Worldwide terrorist attacks down in 2003

[Stelliform]

International acts of terror in 2003 were the fewest in more than 30 years, according to the U.S. State Department's annual terrorism report released Thursday.

.. Snip ..

The figure marked a 45 percent decrease in attacks since 2001, but it did not include most of the attacks in Iraq, because attacks against combatants did not fit the U.S. definition of international terrorism

.. Snip ..

The report said the war in Iraq has turned that country into "a central battleground in the global war on terrorism."


Link... (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/29/terror.report/index.html)

[numediaman]

First off, this report was created by the State Department so it has zero credibility. Second, they did not count acts of terrorism in Iraq.

You seem pretty proud of the Bush administration. I am not.

[SlyHunter]

First off, this report was created by the State Department so it has zero credibility. Second, they did not count acts of terrorism in Iraq.

You seem pretty proud of the Bush administration. I am not.
We prosecute our criminals, those responsible for that picture are going to be put away for a very long time. You cannot expect anyone to be able to control every member of their armed forces 100% of the time. The guilty will pay along with some innocent leaders who were technically responsible for the guilty parties.

[skunk]

We prosecute our criminals, those responsible for that picture are going to be put away for a very long time. You cannot expect anyone to be able to control every member of their armed forces 100% of the time. The guilty will pay along with some innocent leaders who were technically responsible for the guilty parties.
It's only happening because of the pictures. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[G4scott]

First off, this report was created by the State Department so it has zero credibility. Second, they did not count acts of terrorism in Iraq.

You seem pretty proud of the Bush administration. I am not.

How can you prove it has zero credibility? Just because it was reported by the State Department doesn't mean that it's bad information. Just because the State Department, or this current administration, don't hold the same beliefs you do doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong.

You might also like to know that even Bush has called the acts of torture caused by a rogue US General (who has been relieved of her duty, and is under investigation) disgusting.

Oh, and when you attack troops on combat duty, that's not terrorism. Otherwise, every battle in history could be considered terrorism.

[mactastic]

Oh, and when you attack troops on combat duty, that's not terrorism. Otherwise, every battle in history could be considered terrorism.

But when you blow up a car bomb outside a police station, a restaurant, or a hotel that IS terrorism. And that has been going on in Iraq.

[skunk]

How can you prove it has zero credibility? Just because it was reported by the State Department doesn't mean that it's bad information.
Credibility is in short supply.

You might also like to know that even Bush has called the acts of torture caused by a rogue US General (who has been relieved of her duty, and is under investigation) disgusting.
Somebody probably told him to say it...

Oh, and when you attack troops on combat duty, that's not terrorism. Otherwise, every battle in history could be considered terrorism.
When you send tanks and AC130s into civilian areas, where do you draw the line? When you have Marine snipers picking off everything that moves, is that legitimate too?

[blackfox]

Regardless of how your personal politics allow you to perceive this situation, I think it needs to be asked in what direction this will move us in regards to Iraq, and to domestic security policy here in the US...will this be used as a reason to continue the strategy we have so far, and as a reason to further a curb of civil liberties domestically? Although my personal views hold Bush and his administration suspect, it is reasonable to allow the possibility that some good has been accomplished...an unreasonable Liberal position (ie Bush is all bad) is as bad as an unreasonable Republican one (Bush is all good) and neither constructively address the problem(s) at hand...I applaud this news, although I do not know to whom to attribute its' success...my real concern is that it will be used to promote yet another logical fallacy by the administration...I guess the point of my post, is that everyone is susceptible to that same fallacy, regardless of partisanship, the dynamics are the same...

[zimv20]

I applaud this news, although I do not know to whom to attribute its' success
indeed. i suspect that it has more to do w/ intelligence and police action, from many countries, than the iraq war.

it's impossible to quantify, but how much more success would there be if iraq were not a distraction?

[Sayhey]

OR how much terrorism would be worldwide if it wasn't concentrated in Iraq. At least in Iraq we can focus our resources.

