt, which colors the VAST majority of war criticism I have seen...
When facts are hidden by secretive leaders, many people will assume the worst. The right response is usually transparency. Our leaders have not responded this way, for some reason, so they reap what they sow.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
If someone else wants to beat their head against this particular wall, by all means, but I'm obviously not making a dent.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By all means, stand by your opinions, regardless of arguments that tell against them. Sounds all too familiar these days.
To expand on what I said before, I do not "assume the worst" about what this government is doing to its prisoners. I assume what I think is most likely given the very limited evidence I've been allowed to see. This evidence includes the fact that a US citizen was held without charge for more than a year, the fact that members of this administration have defended the government's right to torture, and the fact that our prisoners have been badly abused in the recent past (torture or not, call it what you like, the salient point is that it was wrong).
On the basis of this evidence and given that many of our prisoners are being hidden from the media and the Red Cross, I think it's likely (though not certain) that worse abuses have happened.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
But you ARE assuming. I think it's perfectly reasonable to pessimistic about this, but if it is okay to do so based on assumptions and personal deductions from past experience, then it must also be fine for other people to reach opposite conclusions based on their personal experience.
There's really no need for anyone to get snarky about it. We should recognize the limits of the information we possess and acknowledge that there IS at least a chance that the government is telling the truth.
I think the point about my opinion on it wasn't that I KNOW the worst has happened (and they're just not telling us), but that I just figure it's worse than we've been told because I've become used to our government telling us as little as they think they can get away with. When it becomes obvious that the next shoe is about to drop, then a little more bad stuff gets "hinted at" then a little more, then a little more.
I'm not just talking about the current Bush administration either.
It's just the way these things work in this country.
And among the worst offenders in terms of disclosure are the intelligence services and the military. I can see reasons for that, but to be quite frank, it doesn't make me want to rush right out and believe what they say. Knowing that they feel they have valid reasons for withholding information from the public isn't the same as earning my trust.
And Jim-me, I know that it must hurt to realize that a large segment of the public feels this way about the military. But, if the military can't see how its actions have earned that level of distrust and waiting for the other shoe to drop, then I'm the one who is mystified.
I also think it's important to make clear that I still honor the sacrifice that men and women make by joining the military and serving in whatever capacity (including warfare, but also just the low pay and tough life that goes with being in the service at any time).
I believe the military is necessary and does a mostly good job. The things I would change about them are things that they probably will never change -- like full disclosure and a lot more independent review. I understand that. I just don't like it.
And I don't think I have to support EVERY aspect of the organization in order to count myself as a supporter of the individual men and women in it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I openned this article figuring I'd see what I expected about the claims in Haditha inspiring many more claims (and most of them bogus).
This appears to be something else. I mean the circumstances of this man's death, and the apparent attempt to buy his brother's complicity in the coverup is really weird.
But from what it says, charges are being filed even before the Haditha case, so the military must feel it has a case against the troops involved.
quote:While I don't condone what happened at Abu Ghraib, it's a whole different order of abuse on several levels. Roughly the difference between illegal fraternity hazing and mass murder (in terms of civilian crime).
It is beyond me to be able to understand how it became common to compare the Abu Ghraib abuses as being equivilant to 'fraternity hazing.' I cannot think of any less appropriate comparison which has managed to be taken even remotely seriously.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will answer that one, since it involves clarifying something I said earlier.
I said "Illegal fraternity hazing."
I've heard cases of fraternity hazing taken so far as to produce death on more than one occasion. If you think I'm saying that's a minor deal, then you mistake my intention.
But if you think that's comparable to gunning down dozens of people in cold blood, I seriously suggest you adjust your moral compass.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The is an excellent article about the Haditha developments in the weekend NYT. I'll see if I can pull up a link and bugmenot password.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:By all means, stand by your opinions, regardless of arguments that tell against them. Sounds all too familiar these days.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. About your smug, "Isn't this so sad, that you're so stupid," tone of voice, I mean.
quote:This evidence includes the fact that a US citizen was held without charge for more than a year, the fact that members of this administration have defended the government's right to torture, and the fact that our prisoners have been badly abused in the recent past (torture or not, call it what you like, the salient point is that it was wrong).
It is not just members of this Administration which defend such things, Destineer. All too common to label it as such, though. So sad. Also whether or not it was torture is definitely salient. That's a very nice sidestepping you just tried. Until just now, you were very much focused on whether or not it was torture. Now the important thing was "it's wrong".
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My aunt just retired as a Col from Marines. She spent almost 30 years in the reserves, with about 10 more being active duty (started off that way, plus activation times during war).
She was the top expert (or one of them) in rapid deployment, and the day after she retired they called her house and tried to activate her.
