I think many of us are waiting for you to tell us when you've spent as much energy writing to 'der Spiegel' or another publication denouncing atrocities the terrorists commit as a matter of course, not the alleged and unproven aberrations of the Americans.

It's an observation that shouldn't need to be so obvious. This is assuming you really care about so called 'abuses' of human rights.

I don't have that much to criticise about the things Der Spiegel publishes. It's usually well balanced, sometimes a bit too lurid, but really only a bit. I don't read the english pages that much, as i prefer the german original of course, but the insurgents definitely don't get a free ride here.

But of course the war is not painted through the american narrow-vision goggles, the illigality of the war is discussed openly, and both sides have it's columnists. Gitmo is of course named as it is: an shame for the rule of law, but that's self evident. German misdeeds in Afghanistan are published as well, as are the deeds of the opium-funded warlords over there. The far german past (.e. nazi crimes and their cover up) is published as well.

Why I post here is, that I like this community in general and can't stand all this whitewash of the american troops by the american posters (and their treatment of biased right-wing media and politicians like FOX and Bush as truth providers).

To make one thing clear: from a european perspective CNN and BBC are quite in the middle, FOX far right, from my personal POV CNN is a bit to the right as well. Spiegel is slightly to the left.

Edit for spelling

I criticise two things in this thread:
1. No action of the army without extern pushing, i.e. press coverage
2. Weak punishment for horrendous crimes

If a system only hits in high gear after the deeds are being publlished, it's imho fundamentally flawed, annd that's the pattern I see here in action.

If the mass murderers from My Lai didn't get live in jail it's a ridiculous weak punishment, and it even worsens the situation created by 1.

There is prima facie evidence that a false report was filed about the Haditha incident. The false report is a completely seperate crime, and it explains the delayed start to the investigation.

One possible explanation for the false report is the commander thinking that "we had no choice but to fire through human shields" would look bad, so he listed the civilian casualties as victims of the car bomb. As I said, regardless of any other conduct that day, the false report is itself a crime.

Sorry for my perhaps not so legalistic chose of words, but your absolute wrong concerning the "hallmark of dictatorship" remark. Armies in dictatorships are afaik even stricter hierarchic organized (which is the opposite of democratic) than those of democracies.

And you didn't say anythimg about the "esprit de corps", that lets whistleblowers be treated like traitors. It's not a monopoly of an army, the police corps has the same type of behaviour, and it's also not something new and suprising. So the upper echelons have even more the duty to keep this away, as they know what damage can be done by it. Unless of course, they think themself in this undemocratic, imho even uncivilized, esprit de corps.

The military is not a democracy. Soldiers do not vote on who their commanders will be. The military is, for lack of a better term, a monarchy: the President is the Commander in Chief, and all authority is delegated from him. It is not an absolute monarchy because Congress writes the laws under which the military operates. These laws that apply only to the military are called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are charged with the duty to report crimes by the President and the UCMJ. This overrides any (illegal) orders that might come from field commanders to cover up an incident. (Note that a crime committed during a covert operation is a special case. It must still be reported, but it must be reported to someone cleared to know that the operation took place, not just any random military prosecutor.)

I think that you are simply mis-using the term "democratic army." The correct way to say it in English is "the army of a democratic nation, where the military is under civilian control."

The military is in no way above the law. The killing of an innocent civillian is a murder, no matter what clothing the murderer is wearing. If a law system says something else, it's inherently flawed.

The military does operate under laws, but in combat they are not subject to most of civilian laws... just the UCMJ, international treaties, and orders given with authority ultimately derived from the President.

There are innumerable mitigating circumstances under which the death of a civilian would not be murder. If an insurgent duct tapes a bunch of school children to the outside of a car then rushes toward a checkpoint... sorry, that car is getting blown to bits and the blame for the children's deaths rests squarely on the insurgent.

In a less dramatic fashion, this is what the insurgents do during any engagement... they fail to distinguish themselves from civilians and therefore put civilians at risk.

And I still have to get a single reason why any child could pose a thread, let alone in it's own house.

A child can pull a trigger. It is a war crime to enlist children in a conflict, but that hasn't deterred the insurgents.

I don't say that every american soldier is a triggerhappy thug, far from that. I think most of them are decent human beings, doing a great job under this circumstances. But there are triggerhappy thugs, and those need to be punished hard. Some of them probably only "snapped", evolved to that behaviour through the violence they saw, but a triggerhappy thug has to be removed from duty (preferably forever) and either put in jail or in intensive psychlogical care.