That would be as concentrated in Iraq as say ... the Madrid bombings, the attacks in Saudi Arabia and Syria, or the plot to use chemicals against the government of Jordan? Do you read the newspapers, Stelliform? We are helping al Qaeda manufacture terrorists the world over by our actions in Iraq.

[Neserk]

They forgot the terrorist attacks in Iraq perpetuated by the Dictator of the United States. I believe we can add over 10,700 to that.

Anyone see any recent stats on how many Iraqi's have died? I'm certain the number is over 11,000...

[skunk]

They forgot the terrorist attacks in Iraq perpetuated by the Dictator of the United States. I believe we can add over 10,700 to that.

Anyone see any recent stats on how many Iraqi's have died? I'm certain the number is over 11,000...
And let's not forget thousands of Afghani civilians vaporised by B52s....

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by Neserk
They forgot the terrorist attacks in Iraq perpetuated by the Dictator of the United States. I believe we can add over 10,700 to that.

Anyone see any recent stats on how many Iraqi's have died? I'm certain the number is over 11,000...

And let's not forget thousands of Afghani civilians vaporised by B52s....
ooo OOO or the 100's of thousands of civilians who died in carpet bombings during WWII. Ok can we get real now.

[skunk]

ooo OOO or the 100's of thousands of civilians who died in carpet bombings during WWII. Ok can we get real now.
If you were under one of those B52s on a pinpoint bombing mission, it would be real enough to you. "Shock and awe" is basically a synonym for "terrorism".

[IrishGold]

"Shock and awe" is basically a synonym for "terrorism".

Weren't they warned before the attacks to leave?

[toontra]

Weren't they warned before the attacks to leave?

Weren't who warned? I think skunk is talking about civilians. Are you suggesting that everyone should have evacuated Iraq prior to the bombing?

[Neserk]

Weren't they warned before the attacks to leave?

That is crazy. Would you leave? That is giving into terrorism! And I'm sure that most people didn't have the means to leave.

[IrishGold]

Weren't who warned? I think skunk is talking about civilians. Are you suggesting that everyone should have evacuated Iraq prior to the bombing?


Didn't they drop Pamphlets that told them that we are going to start bombing? I thought I heard about this somewhere.

[zimv20]

Didn't they drop Pamphlets that told them that we are going to start bombing? I thought I heard about this somewhere.
i'm completely lost on the specifics. are we talking about afghanistan? gimme some links about the pamphlets.

[IrishGold]

are we talking about afghanistan? gimme some links about the pamphlets.

No, someone mentioned Shock and Awe.

No links, I just remember hearing about them.

Kinda why I formed my post as a question, heh.

[zimv20]

No, someone mentioned Shock and Awe.

No links, I just remember hearing about them.

Kinda why I formed my post as a question, heh.
i still don't know to which country you're referring. is your intent here to change someone's mind?

[IrishGold]

i still don't know to which country you're referring. is your intent here to change someone's mind?

Iraq, and not really. It seemed like someone was referring to Shock and Awe as a terrorist act, which it wasn't.

[zimv20]

It seemed like someone was referring to Shock and Awe as a terrorist act, which it wasn't.
that's a bit subjective, wouldn't you agree?

[toontra]

Iraq, and not really. It seemed like someone was referring to Shock and Awe as a terrorist act, which it wasn't.

Let's get this clear. You are seriously suggesting that everyone should have evacuated Iraq because the US asked them to? Those that didn't leave got what they deserved? Is that really what you're saying?

[blackfox]

Iraq, and not really. It seemed like someone was referring to Shock and Awe as a terrorist act, which it wasn't.
I tend to agree, but it depends on your definition of 'terrorism'...I usually define it as the deliberate use of civilian deaths to further an agenda...although many civilians have been killed in the fighting in Iraq by the US, it was not deliberate policy...and there lies the difference...of course to some, this is merely an academic distinction...

As far as the notion that the US gave warning prior to the invasion, I tend to think that by following the 'protocol' for war, again the US does not seem to be engaging in terrorism, but it barely makes a difference, especially to Iraqis...it is kind of like saying:
"Pardon me, but would you mind terribly if I came by later and shot you?" instead of just shooting...

