Originally posted by RedmikeNot that Iraqis would be different from the rest of us, but just like in the game of chess, war strategy must take into account what the enemy might do. It would be naive to think the enemy (and I don't mean Iraqis in general) does not realize the value of propaganda in a war.
Why?
Don't you think that, in Iraq, there's a fairly high probability that witnesses to crimes like this (or any other) will be Iraqi?
Edit - I'd be more suspicious if all 8 witnesses were, say, Icelandic.
Just imagine, we have no trouble believing there are elements in Iraq that would use IEDs to blow up and kill random civilians, blow up and kill US soldiers, and in some cases committ suicide to make these killings more effective. But are we to assume that not a single one of the thousands of insurgents would stage a war crime to make the US military look bad? What has been more costly to the US operation in Iraq, murder allegations or the most recent half dozen combat deaths?
Is it plausible that a groups of US soldiers deliberately killed Iraqi civilians whom they had no reason to suspect was an insurgent? Yes.
Is it also plausible that a group of insurgents would stage such an event? absolutely.
I think both scenerios are very plausible. However, I have a hard time figuring out how a group of US soldiers could colaborate to commit murder in such a way that would obviously be murder while witnesses are present and allowed to go report what they've seen.
If someone goes crazy, you'd think it would happen one at a time, not in groups of 8. If a group conspires to commit murder, you'd think they would consider the consequences of witnesses and perhaps operate in such a way that witnesses either were not there or could not be certain what they saw.
If the witnesses were US soldiers, you'd have a harder time explaining why they would lie and an easier time accounting for the fact that they were allowed to witness the event and live to tell. I would be a lot more convinced of a war crime if the witnesses were Americans.
Originally posted by techsouthDid you even bother to read the articles discussing the alleged crime?
Not that Iraqis would be different from the rest of us, but just like in the game of chess, war strategy must take into account what the enemy might do. It would be naive to think the enemy (and I don't mean Iraqis in general) does not realize the value of propaganda in a war.
Just imagine, we have no trouble believing there are elements in Iraq that w ...[text shortened]... e to tell. I would be a lot more convinced of a war crime if the witnesses were Americans.
Originally posted by techsouthI don't see how this stacks up to reality. How do angry, rioting mobs form?
If someone goes crazy, you'd think it would happen one at a time, not in groups of 8. If a group conspires to commit murder, you'd think they would consider the consequences of witnesses and perhaps operate in such a way that witnesses either were not there or could not be certain what they saw.
Originally posted by chrissybWell, yes, but I doubt if many facts will be established.
I think judgment on these soldiers should be held over until they face trial. Let the facts be established there and not by the media.
The miltary (and police) aren't good at condemning their own, unless the media manages to publish something e.g. Abu Grahib photos.
e.g. the deaths at Deepcut barracks in the UK
the terms "whitewash" and "cover-up" spring to mind
Originally posted by aging blitzerI suppose you would accept that the Iraqis would establish all the facts if the investigation were left to them?
Well, yes, but I doubt if many facts will be established.
The miltary (and police) aren't good at condemning their own, unless the media manages to publish something e.g. Abu Grahib photos.
e.g. the deaths at Deepcut barracks in the UK
the terms "whitewash" and "cover-up" spring to mind
Originally posted by PhilodorWhy would you suppose that?
I suppose you would accept that the Iraqis would establish all the facts if the investigation were left to them?
I don't know anything about the individuals who would be involved.
But from living in the UK all my life, you come to realise that there are officers who will fabricate evidence and lie to fit people up. I doubt it's much different in Iraq.
Some might expect the Iraqis would want revenge on the US for their actions in Iraq. Some might think they would be justified.
Originally posted by aging blitzerWhat personal experiencw have you had of offficers in the UK 'fitting people up'?
Why would you suppose that?
I don't know anything about the individuals who would be involved.
But from living in the UK all my life, you come to realise that there are officers who will fabricate evidence and lie to fit people up. I doubt it's much different in Iraq.
Some might expect the Iraqis would want revenge on the US for their actions in Iraq. Some might think they would be justified.
Originally posted by PocketKingsWho could imagine that giving a man a gun, pumping him full of hatred and sending him into a war situation could result in him losing control?
Currently, 8 US troops are awaiting trial in the killing of an Iraqi. If convicted they will face the death penalty. Iraqi witnesses, i repeat, Iraqi witnesses, say the soldiers tied him up, threw him in a hole and shot him. Then they took him out and put an AK-47 in his hands to make it look like he was an enemy.
Apparently there are several differe ...[text shortened]... nd a reference and post it
edit - http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/hamdaniya.ap/index.html
Originally posted by aging blitzerI think the issue here is that soldiers are to face a trial and anybody in this situation has a right to a fair trial and to be tried by a court of law not by the media. Innocent until proven guilty. Whilst we don't live in a perfect world there will be flaws in any system including media reporting. Whilst flaws in the judicial system have the potential to be remedied through the judiciary by appeal processes or the legislature via inquiries or legislative amendments. Now if the media gets it wrong, how are they held accountable?
Well, yes, but I doubt if many facts will be established.
The miltary (and police) aren't good at condemning their own, unless the media manages to publish something e.g. Abu Grahib photos.
e.g. the deaths at Deepcut barracks in the UK
the terms "whitewash" and "cover-up" spring to mind
However, i do acknowledge that covers up do occur.
1 edit
Originally posted by PhilodorIts not about what 'they' would do. Just like the common argument that tries to put down any foreign criticism of western nations, with the old, 'well you go to their country and see how much sympathy you get for having a difference of opinion.'
I suppose you would accept that the Iraqis would establish all the facts if the investigation were left to them?
If we practice a superior culture, then lets practice it regardless if anyone is looking. No point being smug and superior about how civilised we are, but then justify the very things we accuse the irrational, despotic, fundamental, nutters from doing.
No point sitting on our hands and remembering glory days. You know what Bruce says, they'll pass you by, Glory Days, in the wink of a young girls eye.
And before you know it, you'll become more than just a little bit like 'them', and all your moral highground will be the difference between the mote in someone's eye compared to the beam in yours.