She was activated for about 6-7 years for the first Iraq war too. They said they were on stop-loss retention, and she shouldn't have been able to retire...and she said to take it up with the Gen who signed off on her discharge. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is there even a debate over whether or not what happened was torture? We have the pictures, we have descriptions and we have a definition everyone has agreed on. What happened clearly fits the definition of torture. Why then, do we keep calling it abuse?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will answer that one, since it involves clarifying something I said earlier.
I said "Illegal fraternity hazing."
I've heard cases of fraternity hazing taken so far as to produce death on more than one occasion. If you think I'm saying that's a minor deal, then you mistake my intention.
It's still an inappropriate comparison on at least a couple of levels.
1. "Hazing" is an activity people consent to be subjected to. There is no comparison between "hazing" and being subjected to being stripped, put in close contact with other inmates to approximate sexual activity, being threatened with dogs, having wires attached to you and told your're going to be electrocuted.
2. Related to number one - all this is done by people who you at least perceive as having life-and-death control over you. And you - as a prisoner - have no idea if their behavior has limits at all.
In short, equating Abu Ghraib abuses with "hazing" is like equating a gang rape with an orgy. One's consensual and the other isn't. And even if you don't approve of either one, they aren't even close in terms of behavior and intent.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
DOES SOMEONE REALLY WANT TO SIT HERE AND ARGUE THAT ANYTHING THAT US SOLDIERS DID AT ABU GHRAIB WAS COMPARABLE TO GUNNING DOWN 30 UNARMED PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD?
posted
Do you really want to argue that because someone else did something worse what we did was okay?
I wouldn't let a five year old get away with that argument, why should we accept it from the adults in our military?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also think it's ridiculous that we are using words like torture to condemn our own troops when we have an enemy who beheads living people, known non-combatants no less, with a knife... a F$^*%$ KNIFE, mind you... to make a propoganda videotape.
"Torture" doesn't refer to a specific act or to a specific number of acts. I consider what happened at Abu Gharib torture. I also consider what terrorists do for their videos torture. I do not consider them at all comparable in scale, in much the same way that I don't consider slugging a man as bad as beating him for twenty minutes with a crowbar. But in both cases the charge would be "battery" and the resulting punishments should be correspondingly appropriate. "Rape" includes the drunken date who pushes too far as well as the kidnapper who abducts a 13-year-old girl and serially abuses her for weeks. The range for "Theft" includes shoplifters and career bankrobbers.
Your argument, Jim-Me, seems to be that including both cases in "torture" trivializes what the terrorists do. I'd argue that not including both trivializes what happened at Abu Gharib.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Do you really want to argue that because someone else did something worse what we did was okay?
I wouldn't let a five year old get away with that argument, why should we accept it from the adults in our military?
I came into the thread to make two points-- that Abu Ghraib should not be compared to what Haditha appears to be and that neither is representative of our military. Whether Abu Ghraib rises to torture or not is not salient to these points and hinges on what you consider to be "severe". Given the history I quoted, I have suggested that "severe" is farther out than people calling Abu Ghraib "torture" realize, but I have not ONCE in this thread suggested that Abu Ghraib was anything but criminal behavior. It's at best disingenuous (and, frankly, I find it insulting) for you to suggest I have.
But then again I'm ex-military, so apparently you all expect this behavior of me. Or worse behavior, considering I was expelled from the military for failing their *moral* standards.
At least now I have the comfort of knowing that no one paid any attention to what I was saying, instead simply inserting their own mental arguments for my side. For a while there I was scared that I had forgotten how to speak English.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Your argument, Jim-Me, seems to be that including both cases in "torture" trivializes what the terrorists do. I'd argue that not including both trivializes what happened at Abu Gharib.
What I'm very frustrated by, Chris, is that this is a totally sidebar thing to the central points I tried to make. The degree to which those points have been obliterated by people trying to shift the argument is evident in what you are assessing my main point to be.
Your points about a continuum of unacceptible behavior under one blanket term, however, are well taken. My rebuttal would be that the definition we are working from, by including the word "severe", ipso facto means that we are talking about a specific range on that continuum. Compared to my historical examples, Abu Ghraib does not rise to the level, "severe".
Thanks for at least *trying* to figure out what I was saying.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, no one has suggested anything about your personal morals. I think this particular argument that you're using is weak, but I think you're a decent guy. I would hope that we've had enough interaction that you'd know that by now.
Whether or not a particular action rises to the level "severe" or "torture" or any other descriptor is, to me, completely independent of whether the other side does worse. We don't measure ourselves by their moral standards, but by our own.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
***** Apparently, the Marines who committed this crime might have been using speed at the time.
From the blog post about it:
quote: The wife of a Marine staff sergeant from the same battalion accused of killing civilians in Haditha, Iraq told Newsweek that "a total breakdown" in disclipine including drug and alcohol abuse may have been partly to blame.