The loss of life(civilian) on both the Iraqi and US side is regrettable...but it has been a long time since 'civilized' war, where both sides were clearly defined by pretty uniforms, and shot only at each other...civilians have been involved in most wars since WWII, especially those where it was difficult for each side to figure out who the enemy was...as I mentioned in another thread, the loss of life is morally repugnant to most people, but sadly a necessary evil from time to time...war is not pretty. I feel that the US military (w/ a few exceptions) has done an excellent job in Iraq, especially in the initial 'war' phase last year...unfortunately, there was no policy or plan of action put forward by the administration...the real problem...the military is not partisan, or particularily interested in politics, the Politicians are...I am sure not a few military commanders and personnel would like to wring Bush's neck...

[numediaman]

I don't know whether this story has been posted here yet -- but this story is required reading.

Everyone is always amazed in Bob Woodward's ability to get the story. I think he does it by buttering up with subjects and being persistent -- a great trait in a journalist.

But I am even more amazed by Seymour Hersh. He is not liked by administration people, and everyone knows that anywhere Hersh is found trouble is sure to follow. Now Hersh has a story in the next issue of the New Yorker about Abu Ghraib prison. Amazing stuff.

TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB

by SEYMOUR M. HERSH, The New Yorker

American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?

. . . Last June, Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq. General Karpinski, the only female commander in the war zone, was an experienced operations and intelligence officer who had served with the Special Forces and in the 1991 Gulf War, but she had never run a prison system. Now she was in charge of three large jails, eight battalions, and thirty-four hundred Army reservists, most of whom, like her, had no training in handling prisoners.

General Karpinski, who had wanted to be a soldier since she was five, is a business consultant in civilian life, and was enthusiastic about her new job. In an interview last December with the St. Petersburg Times, she said that, for many of the Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib, “living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to leave.”

A month later, General Karpinski was formally admonished and quietly suspended, and a major investigation into the Army’s prison system, authorized by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, was under way. A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added—“detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.” . . .

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040510fa_fact

I'd post more, but much of it is even more graphic. As I said, required reading.

[skunk]

I don't know whether this story has been posted here yet -- but this story is required reading.

Everyone is always amazed in Bob Woodward's ability to get the story. I think he does it by buttering up with subjects and being persistent -- a great trait in a journalist.

But I am even more amazed by Seymour Hersh. He is not liked by administration people, and everyone knows that anywhere Hersh is found trouble is sure to follow. Now Hersh has a story in the next issue of the New Yorker about Abu Ghraib prison. Amazing stuff.

Thanks for the link, I think. :eek:
Yet more shock and awe.

As for the other "shock and awe" thing: by calling it that, it is clear that the intention is to terrify, soldiers and civilians alike. This is TERRORISM. It may be an "unfortunate side effect of war", but to set out to terrorize a population is unacceptable.

[numediaman]

skunk, I don't think those Daily Mirror pictures are legit. I'm glad to see the BBC doing a story that calls into question those photos.

One big difference that is obvious is that the American pictures feature stupid Americans laughing at the camera. But the Brit pictures don't feature any faces, do they?

I hope it turns out the Brit pictures are fake. It's bad enough that the Americans are acting this way.

EDIT: By the way, had a nice Gigondas tonight in celebration of Europe making it through one day without a war. Though I understand the Germans are threatening to take back Alsace and outlaw quiche. Big mistake.

[skunk]

skunk, I don't think those Daily Mirror pictures are legit. I'm glad to see the BBC doing a story that calls into question those photos.

One big difference that is obvious is that the American pictures feature stupid Americans laughing at the camera. But the Brit pictures don't feature any faces, do they?

I hope it turns out the Brit pictures are fake. It's bad enough that the Americans are acting this way.
Of course I'd like to think it, but there are statements from soldiers which appear to corroborate the story. Could be an elaborate hoax, I suppose, but what for? I don't see how it helps any cause except entropy.

[zimv20]

I don't see how it helps any cause except entropy.
...which doesn't really need any help...

[Sayhey]

But I am even more amazed by Seymour Hersh. He is not liked by administration people, and everyone knows that anywhere Hersh is found trouble is sure to follow. Now Hersh has a story in the next issue of the New Yorker about Abu Ghraib prison. Amazing stuff.

