"The real terrorist was me" : US Soldier (must watch it)

[graphican]

More US soldiers' atrocities against the Iraqis...

Gambit,

Sir, how are you attempting to justify a kiss on the face of a soldier by something that you did in Abu-Ghuraib alone? How is offering a football to children a compensation that your country killed half a million of people from the same country? How is burning of bodies in Afghanistan with their face twards Kabbah a justification to the terrorists for their heinous acts?

The most painful part of American actions is not you did all that, but it is the fact that in-spite of doing all these war and crimes against humanity, you think you are justified and should continue to spread more peace with weapons. A man cannot see his own face with his own eyes but you are refusing to accept the picture that you see your image through the eyes of others.

I have tons of hate for the America and Americans for the same things and policy of adopting double standards. I wish my hate could make you guys love us but I am wrong. I am waiting for the day when Americans would realize the same and admit what they are doing is not justifiable - let alone helpful.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

CBC News Indepth: Iraq - Abu Ghraib


INDEPTH: IRAQ
Abu Ghraib timeline
CBC News Online | Updated February 18, 2005



Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick (AP Photo)
Feb. 18, 2005
The American Civil Liberties Union releases U.S. army documents showing that photos of American soldiers posing with hooded and bound prisoners in Afghanistan were destroyed after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

Jan. 15, 2005
U.S. army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. is sentenced to 10 years in prison after being convicted on five charges related to abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.

Dec. 21, 2004
The American Civil Liberties Union releases internal FBI memos containing reports that U.S. soldiers chained Iraqi detainees for long periods, strangled them, burned them with lit cigarettes, and left them to defecate on themselves. The documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, also include details of detainee abuse in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Jan. 15, 2005
U.S. army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. is sentenced to 10 years in prison after being convicted on five charges related to abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.

Dec. 21, 2004
The American Civil Liberties Union releases internal FBI memos containing reports that U.S. soldiers chained Iraqi detainees for long periods, strangled them, burned them with lit cigarettes, and left them to defecate on themselves. The documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, also include details of detainee abuse in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Oct. 20, 2004
U.S. army reservist Staff Sgt. Ivan (Chip) Frederick pleads guilty to five charges of abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib, including dereliction of duty, assault and committing an indecent act. Frederick is the highest-ranking U.S. soldier charged in the scandal. He would later be sentenced to eight years in prison.

Sept. 27, 2004
The U.S. Army announces that Pte. 1st Class Lynndie England will go on trial Jan. 17, 2005.

Sept. 24, 2004
Pte. 1st Class Lynndie England is arraigned, facing 19 counts of abuse and indecent acts. England does not enter a plea.

Sept. 11, 2004
A U.S. military court in Baghdad sentences Spec. Armin J. Cruz to eight months in prison after he pleaded guilty to abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib. Cruz is the first military intelligence soldier to stand trial.

Aug. 25, 2004
A Pentagon investigation concludes that the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib were the result of individual misconduct, a lack of discipline and a failure of leadership.

Aug. 24, 2004
The independent commission of inquiry into Abu Ghraib releases its report, saying senior Pentagon military and civilian officials share part of the blame for the prison abuse.
» More on the abuse inquiries

Aug. 20, 2004
Prof. Steven Miles of the University of Minnesota publishes an article in Lancet saying military doctors were complicit in the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. The U.S. Department of Defence calls the report distorted and inaccurate.

Aug. 3, 2004
A military investigator says U.S. soldiers charged with abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison were "joking around, having some fun during the night shift." His testimony contradicts the defence claims that the soldiers were following orders.

June 22, 2004
Washington releases memos on prisoner interrogation techniques approved for use in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government says the documents show U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected the use of aggressive methods, including torture.

June 21, 2004
A U.S. military judge rules that the Abu Ghraib prison is a crime scene and must not be torn down, which U.S. President Bush had earlier offered to do.

May 19, 2004
The first U.S. soldier to be court-martialled for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners is sentenced to one year in jail. Spc. Jeremy Sivits pleaded guilty to mistreating detainees, dereliction of duty for failing to protect them from abuse and forcing a prisoner "to be positioned in a pile on the floor to be assaulted by other soldiers." The 24-year-old military police officer also receives a bad conduct discharge.