As I and other have said, the facts are not yet in. The field commander and defendants are prohibited from "trying the case in the press" so we are only going to see the one-sided story from the Haditha civilians. Haditha is chocked full of insurgent sympathizers by the way. Not the most credible witnesses.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Haditha is chocked full of insurgent sympathizers by the way. Not the most credible witnesses.

Same goes for any member of the army: no credible witness as well, also a bunch of sympathizers, just for the other side, imho.

Haditha is chocked full of insurgent sympathizers by the way. Not the most credible witnesses.

Same goes for any member of the army: no credible witness as well, also a bunch of sympathizers, just for the other side, imho.

Whoa! Now, yesterday you were chiding someone for equating American soldiers with terrorists in regard to one particular point. Now you're saying they are of equal credibility? I'm sorry, It's too early for my logic to overrule my passions in order to respond properly to you at this point. I'll leave it to either time or another to say what needs to be said.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Haditha is chocked full of insurgent sympathizers by the way. Not the most credible witnesses.

Same goes for any member of the army: no credible witness as well, also a bunch of sympathizers, just for the other side, imho.

Professionals understand that the greater good is served by upholding the honor of the profession rather than perjuring oneself for a buddy. Even if you are to hold the terrorists and soldiers as having equal credibility (or so they are equivelent now?) and impeach the testimony of everyone present, there is still physical evidence and the testimony of those indirectly involved (anyone they had radio contact with, etc.) who would be unlikely to know "how to be helpful" and would thus just tell the truth.

The investigation is not over, so let it have a chance to finish.

I'm still waiting for human rights organizations to call for the resignation of the insurgency's leaders.

Edit for clarity.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Haditha is chocked full of insurgent sympathizers by the way. Not the most credible witnesses.

Same goes for any member of the army: no credible witness as well, also a bunch of sympathizers, just for the other side, imho.

Whoa! Now, yesterday you were chiding someone for equating American soldiers with terrorists in regard to one particular point. Now you're saying they are of equal credibility? I'm sorry, It's too early for my logic to overrule my passions in order to respond properly to you at this point. I'll leave it to either time or another to say what needs to be said.

If you treat innocent civilians as terrorists, you're right. I don't. Innocent civilians have imho the same credibility as the american soldiers.

If you treat innocent civilians as terrorists, you're right. I don't. Innocent civilians have imho the same credibility as the american soldiers.

The key word here is innocent. This town was harboring insurgents, and thus are not disinterested observers.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

The investigation is not over, so let it have a chance to finish.

I'm still waiting for human rights organizations to call for the resignation of the insurgency's leaders.

No kidding. Noone should speak for so called rectifications of perceived injustices by the US forces while simultaneously remaining silent in this regard. If they do speak ostensibly in the name of human rights yet fail to speak out against these morbid people then prima facie they're liars and dirty scoundrels.

Stay Noodly

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

If you treat innocent civilians as terrorists, you're right. I don't. Innocent civilians have imho the same credibility as the american soldiers.

The key word here is innocent. This town was harboring insurgents, and thus are not disinterested observers.

Every civilian living in his/her own house in his/her own country is to be considered innocent at first.

"This town is harbouring insurgents" says: the occupiers have not yet reached the hearts and minds of the "liberated" people, so they have not done enough to get friends with them. If a whole town acts together against a foreign occupying force, who is to be blamed, the rightful inhabitants or the occupiers?

If you treat innocent civilians as terrorists, you're right. I don't. Innocent civilians have imho the same credibility as the american soldiers.

The key word here is innocent. This town was harboring insurgents, and thus are not disinterested observers.

Every civilian living in his/her own house in his/her own country is to be considered innocent at first.

"This town is harbouring insurgents" says: the occupiers have not yet reached the hearts and minds of the "liberated" people, so they have not done enough to get friends with them. If a whole town acts together against a foreign occupying force, who is to be blamed, the rightful inhabitants or the occupiers?

It's not a choice between 'rightful inhabitants' and 'occupiers'. It's between murderous despots and liberators. Rightful how? What right? Locality, race, where their pillow is stored? Tell me. They have a 'right' to inhabit a village and violate otherwise innocents' lives? How does one get a right to violate rights? The equivocations you employ are dumbfounding.

You're not being noodly

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

against a foreign occupying force

I knew there would be a clue somewhere.

We are, no matter what you believe, not an "occupying force". That has been the mission statement from the beginning.

However, I seem to recall enthusastic "jounalism" reporting celebration in the streets in some foreign nations, right after 9/11.