I'd post more, but much of it is even more graphic. As I said, required reading.

I've emailed this article to dozens of my friends and recommend others do the same. For those too young to remember Sy Hersh is the Pulitzer Prize winning author of the exposé of the My Lai massacre. There is no better investigative reporter in the US.

[numediaman]

Here's an interesting story (not that the others aren't, or course) Check out the last paragraphs:

Gunmen kill several at Saudi oil compound

Ministry: Three attackers worked at site of shootings

Saturday, May 1, 2004 Posted: 10:33 PM EDT (0233 GMT)

(CNN) -- Four attackers entered a Saudi compound and opened fire on workers Saturday, killing six, Saudi officials said.

The Saudi Interior Ministry said three of the attackers worked at the compound.

Saudi authorities believe the four people who carried out the attack are on a list of 26 wanted militants released in December. Many of the people on that list are linked to al Qaeda, they said.

Prince blames 'Zionists'

Crown Prince Abdullah said on Saudi state-run television that "Zionists" are behind terrorist attacks in his country.

Abdullah and other Saudi officials have consistently blamed al Qaeda for attacks on Saudi soil, and the terrorist network has claimed responsibility for several.

Abdullah did not suggest that Israelis or Israel supporters plotted or carried out any of the attacks. But he said, "I am 95 percent sure that Zionism is behind the attacks, for I believe that [Zionists] play in the minds of those who are committing the attacks."

He did not spell out precisely how he believes Zionists influence those launching the acts of terrorism in his kingdom.

This illustrates one of the biggest problems with the war in Iraq -- it only hurts our efforts on the war on terror. (By the way, I hate that term. It is a war on Al Qaeda.) With the invasion of Iraq, the torture of Iraqis by American military personnel, the Saudi prince can easily get away with blaming everything on "Zionists". In fact, he probably figures that it is better to blame "Zionists" than say anything that can be construed as supporting the U.S., knowing how hated the U.S. is in the rest of the world -- especially the Arab world.

[Thanatoast]

I personally think this is overplayed. I know that at first I cared a little, but after hearing this everyday, I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks anymore. Is this a popularity contest? Why should we care what any other countries think about us? Will they stop trading with us? I doubt it, money speaks much more than personal feelings. Just look at the French and Germans getting kickbacks from Saddam, I don't think they liked him, but they were certainly happy to do business with him.Okay, this is incredibly myopic. Where do you think terrorist attacks originated from in the first place? From places where people don't think too highly of the US and our actions abroad. You should care about what the rest of the world thinks because people in the rest of the world are so upset by your country's actions that they flew airplanes into buildings. And you're right, the governments of certain nations would certainly love to keep trading with us, we provide the cash to help keep their populations properly subdued, after all.

Closing your eyes to the rest of the world doesn't mean it ceases to exist or affect you.

[pseudobrit]

Is this a popularity contest?

Yes. Unpopular people have a tradition of having, er, bad luck.

[pseudobrit]

I think we could have only stopped 9/11 if we made Bin Laden president. Nothing we could have done would have changed his opinion of America. I doubt even if we invaded Israel and gave it to the Palestinians would we have slowed Bin Laden. The views an opinions of terrorists should be ignored because they are terrorists. I see where you are coming from, and you are correct, there is much more to humanity than trade. But many of the arguments for appeasing international opinion border dangerously close to validating the terrorist's tactics.

There's a catch 22 in your line of reasoning.

By your reasoning, if we show any signs of halting the offending behaviour, they'll see it as a sign of weakness and they've "won." So they'll use terror to continue to influence us.

If we keep offending them and go so far as to make such offenses worse, we'll be the target of even more terrorist attacks.

Your outlook is one of neverending violence, with such posturing égotiste that peace is impossible.

How will this "war" end under your conditions (no US concessions or gestures of goodwill)?

[SlyHunter]

There's a catch 22 in your line of reasoning.

By your reasoning, if we show any signs of halting the offending behaviour, they'll see it as a sign of weakness and they've "won." So they'll use terror to continue to influence us.

