U.S Is Abusing Captives

Arcade Fire · 14 Feb 2006 at 10:02

The point that I was (badly and drunkenly) trying to make was that 'our' governments feel free to define anyone as the enemy and go to war with them, and they manage to convince us that it's a just war, fighting the righteous battle against evil etc. When 'their' governments define someone as the enemy and take offensive action against them, it's seen as terrorism.

Leave aside all considerations of who's right or wrong for the moment (the fact that you live in a Western democracy will almost certainly bias your views anyway) and just consider that odd duality for a bit. Our wars are always righteous battles against an enemy who has it coming to them, their wars are always terrorism.

I don't blame our governments for using propaganda to try and convince us that what they're doing is 'right' - in many ways its the most natural thing for them to do. I just think that we'd do well to be aware of it!

cleanbluesky · 14 Feb 2006 at 10:02

Arcade Fire said:
You realise that the words 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' are just as much products of propaganda as anything that fundamentalist Muslims care to call us, right?

They are Western constructions - but that is the audience I am addressing...

cleanbluesky · 14 Feb 2006 at 10:06

Arcade Fire said:
OWhen an Arab government defines Denmark as the enemy because they broke Arab law and encourages its people to lash out against it, then it's terrorism.

There is a big difference between 'disobeying' an abstract cartooning law that never even applied to non-Muslims and committing acts of violence against innocent random civilians in a foreign country.

The first is an abstract concept from which a culture has decided to take offence at, whereas the second is something that would stir anyone regardless of culture into defending themselves.

Arcade Fire · 14 Feb 2006 at 10:07

I'm not objecting to the fact that they're Western constructions - I'm objecting to the fact that our governments have managed to succesfully anyone that they care to consider as the enemy as 'terrorists' and have all of the nasty connotations that go with that word pushed onto them as well.

Whereas if you consider it from the other side, the 'terrorists' are doing exactly the same thing as us - going to war against an enemy who they see as breaking their laws. They, of course, also use propaganda to convince their citizens that their war is just and right as well.

I'm not trying to excuse or justify their actions, but rather just trying to point out that it's not as black and white as 'we're right and they're wrong'.

Arcade Fire · 14 Feb 2006 at 10:11

cleanbluesky said:
There is a big difference between 'disobeying' an abstract cartooning law that never even applied to non-Muslims and committing acts of violence against innocent random civilians in a foreign country.

From their point of view though, the violent protests were a justifiable punishment for somebody breaking their laws - one of the most important of which is to uphold the sanctity of your god. It was not 'terrorism' but rather just action and reaction.

Again, I'm not trying to defend them. The violent protests were entirely unnecessary. I just think that we'd do well to notice the difference between what our governments choose to label as terrorism, and what are genuine terror attacks. The latter are far rarer than our governments would have us believe, I think.

cleanbluesky · 14 Feb 2006 at 10:16

Arcade Fire said:
From their point of view though, the violent protests were a justifiable punishment for somebody breaking their laws - one of the most important of which is to uphold the sanctity of your god. It was not 'terrorism' but rather just action and reaction.

And for the Nazis the gassing of Jews was *** Final Solution - but that doesn't neccesarily make it so.

Again, I'm not trying to defend them. The violent protests were entirely unnecessary. I just think that we'd do well to notice the difference between what our governments choose to label as terrorism, and what are genuine terror attacks. The latter are far rarer than our governments would have us believe, I think.

Terrorism != cartooning... you are finding reasons to justify innapropriate reactions if you believe this to be true

No-one has labelled the violent protests are terrorism, but bear in mind that the terrorist label does help to disassociate Muslims from violence committed in the name of Islam...

cleanbluesky · 14 Feb 2006 at 10:18

Arcade Fire said:
Whereas if you consider it from the other side, the 'terrorists' are doing exactly the same thing as us - going to war against an enemy who they see as breaking their laws. They, of course, also use propaganda to convince their citizens that their war is just and right as well.

I'm not trying to excuse or justify their actions, but rather just trying to point out that it's not as black and white as 'we're right and they're wrong'.

Again, killnig civilians is very different from breaking abstract rules placed upon other people...

Terrorism involves violent attacks on civilians - Abstract rules imposed on another population are not equivalent to this

As I said before, your argument could be used to justify Nazi attitudes becasue the Jews 'broke their rules' - I think you may have a point but I am not sure what you are saying is getting it across...

bfar · 14 Feb 2006 at 16:37

I think it's an extremely dangerous action by the US. As more and more countries like the US and China get away with flouting human rights, whats going to stop more and more regimes doing it too?

Human rights were set out in international law for the protection of EVERYBODY. We cannot have a 'one rule for us, and one rule for them' situation. As these rights continue to be either eroded or ignored it becomes a far more dangerous world for all of us.

Von Smallhausen · 14 Feb 2006 at 16:40

To all who questioned my post, which you are of course free to do so.