"This town is harbouring insurgents" says: the occupiers have not yet reached the hearts and minds of the "liberated" people, so they have not done enough to get friends with them. I

Rebuilding the infrastructure, (utilities, etc) hospitals, police force, government, the lifting of all UN imposed sanctions and giving the economy a push by creating jobs and hiring locals is NEVER going to change the "minds" of the insurgents or the people in the towns that harbor them.

Nothing but bloodshed will satisfy them.

It's not a choice between 'rightful inhabitants' and 'occupiers'. It's between murderous despots and liberators. Rightful how? What right? Locality, race, where their pillow is stored? Tell me. They have a 'right' to inhabit a village and violate otherwise innocents' lives? How does one get a right to violate rights? The equivocations you employ are dumbfounding.

You're not being noodly

Those who have lived there for years are by (my) definition the rightful inhabitants.

If the world most powerfull nation doesn't get their message around to those they wanted to liberate, it's not the fault of those who don't feel liberated, but those who left the impression of not being liberators.

They managed obviously fine some 60 years ago in my country, they were really greeted with flowers by (most) civilians. This didn't happen in Iraq.

It's not mainly the failure of the ground troups, but that of those in command, who let those poor privates go there unprepared for the reality. They did fine in Kurdistan, but that was easy.

If I go an exam unprepared it's my fault not to get the diploma. If I unprovoced chose to invade a foreign country unprepared, it's my fault if I'm not greeted with flowers.

The occupier has more duties then the occupied. A good, appropriate PR that's coherent with the reality and a sound reason, that's internationally accepted, would have helped a lot. But the second spoiled milk, and the first can only be countered (imho) by a less heavy approach and the reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure. The handing over of american soldiers to the iraq justice system, if they did something wrong, would help as well.

Every civilian living in his/her own house in his/her own country is to be considered innocent at first.

This is a law enforcement mindset, which is not suited to warfare. No one is concerned with the legal innocence of the civilians. The Geneva Conventions do not label civilians as "innocent;" they use the term "protected persons" to indicate that they are not to be targetted, but it never says one must assume someone is innocent and neutral just because he or she is a civilian.

Add into the mix that the enemy is not fighting according to the laws of warfare, intentionally blending into the civilian population. It's a mess.

"This town is harbouring insurgents" says: the occupiers have not yet reached the hearts and minds of the "liberated" people, so they have not done enough to get friends with them. If a whole town acts together against a foreign occupying force, who is to be blamed, the rightful inhabitants or the occupiers?

Iraq is not an occupied country. Iraq has its own government, and the insurgents are acting against this government in open rebellion.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

The occupier has more duties then the occupied. A good, appropriate PR that's coherent with the reality and a sound reason, that's internationally accepted, would have helped a lot. But the second spoiled milk, and the first can only be countered (imho) by a less heavy approach and the reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure. The handing over of american soldiers to the iraq justice system, if they did something wrong, would help as well.

Iraq is not an occupied country. Iraq has its own government, and the insurgents are acting against this government in open rebellion.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Iraq is not an occupied country. Iraq has its own government, and the insurgents are acting against this government in open rebellion.

So the american soldiers get their orders from the iraqi government?

Edit:

And they are to be held accountable in front of iraqi courts?

Iraq is not an occupied country. Iraq has its own government, and the insurgents are acting against this government in open rebellion.

So the american soldiers get their orders from the iraqi government?

Edit:

And they are to be held accountable in front of iraqi courts?

The US soldiers are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. They are subject to something called the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that spells out the agreement between the US and Iraq on how US servicemembers would be handled. Since Iraq's legal infrastructure is pretty rough right now, I would imagine most infractions would be handled by the US with Iraqi observers.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Haditha is chocked full of insurgent sympathizers by the way. Not the most credible witnesses.

Same goes for any member of the army: no credible witness as well, also a bunch of sympathizers, just for the other side, imho.

Whoa! Now, yesterday you were chiding someone for equating American soldiers with terrorists in regard to one particular point. Now you're saying they are of equal credibility? I'm sorry, It's too early for my logic to overrule my passions in order to respond properly to you at this point. I'll leave it to either time or another to say what needs to be said.

If you treat innocent civilians as terrorists, you're right. I don't. Innocent civilians have imho the same credibility as the american soldiers.

In that CNN video they said the surviving girl knew about the bomb and was hinding when it went off. She was in the house next to the IED and this house was then raided. They even stated she slipped up in telling the story by metioning that.

So can you really believe the surviving kids. They are just puppets of their parents.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Sorry this thread got so long. Please continue here.