If we keep offending them and go so far as to make such offenses worse, we'll be the target of even more terrorist attacks.

Your outlook is one of neverending violence, with such posturing égotiste that peace is impossible.

How will this "war" end under your conditions (no US concessions or gestures of goodwill)?
I remember reading in a paper back then he sent us an ultimatum of how we could have peace with him. It included things like forsaking all religions other than Islam. Stopping the disgusting tradition of allowing women to work on tv much less anywhere else. Stuff like that. I would post a link but that was a couple of years ago. Oh wait Christianity was ok but only if it recognized the fact that Islam was superior to it.

Using the scenario listed above there is only one way to end it. The total and complete removal of one side or the other from this planet. Or enough of their memberships that they finally admit defeat, but that could cause problems in the future if/when they think they have recovered enough to start the fight all over again.

[Thanatoast]

I remember reading in a paper back then he sent us an ultimatum of how we could have peace with him. It included things like forsaking all religions other than Islam. Stopping the disgusting tradition of allowing women to work on tv much less anywhere else. Stuff like that. I would post a link but that was a couple of years ago. Oh wait Christianity was ok but only if it recognized the fact that Islam was superior to it.

Using the scenario listed above there is only one way to end it. The total and complete removal of one side or the other from this planet. Or enough of their memberships that they finally admit defeat, but that could cause problems in the future if/when they think they have recovered enough to start the fight all over again.This (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html) may be the link you're thinking about. But as I mentioned in another thread, I don't think Osama expects us to convert to Islam any more than we expect him to "accept Christ into his heart". I think his point was that we do not practice what we preach, and that our government does some pretty despicable things in our name, and that we need to start looking at what we're all about.

I can tell you this, though, that where ending our support of corrupt regimes in the Middle East *may* not convince him we're all swell guys, continuing our current course of action most definitely will convince him and the Arab world that we're full of it. The only way to end terrorism in Bush's world is to kill all the terrorists, but the more people we kill in the name of the US, the more people the terrorists are able to recruit. It's a never ending cycle. Unless, of course, you think we should glass the desert and be done with 'em.

I'll say it again: Our current course of action is stupid. It *guarantees* more death on both sides and no chance of reconcilliation. It is a _bad_ plan.

[numediaman]

From today's NY Times:

Officer Suggests Iraq Jail Abuse Was Encouraged
By PHILIP SHENON

Published: May 2, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 1 — An Army Reserve general whose soldiers were photographed as they abused Iraqi prisoners said Saturday that she knew nothing about the abuse until weeks after it occurred and that she was "sickened" by the pictures. She said the prison cellblock where the abuse occurred was under the tight control of Army military intelligence officers who may have encouraged the abuse.

The suggestion by Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski that the reservists acted at the behest of military intelligence officers appears largely supported in a still-classified Army report on prison conditions in Iraq that documented many of the worst abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, including the sexual humiliation of prisoners.

The New Yorker magazine said in its new edition that the report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba found that reservist military police at the prison were urged by Army military officers and C.I.A. agents to "set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses."

According to the New Yorker article, the Army report offered accounts of rampant and gruesome abuse from October to December of 2003 that included the sexual assault of an Iraqi detainee with a chemical light stick or broomstick. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/international/middleeast/02ABUS.html?hp

And from today's WaPo:


In an e-mail, a commissioned officer in the unit, the 372nd Military Police Company, based in Cumberland, Md., acknowledged that the abuses had occurred but attributed them to a far-reaching failure in leadership.

"I won't defend my soldiers," the officer wrote, on the condition of anonymity. "They knew better."

The officer added: "I am extremely disappointed in the way the Army has handled the entire situation and feel the leadership has been made the scapegoat for a few individuals. I think the leadership problems go much higher than the brigade commander."