My point is, why is the US continually singled out for such criticism ? There are far more tyrannical regimes with far worse records on human rights and the abuse of them.

It just gets my goat sometimes when people say the US does this, the US does that and the US does the other and other countries with worse crimes to answer are allowed to slip by.

bfar · 14 Feb 2006 at 16:46

Von Smallhausen said:
To all who questioned my post, which you are of course free to do so.

My point is, why is the US continually singled out for such criticism ? There are far more tyrannical regimes with far worse records on human rights and the abuse of them.

It just gets my goat sometimes when people say the US does this, the US does that and the US does the other and other countries with worse crimes to answer are allowed to slip by.

Because the US is setting a precedent. If they can't abide by human rights laws, then what gives the the right to make somebody else?

Also, they are justifying a lot of their military action by taking the supposed moral high ground. Surely this is hypocritical if they routinely break basic human rights laws.

dirtydog · 14 Feb 2006 at 16:49

Von Smallhausen said:
To all who questioned my post, which you are of course free to do so.

My point is, why is the US continually singled out for such criticism ? There are far more tyrannical regimes with far worse records on human rights and the abuse of them.

It just gets my goat sometimes when people say the US does this, the US does that and the US does the other and other countries with worse crimes to answer are allowed to slip by.

I've just been beaten to it, but I'll just add my agreement to the above post by bfar. It's because of the clear double standard. The US takes the moral high ground and castigates other countries yet they do all the same things themselves, ie. torture and supporting terrorism - either directly or by proxy. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

cleanbluesky · 14 Feb 2006 at 16:50

Being a hipocrite is seen as more of a weakness than just being a plain *******

SCM · 14 Feb 2006 at 17:22

The amount of human rights abuse that China get up to and never gets mentioned, would make this report look like nothing. To the alleged torture of the prisoners would any ex prisoners from there be 100% honest about their treatment, or would they possibly lie a bit to make america look bad.

As to holding innocent people, they were captured during the fighting in Afghanistan against US, UK forces etc so they aren't exactly innocent.

SCM

Sleepy · 14 Feb 2006 at 17:30

SCM said:
As to holding innocent people, they were captured during the fighting in Afghanistan against US, UK forces etc so they aren't exactly innocent.

BS most were capured in Pakistan under a scheme where the US paid for al Q suspects, unfortunately they didn't ask too many questions about whether the prisoners were actually terrorists or some poor schmuck picked at random.

SCM · 14 Feb 2006 at 18:04

At present there are 490 or so prisoners held there out of a possible 8000.

Some captured by US, some by Pakistani army and some by the Northern Alliance. Some will have been turned in by the population of Afghanistan for the reward.

Out of this, some are being held for associating with terrorist organisations. 24% are directly linked to the Taliban and AQ, others are being held on associating with terrorist groups.

11% have met Osama Bin Laden and one was at a meeting discussing the 9/11 attacks.

Here Info from this link.

If the people who werent captured in direct fighting are there based on links to terrorist organisations then they should be there. If any are found to be there on false ground then release them, as has already happened with some being released without charge.

SCM

Nana · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:37

Stolly said:
They are being humiliated you say ?

Could that seperate their heads from their bodies ?

LOL - If I had a choice if anyone had a choice, would they choose to have dogs snapping at their genitals, lick out toilet bowls, be beaten daily, starved, abused for YEARS with no evidence, given sleep deprivation, have whores menstrual blood wiped into their mouths, no trial and no rights, years and years of abuse, and then finally beaten to deatyh like many US detainees, or have your head chopped off?

I'd rather be beheaded, it takes a few seconds of agony. Heck at least the poeple who behead westerners wear their brutality on their sleeve, they don't pretent they are doing it to help the western world.

In actual fact, Guantanamo bay makes the people who behead others look humane.

Nana · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:40

SCM said:
The amount of human rights abuse that China get up to

hey great, lets be the lowest common denominator, that'll help the already worldwide resentment of the west.

The fact that china abuses human rights IS NOT an excuse for america to do the same.

Glaucus · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:44

war is war it's unpleasnt and sorry but torturing captured prisoners is part of war, inteligence has to come from somewhere.....

Its ok to kill some one from a shot in the stomach (which takes a while to kill them) but you can't play loud music and keep them up for 72hrs straight because its abusing there human rights.. Does this sound stupid to anyone else or just me?

SCM · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:45

I am not excusing America and where did i say i was? I was showing the blatant hypocrisy that they get hammered for it and other countries human rights abuses get ignored.

SCM

gib786 · 14 Feb 2006 at 21:26

Sleepy said:
BS most were capured in Pakistan under a scheme where the US paid for al Q suspects, unfortunately they didn't ask too many questions about whether the prisoners were actually terrorists or some poor schmuck picked at random.

this is true, i heard reports whilst i was in pakistan about how the pakistani police and army decided to arrest people who were speaking out against the gov there and claimed they were members of alqaeda