May 11, 2004
U.S. army Maj.-Gen. Antonio Taguba, who first investigated allegations of prisoner abuse in an Iraqi prison, tells Congress the mistreatment resulted from faulty leadership, a "lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and no supervision'' of the troops. An Islamic militant website shows video of the beheading of a man identified as an American, claiming it was done in revenge for abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

May 10, 2004
U.S. President George W. Bush promises a "full accounting" of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers. He stands by his defence secretary, saying Rumsfeld was "doing a superb job."

May 9, 2004
British Prime Minister Tony Blair apologizes for any mistreatment Iraqi prisoners may have suffered at the hands of British troops. The U.S. announces it will start dealing with those who have already been accused of mistreating detainees. The first court martial – involving army specialist Jeremy Sivits – is scheduled to begin on May 19 in Baghdad.

May 8, 2004
Concerns that Iraqi prisoners of war may have been abused widen when a British newspaper publishes pictures of an Iraqi it says was beaten and humiliated by British troops.

May 7, 2004
U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testifies for six hours before the congressional committee looking at abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Rumsfeld apologizes and says he's responsible. Says he first learned of the allegations in January. He adds there are more pictures and videos – and some are far more graphic than those already made public.

One of the Americans photographed mocking naked Iraqi prisoners, army Pte. 1st Class Lynndie England, 21, is charged by the military with assaulting the detainees and conspiring to mistreat them.

May 6, 2004
Bush apologizes for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. He refuses to fire Donald Rumsfeld, saying he is "a really good defence secretary."

May 5, 2004
U.S. President George W. Bush does interviews with two Arab satellite news channels – al-Arabiya and al-Hurra. He says the abuse of prisoners was "abhorrent" and "does not represent the America that I know." Bush is criticized for not offering an apology during the interviews.

May 1, 2004
The New Yorker magazine reports it has a copy of Maj.-Gen. Antonio Taguba's report, which is said to conclude that Iraqi prisoners were subjected to "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" at Abu Ghraib prison. It's the same prison where Saddam Hussein's regime tortured opponents.

A British newspaper – The Daily Mirror – publishes pictures of an Iraqi it says was beaten and humiliated by British troops. The image is of a soldier apparently urinating on a hooded Iraqi prisoner who is sitting on the floor. The paper quotes unidentified soldiers as saying the hooded prisoner was abused for eight hours, threatened with execution and then pushed from a moving vehicle.

April 30, 2004
The U.S. military charges six soldiers after pictures are published of the soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. The soldiers took the pictures depicting various humiliations of naked prisoners, sometimes at the hands of women.

April 28, 2004
The CBS news magazine program 60 Minutes II broadcasts pictures that show leering American soldiers taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to assume humiliating poses.

Feb. 26, 2004
Taguba's report, which was not meant to be released to the public, is completed.

Jan. 19, 2004
Brig.-Gen. Janis Karpinski is formally admonished and quietly suspended. Lt.- Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, authorizes an investigation into the army's prison system. He asks Maj.-Gen. Antonio Taguba to do the job.

Jan. 16, 2004
Central Command issues a brief press release announcing an investigation into the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Jan. 13, 2004
A military policeman presents army investigators with a computer disk containing graphic photographs depicting the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.

June 2003
U.S. army reserve Brig.-Gen. Janis Karpinski is named commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq. It's her first experience dealing with prisoners. Her command includes three large jails, eight battalions and 3,400 army reservists. Most had no training in handling prisoners.

April - May 2003
The International Red Cross and several human rights groups complain that American troops have been mistreating Iraqi prisoners.

 

[gambit]

CBC News Indepth: Iraq - Abu Ghraib


INDEPTH: IRAQ
Abu Ghraib timeline
CBC News Online | Updated February 18, 2005

<snipped>

Har...What did I say about 'retreads' and 'slow news day'...???

 

[Ecstacy]

More US soldiers' atrocities against the Iraqis...

I appreciate the pictures.They are really good and provide an altogether different view.But u need to understand that people ask,why there is an army man in full military fatigues,carrying an assault rifle holding hands with an Iraqi boy??Why not that man is a humanitarian aid worker??
U accept it or not,the US military actions has resulted in the death of more innocent people than by the actions of any terrorist organization.How can u possibly justify the invasion of an entire country on the basis of false information,let alone the death and misery of millions of civilians there????
There were no terrorist attacks in Iraq prior to the invasion,now there are loads of them.
90 % of the problem arises depending upon how we take our decisions based on 10 % of the problem.
Decisions must be taken to put an end to a particular problem.If the problem is blown out of proportion creating a mess,then there is something seriously wrong with decision making.