"There were problems in Kilo Company with drugs, alcohol, hazing, you name it," said the woman unidentified by Newsweek. "I think it's more than possible that these guys were totally tweaked out on speed or something when they shot those civilians in Haditha."
posted
Dana, just what is it that you think I am arguing?
I haven't tried to justify a single US action. I haven't impugned a single Iraqi action except the beheading of hostages. Where do you get the idea that I am justifying Abu Ghraib at all when I have REPEATEDLY AND WITH EMPHASIS asserted that it was an illegal action?
The point about my personal morals is to remind people who are insisting that they "support the troops" that when they say that Abu Ghraib or Haditha is business as usual, they are broadly and generally condemning and impugning the troops without basis in fact. They can call that supportive if they want to. As someone who is definitely impugned by their assertions (again, someone who has been officially declared less moral than the people they are saying are no more than sadistic mass murderers) I am yes, taking this personally. My point is not that you are thinking I am a bad person, but to get the people on this thread to be careful of the brushes they paint with.
I tried to withdraw somewhat gracefully. I ignored Destineer's snide nonsense (till just now). and people still piled on. Well, I gave notice in another thread that I would not sit still for this treatment. Press me and I will get right in your face.
So, again, I challenge you to either show me where I tried to say any US action at Abu Ghraib was "okay" or take it back. You are trying to paint me as arguing for something I am not arguing for and as I said, that's disingenuous.
Chris, again, the definition we are working with includes the word "severe". Your own example of a fist versus a crowbar is relevant here. Ii's perfectly possible to kill someone with either one. But using a crowbar makes it "assault with a deadly weapon", not just battery.
Finally, I'd like to go back to sndrake's post and explain why it's *arguable* (not saying it's clear or evident) that the illegal hazing is, in fact worse.
1) As I said earlier, illegal hazing can be and often is, life threatening. Nothing at Abu Ghraib (of which I'm aware) rises to that.
2) as you point out, the hazing happens on volunteers. They are making a reasonable assumption that they will not be subjected to illegal or life-threatening behavior in the process. The fact that they are is a violation of trust. You could argue that a life-threatening betrayal of someone's trust is the morally worse action.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, what I think you're arguing, that part of it that I'm disagreeing with, is that the actions of Iraqui insurgents (beheading people with knives, etc) is somehow relevent to how we judge the behavior of our own troops. If you're NOT claiming that it's relevant, then I don't see why you brought it up.
No, you didn't say it was "okay." But asking if you were was no greater a stretch than the post it was responding to, where you in all capital letters demanded to know if people thought that the actions at Abu Ghraib were comperable to gunning down 30 people. In fact, my word choice was in direct response to yours. You are the one who brought up the other atrocities. No one else has been comparing them, no one has said that they are somehow less horrible because our side has also done bad things.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, my word choice was in direct response to yours.
I'm at a loss to see how, since the gunning down of 30 people was done by our troops, and your response to the all-caps quote spoke of comparing things done by them to things done by us.
Further, when a definition contains the word "severe," comparison is necessary in applying that definition. Even if you disagree with the contention that Abu Grahib wasn't torture, merely evaluating the question requires a comparison to be made.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even if you disagree with the contention that Abu Grahib wasn't torture, merely evaluating the question requires a comparison to be made.
I don't see why. "They did worse" is again, IMO, not a valid argument, whether in preschool or international affairs.
Edit: and "we've done worse" isn't either. The specifics there were refering to Jim's earlier post about the knives and beheadings. "Do you really want to argue" phrasing was in response to the immediately proceeding post's word choice. Does that clear it up for you, Dag?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Severe" is inherently a comparison. A "severe storm" is only understood in context of storm severity in general and selecting a demarcation point for where the category begins.
Jim-Me has not said "they did worse" in the context of excusing behavior, which is what a five-year old does.
"X is worse on the severity scale than Y" is a very necessary step in evaluating where Y falls on that scale.
This is especially true when Jim-Me has continually condemned the actions at Abu Grahib as wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
DOES SOMEONE REALLY WANT TO SIT HERE AND ARGUE THAT ANYTHING THAT US SOLDIERS DID AT ABU GHRAIB WAS COMPARABLE TO GUNNING DOWN 30 UNARMED PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD?
I AWAIT YOUR CASE WITH BATED BREATH.
Otherwise, enough already.
37 people have been reported dead in US custody between 2002 and 2004 in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least two of these were ruled homicides, though as far as I am aware, the government has yet to prosecute anyone. So, until we get accurate details about these 30 odd deaths, I would have a hard time saying which is worse.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