. . . Human rights workers in Iraq said the military has allowed only one group, the International Committee of the Red Cross, to enter Abu Ghraib to interview prisoners and inspect conditions. "One of the key problems is that because we have not been given access by the military, we are not in a position to judge how systematic and widespread these abuses are," said Hania Mufti, a Human Rights Watch representative in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59750-2004May1_2.html

[SlyHunter]

[
I can tell you this, though, that where ending our support of corrupt regimes in the Middle East *may* not convince him we're all swell guys, continuing our current course of action most definitely will convince him and the Arab world that we're full of it. The only way to end terrorism in Bush's world is to kill all the terrorists, but the more people we kill in the name of the US, the more people the terrorists are able to recruit. It's a never ending cycle. Unless, of course, you think we should glass the desert and be done with 'em.

I'll say it again: Our current course of action is stupid. It *guarantees* more death on both sides and no chance of reconcilliation. It is a _bad_ plan.
Actually I think that you beat terrorism by proving to them that them using it as a means to an end will cost them more than they gain. That eventually you kill off the hard heads and the ones who remain figure out that they can't win and maybe it is more important to go to the sweat shop or wherever they work and bring home the bacon. You don't do that by giving them hope like removing your troops from Iraq for fear of terroristic retribution or giving in to any of their demands. If you show them they can win thru terrorism that makes them stronger.

[mactastic]

You're not giving them much of an incentive by suggesting they 'go back to their sweatshops'.

But then you don't seem terribly opposed to humiliation of your opponents...

[skunk]

Actually I think that you beat terrorism by proving to them that them using it as a means to an end will cost them more than they gain.
Please give ONE example of where this has worked.

"If you ain't got nuthin', you got nuthin' to lose."
The Man

[SlyHunter]

Please give ONE example of where this has worked.

"If you ain't got nuthin', you got nuthin' to lose."
The Man
Someone has to be first.

[numediaman]

I'll ignore Sly's craziness to post some of the transcript from a Seymour Hersh interview:

BLITZER: As far as you know, no one was killed at Abu Ghraib, is that what you're saying?

HERSH: No, that's not true. There were people killed, yes, but not by the soldiers, not by the reservists. There were people killed -- I can tell you specifically about one case. One of the horrible photos is a man packed in ice. You want to hear it? I'll tell it to you.

They killed him -- either civilians, the private guards, or the CIA or the military killed him during an interrogation. They were worried about it. They packed him in ice. They killed him in evening. They packed him in ice for 24 hours, put him in a body bag, and eventually at a certain time -- don't forget, now, the prison has a lot of other Army units about it, and they didn't want to be seen with a dead body.

So they packed him in ice until it was the appropriate time. They put him on a trolley, like a hospital gurney, and they put a fake IV into him, and they walked out as if he was getting an IV. Walked him out, got him in an ambulance, drove him off, dumped the body somewhere.

That literally happened. That's one of the things I know about I haven't written about, but I'm telling you, that's where you're at. There was bloodshed on the other side of the...

BLITZER: We heard from Dan Senor earlier in this program, suggesting he said he didn't know of anyone who died at Abu Ghraib prison.

HERSH: I have some photographs I'll be glad to share with him anytime he wants to know.

BLITZER: It sounds as if you've got more information that you're ready to release at some point as well, that this article in The New Yorker is not everything you know?

HERSH: Of course not.

BLITZER: What are you waiting for?

HERSH: I have to prove what I believe to be true. I have to get it proven. I believe this is more extensive, yes. I believe there are other things. I believe General Karpinski, as much at fault as she was, this was on her watch, I believe there's a point to what she says. I believe there's a point to what the soldiers say.

Again, not to excuse them. I would be shamed forever having participated in taking pictures, but there was a lot of pressure on these people to get interrogation. The whole system had been turned into basically an interrogation center.

And, again, I'm telling you, we're not talking about prisoners captured in Afghanistan who are trying to kill us. We're talking about people picked up at random.

And they lost control of the system. And the Army can talk about it all they want, but they lost control.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/02/le.00.html

[numediaman]

Well, skunk, I tried to give the British the benefit of the doubt, but it looks like I may have been naive:

UK troops 'swapped abuse photos'

The Mirror has rejected allegations the pictures were fake


British soldiers have swapped hundreds of photos showing brutality against Iraqi captives, it has been claimed.