 

[zagahaga]

yes gambit your army is sooo innocent just one trip to youtube will probly change your mined... oh wait... every thing that america dose is right so it aint worth my time

 

[xenia]

they always blame us that we are backward ppl, we dont understand things n what not..i wonder how brain washed these americans are!!
if saddam was the problem, US could have toppled his govt..after all thay had plenty of experience, thats what they had been doing in carribean for centuries..
we have guts to accept what wrong we have done, ISI trained militants..yes, but how the hell can u forget "chalie wilsons war"...

they have preconcieved notions about what we are n definitely preconcieved notions what they are..a discussion here wont change anything !!

 

[TechLahore]

Few...???

Handbook 09-27: Chapter 4 - Commander's Emergency Response Program

You have no idea how much good did CERP do for ordinary Iraqis. Of course, because these far greater amount of good deeds usually go unspoken, you, like so many here, have no choice but to believe that the US did only a 'few' good deeds there.

When a foreign nation invades your country, and when hundreds of thousands of your children, women and men die as a consequence, and then when some kind-hearted soldiers of the occupational force are polite and "helpful" to your subjugated citizens, will you praise those soldiers and their occupation? A hostage taker is not let off the hook because he offers his hostages a drink of water.

The shia-sunni cartoons you have posted above are caricatures drawn by western cartoonists of how they want the situation in Iraq to be perceived. How they want the world to see them... the fact is that the US did not enter Iraq to prevent sunni-shia hostilities. These are all post-invasion justifications which are thrown around to make people feel better about their immoral actions.

There was NO justification for the US invasion of Iraq. The official explanation given to the UN and the rest of the world was a pack of lies. There is no argument to be made for an "honest mistake". The fact of the matter is that the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the subsequent creation of space in that country for Al-qaeda to enter and wreak havoc is 100&#37; the responsibility of the Bush administration.

I believe in God. And I believe that ultimately He dispenses justice. This evil, unjustified war and mass slaughter of innocents will not go unpunished by God. If we cannot agree on who is to blame, let us all agree at least, to pray for divine justice. For fear of divine justice is really fear of our own acts...

 

[gambit]

When a foreign nation invades your country, and when hundreds of thousands of your children, women and men die as a consequence, and then when some kind-hearted soldiers of the occupational force are polite and "helpful" to your subjugated citizens, will you praise those soldiers and their occupation? A hostage taker is not let off the hook because he offers his hostages a drink of water.

You must be talking about Saddam Hussein.

The shia-sunni cartoons you have posted above are caricatures drawn by western cartoonists of how they want the situation in Iraq to be perceived. How they want the world to see them...

Mmmm...Are you saying the sectarian violence was a fiction?

...the fact is that the US did not enter Iraq to prevent sunni-shia hostilities.

Never said we did. The fact is that we admitted that we underestimated the undercurrent of sectarian violence. We had high expectations for the Iraqis.

Continue with the 'retreads', gents...Slow news day indeed.

 

[TechLahore]

You must be talking about Saddam Hussein.

You mean this guy:

Mmmm...Are you saying the sectarian violence was a fiction?

No, just that it didn't exist in Iraq prior to the Americans entering, and that America's entry and the subsequent lawlessness created space for Al-qaeda to attempt to create sectarian hostilities. The fact that the US illegally invaded Iraq on a false pretext and then mishandled the internal security - deliberately or out of gross incompetence - makes it responsible for much of the mayhem and the loss of life in Iraq. Sectarian or otherwise.

Never said we did. The fact is that we admitted that we underestimated the undercurrent of sectarian violence. We had high expectations for the Iraqis.

And we have high expectations of the American people. It's unfortunate that under Bush every such expectation was shattered and the wealth of the United States was used to inflict hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and mayhem in many countries.

Perhaps one day we will see Bush and his co-conspirators tried and punished by the people of the United States.

 

[gambit]

You mean this guy:

So what did Rummy do other than shook hands with Saddam? Am willing to bet Rummy was glad he never had to do the customary smooches.

No, just that it didn't exist in Iraq prior to the Americans entering,...