The allegations are made by two soldiers who gave the Daily Mirror pictures apparently showing UK troops abuse an Iraqi prisoner.

Army sources have raised doubts about whether the images are genuine.

But the two serving members of The Queen's Lancashire Regiment have stood by their story and say: "The Army knows a lot more has happened."

One said: "Maybe the officers don't know what is going on - but everybody else does. I have seen literally hundreds of pictures."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3679177.stm

My opinion has always been that the war in Iraq war unjustified and illegal. I also believed that those in power (Bush and Blair) should pay for their unprovoked and aggressive war. But I am truly saddened to see that the armed forces have conducted themselves so poorly that there may, in fact, be criminal behavior to be punished. A sad situation all around.

[skunk]

Well, skunk, I tried to give the British the benefit of the doubt, but it looks like I may have been naive:

'Fraid so. There'a a lot of underlying racism in both our great enlightened democracies.

[trebblekicked]

'Fraid so. There'a a lot of underlying racism in both our great enlightened democracies.

plenty of out-in-the-open racism, too.

[skunk]

plenty of out-in-the-open racism, too.
Even occasionally - dare I say it - in the hallowed pages of our great Forum....... :(

[wwworry]

Actually I think that you beat terrorism by proving to them that them using it as a means to an end will cost them more than they gain. That eventually you kill off the hard heads and the ones who remain figure out that they can't win and maybe it is more important to go to the sweat shop or wherever they work and bring home the bacon. You don't do that by giving them hope like removing your troops from Iraq for fear of terroristic retribution or giving in to any of their demands. If you show them they can win thru terrorism that makes them stronger.

When has this ever worked?

The reason for terrorism besides general craziness is that they have already figured out they can't win. When political power is beyond them, when economic possibility is beyond them there is no choice other than death to themselves and death to the power structure.

We should have finished our job in Afghanistan, really done our job there rebuilding that country and letting Afghanistan be the shining example. Oh yeah, and caught Ossama Bin Laden.

Then we should have really put pressure on Isreal and the Palestinians to solve their conflict or at least just kept them negotiating because while governments are negotiating people can keep on living. Even if the negotiating takes years and ultimately fails it is better than years of failing war.

At the same time we should have kept UN pressure on Iraq. We know that UN inspections actually worked.

Then instead of using our aid to prop up repressive dictatorships we should have taken our aid directly to the people, funding schools, water wells and projects that would have helped the little guy. As it is our aid money either goes into the pockets of dictators or the bank accounts of politically connected US multi-nationals.

If the general population of a country sees the US as benifiting them then they will not support the crazy guys who want to kill everyone. Those crazy guys need public support in order to propogate. What's the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a killer. It's the general public deciding if the crazy guy is on their side or hurting their own interest.

All under the bridge now. Yep. I don't see it getting any better over there, only worse.

[skunk]

When has this ever worked?

The reason for terrorism besides general craziness is that they have already figured out they can't win. When political power is beyond them, when economic possibility is beyond them there is no choice other than death to themselves and death to the power structure.

We should have finished our job in Afghanistan, really done our job there rebuilding that country and letting Afghanistan be the shining example. Oh yeah, and caught Ossama Bin Laden.

Then we should have really put pressure on Isreal and the Palestinians to solve their conflict or at least just kept them negotiating because while governments are negotiating people can keep on living. Even if the negotiating takes years and ultimately fails it is better than years of failing war.

At the same time we should have kept UN pressure on Iraq. We know that UN inspections actually worked.

Then instead of using our aid to prop up repressive dictatorships we should have taken our aid directly to the people, funding schools, water wells and projects that would have helped the little guy. As it is our aid money either goes into the pockets of dictators or the bank accounts of politically connected US multi-nationals.

If the general population of a country sees the US as benifiting them then they will not support the crazy guys who want to kill everyone. Those crazy guys need public support in order to propogate. What's the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a killer. It's the general public deciding if the crazy guy is on their side or hurting their own interest.

All under the bridge now. Yep. I don't see it getting any better over there, only worse.
I think our best hope now is that this debacle serves to bring some regime change to our backward, oppressed little countries.