You must be joking...!!! The only difference between the Sunni-Shia violence during the reign of Saddam Hussein and the US occupation was that the former codified said violent divide. How else do you think his military leadership were overwhelmingly Sunnis?

And we have high expectations of the American people.

We are more successful in that than you think. This is not about inter-states politics and enough of us here are worldly enough to know that at that level, moralities among nation-states usually give way to political expediencies. National interests rule the relationships. This is about the implication that US soldiers are mostly sadists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If I could Youtube 1/10th of what I saw in post-Saddam Kuwait and post them here, the administrative hammer would come down so hard and fast that that no Americans could ever be a participant of this forum. The despots of the ME are grateful for American technology that exposed a few of our bad apples to distract the world from their own rotten, corrupt and ten times more sadistic militaries. Human rights organizations knows, amidst their own intellectual dishonesty, that in Abu Grhaib, abuses occurred greater between Iraqis than what the public have seen with a few Americans.

Perhaps one day we will see Bush and his co-conspirators tried and punished by the people of the United States.

It will remain forever 'perhaps'. The despots of the ME knows full well what happened to Saddam Husseins are more likely to happen to them than to any US Presidents.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

Never said we did. The fact is that we admitted that we underestimated the undercurrent of sectarian violence. We had high expectations for the Iraqis.

Are you the spokesman for the U.S. Military?

The original Generals knew of the rift between the Sunnis and Shiites. Bush didn't place much importance on this and didn't want to follow their strategy in Iraq. He was too preoccupied with a quick victory and a hasty exit. Thats why most of the Generals resigned at the beginning of the war. The Generals knew sectarian violence would happen, and they were also against the disbanding of the Iraqi Army for fear this may cause civil war.

Only the idiots who didn't place much importance on this tiny little detail caused this mess and now admit they were wrong to not to listen to the experienced intelligent ones.

 

[TechLahore]

So what did Rummy do other than shook hands with Saddam? Am willing to bet Rummy was glad he never had to do the customary smooches.

Maybe they didn't capture the smooches during the photo-op, but he did far worse than smooch a dictator. He propped him up and armed him and then visited him as a show of support right when Saddam was implicated in the brutal suppression of his citizenry. The US didn't have a problem with Saddam's treatment of dissenters in Iraq until Iraq invaded Kuwait and took over those oil fields. After that event the US Government led by the Bush the Elder suddenly grew a conscience and expressed their touching "concern" for ordinary Iraqis. Prior to Kuwait they were happy arming the Iraqi army and turning a blind eye to everything that Saddam was doing.

You must be joking...!!! The only difference between the Sunni-Shia violence during the reign of Saddam Hussein and the US occupation was that the former codified said violent divide. How else do you think his military were overwhelmingly Sunnis?

No I am not joking. But you are ill informed on this subject. Saddam was a socialist Baathist who did not care much for shias or sunnis. He cared more for loyalty and to gain that he surrounded himself with Tikritis from his home town. That area of Iraq happens to be predominantly sunni, therefore much of the Baathist leadership ended up being sunni. Secondly, during the Iran-Iraq war in which the US assisted Iraqi aggression against Iran, the shias of Iraq were not all that keen to fight Iran. Therefore the recruitment in the army was more sunni rather than shia. This had nothing to do with shia-sunni sectarian strife inside Iraq.

We are more successful in that than you think. This is not about inter-states politics and enough of us here are worldly enough to know that at that level, moralities among nation-states usually give way to political expediencies. National interests rule the relationships. This is about the implication that US soldiers are mostly sadists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No, I don't think most US soldiers are sadists. A significant number are as is evidenced by Abu Ghraib and many, many incidents through Iraq and Afghanistan, but that constitutes a minority in my view. However, I do think the occupation of Iraq is illegal, I think Bush Jr. illegally attacked the country on false pretenses and I think it is immoral and wrong to support the brutal destruction of a country on concocted and false accusations. Yellow ribbons and "We support our soldiers" bumper stickers notwithstanding. Patriotism does not mean supporting an immoral and illegal occupation.

It will remain forever 'perhaps'. The despots of the ME knows full well what happened to Saddam Husseins are more likely to happen to them than to any US Presidents.

Forever is a long time. It took 5+ decades for many of the Nazi criminals to be brought to justice. There is still much time and I have faith that ultimately a sense of fairness will prevail amongst the American people. Saddam deserved what he got. However, by that same coin Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and their co-conspirators deserve to be tried for the illegal invasion of Iraq and the consequent slaughter of humanity. The Universe has a way of dispensing justice... What goes around...

 

[fawwaxs]

 

[gambit]

Maybe they didn't capture the smooches during the photo-op, but he did far worse than smooch a dictator. He propped him up and armed him and then visited him as a show of support right when Saddam was implicated in the brutal suppression of his citizenry. The US didn't have a problem with Saddam's treatment of dissenters in Iraq until Iraq invaded Kuwait and took over those oil fields. After that event the US Government led by the Bush the Elder suddenly grew a conscience and expressed their touching "concern" for ordinary Iraqis. Prior to Kuwait they were happy arming the Iraqi army and turning a blind eye to everything that Saddam was doing.

The Iraqi Army, and that include all branches, were overwhelmingly Soviet equipped.

No I am not joking. But you are ill informed on this subject. Saddam was a socialist Baathist who did not care much for shias or sunnis. He cared more for loyalty and to gain that he surrounded himself with Tikritis from his home town. That area of Iraq happens to be predominantly sunni, therefore much of the Baathist leadership ended up being sunni. Secondly, during the Iran-Iraq war in which the US assisted Iraqi aggression against Iran, the shias of Iraq were not all that keen to fight Iran. Therefore the recruitment in the army was more sunni rather than shia. This had nothing to do with shia-sunni sectarian strife inside Iraq.

Hardly and unlike you who believe the US 'armed' Iraq. The fact that Saddam Hussein was a socialist Baathist is not unknown. He was influenced by Syrian Baathists, notably Michel Aflaq. But Saddam's professed secularism did not blind him to the reality of the population he ruled over and the sectarian divide inside gave him ample opportunities to exploit that divide. Loyalty? He could have bought them and many times he did, regardless of religious affiliation. But if he could buy said loyalty and exploit that Sunni-Shia divide to greater effect, why not? Yours is the classic 'Saddam was secular' argument in order to hide this divide that nearly tore the Iraqi society apart, as also was exploited by al-Qaeda.

No, I don't think most US soldiers are sadists. A significant number are as is evidenced by Abu Ghraib and many, many incidents through Iraq and Afghanistan, but that constitutes a minority in my view. However, I do think the occupation of Iraq is illegal, I think Bush Jr. illegally attacked the country on false pretenses and I think it is immoral and wrong to support the brutal destruction of a country on concocted and false accusations. Yellow ribbons and "We support our soldiers" bumper stickers notwithstanding. Patriotism does not mean supporting an immoral and illegal occupation.

Nothing here address my point that the MEastern militaries are comprised of individuals for whom institutionalized sadism within the ranks and approved by the state is the norm. No...Am not trying to 'justify' or 'make right' what the few US soldiers did that was exposed so publicly. Am saying that for all the threads like this one, which is nothing more than a 'retread' on the proverbial 'slow news day', this is a comparison between US and them.

Forever is a long time. It took 5+ decades for many of the Nazi criminals to be brought to justice. There is still much time and I have faith that ultimately a sense of fairness will prevail amongst the American people. Saddam deserved what he got. However, by that same coin Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and their co-conspirators deserve to be tried for the illegal invasion of Iraq and the consequent slaughter of humanity. The Universe has a way of dispensing justice... What goes around...

Very well...The only 'noose' that will be around the necks of B43 and Rumsfeld will be silken cravats. Your faith will be for naught.

 

[gubbi]

They are really good and provide an altogether different view.

Different view or the real view. These soldiers adhere to strict ROEs. Do you know what an ROE is?
Anywho, yes there were violations of ROEs by some of the soldiers and all such incidents are recorded and are well on public domain for the public to see and criticize, so that future violations can be avoided. Same case with the Indian Army in Kashmir.
What do you prefer, the professional forces' few documented and criticized acts of ROE violations or indiscriminate killing of civilians in the drab of 'freedom' fighting?

But u need to understand that people ask,why there is an army man in full military fatigues,carrying an assault rifle holding hands with an Iraqi boy??Why not that man is a humanitarian aid worker??

Because if it were indeed a humanitarian, he/she along with the little boy would have been the target for extremists - supposedly fighting for the very people they end up killing!!