Afghan prisoner abuse trial

DogOnPorch · November 20, 2009

The use of the Bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is a touchy one, with little historical consensus (I'm of the opinion that they were bombed more as a demonstration to the Russians). Pretty much everyone agrees Dresden was militarily meaningless, it achieved no military goal, and even at the time it was debated whether it went too far. It's one thing to bomb military targets, even industrial targets, but Dresden was pointless destruction.

Yes...that and Operation Olympic wasn't looking all that fun.

Gabriel · November 20, 2009

The use of the Bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is a touchy one, with little historical consensus (I'm of the opinion that they were bombed more as a demonstration to the Russians). Pretty much everyone agrees Dresden was militarily meaningless, it achieved no military goal, and even at the time it was debated whether it went too far. It's one thing to bomb military targets, even industrial targets, but Dresden was pointless destruction.

Nazi Germany could have surrendered. Aside from that, they deserved it. Imagine how many millions of lives they destroyed! If there was ever a case where revenge was justified, then WWII was it. The Nazis were vicious and treacherous and showed little mercy to anyone. They also enjoyed strong internal support among Germans. If anything, Germany got off easily considering how evil its actions were.

Oleg Bach · November 20, 2009

What the hell are you talking about? I was agreeing with Argus. You're messed up, Oleg.

No I am not - I simply don't read the materials and like to make declarations - it must be the king in me.

ToadBrother · November 20, 2009

What does that matter it didn't stop them from bringing those cultures to their knees. Mow I don't know much about the Germanic tribes but I do know a bit about Genghis Khan and all things considered he was fairly civilizied, had some out right biazare customs but definately was not a barbarian or savage.

The Mongols were as civilized as any expansionist militaristic powers were at the time (consider Belgium and Italy in the late 19th and early 20th century, as well). The Romans certainly used very direct (and often harsh) military force to subjugate, and at least in the case of Carthage, I think they went way over the top (in an underhanded way some Roman writers seem to hint that they felt so, too, since the conflict was as much as anything else an economic one).

The German peoples were as close as to barbarians as Rome had to deal with until the Huns came along. The Germans could certainly unite, however, to beat the Romans; the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest pretty much drew the line permanently on the northern extent of the Empire, and also suggests that however barbaric Roman writers made them out to be, they were not quite the bunch of hostile tribal maniacs.

And that's part of the problem with labeling people as "barbarians" or "subhumans". Those words can be used to describe relative differences, but just as often they have been used by expansionist powers to justify provocations and invasions. I wouldn't use those terms to describe the Afghanis. Backwards, yes, but certainly no worse than some corners of Europe were in a few centuries ago. I don't think you'll win them to our kind of civilization by declaring them subhumans, insisting they're barbaric and basically stating their women and children are expendable.

DogOnPorch · November 20, 2009

Nazi Germany could have surrendered. Aside from that, they deserved it. Imagine how many millions of lives they destroyed! If there was ever a case where revenge was justified, then WWII was it. The Nazis were vicious and treacherous and showed little mercy to anyone. They also enjoyed strong internal support among Germans. If anything, Germany got off easily considering how evil its actions were.

That's still the best justification for Dresden out there. Every top Allied brass...US...French...Soviet...Brit...all wanted to be the one to put the war to bed. A place in history awaited.

Edited November 20, 2009 by DogOnPorch

ToadBrother · November 20, 2009

Nazi Germany could have surrendered.

Well, they did in the end.

Aside from that, they deserved it.

The "they" in Dresden were civilians; women and children. It was not a meaningful military target. The civilized world cried out in disgust at the Blitz, and rightfully so, but it made it a weak protest when, four years later, Allied bombers were doing the exact same thing. If, as Churchill insisted (and I agree with) WWII was a battle to preserve liberal, rational civilization, then wanton acts of destruction simply to feed some need for revenge and holding no tactical or strategic value cannot simply be written off as "they deserve it".

Imagine how many millions of lives they destroyed! If there was ever a case where revenge was justified, then WWII was it. The Nazis were vicious and treacherous and showed little mercy to anyone. They also enjoyed strong internal support among Germans. If anything, Germany got off easily considering how evil its actions were.

But that's really the point. As you might tell, I'm a great admirer of Churchill, and in his history of WWII he bemoans the end of the age of civilized warfare and the coming of Total War, precisely because Total War lead so much more directly to the suffering of civilians. The motto of his History of WWII is this:

“In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity.”

Oleg Bach · November 20, 2009

That's still the best justification for Dresden out there. Every top Allied brass...US...French...Soviet...Brit...all wanted to be the one to put the war to bed. A place in history awaited.

All wanted to be granted the honour of being the noble knight that slayed the Nazi dragon..yet it was all that created the beast.

Gabriel · November 20, 2009

The Mongols were as civilized as any expansionist militaristic powers were at the time (consider Belgium and Italy in the late 19th and early 20th century, as well). The Romans certainly used very direct (and often harsh) military force to subjugate, and at least in the case of Carthage, I think they went way over the top (in an underhanded way some Roman writers seem to hint that they felt so, too, since the conflict was as much as anything else an economic one).

The German peoples were as close as to barbarians as Rome had to deal with until the Huns came along. The Germans could certainly unite, however, to beat the Romans; the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest pretty much drew the line permanently on the northern extent of the Empire, and also suggests that however barbaric Roman writers made them out to be, they were not quite the bunch of hostile tribal maniacs.

And that's part of the problem with labeling people as "barbarians" or "subhumans". Those words can be used to describe relative differences, but just as often they have been used by expansionist powers to justify provocations and invasions. I wouldn't use those terms to describe the Afghanis. Backwards, yes, but certainly no worse than some corners of Europe were in a few centuries ago. I don't think you'll win them to our kind of civilization by declaring them subhumans, insisting they're barbaric and basically stating their women and children are expendable.

How many times do I need to clarify that when I use the terms "barbarians and savages" I am referring to the extremist segment of the Afghan population (and other Arab/Muslim populations)? I have stated clearly that I do not see the Taliban and other terrorist organizations as one-in-the-same as the broader Afghan population. I am not naive, however, to the great degree to which Taliban-style ideology permeates Afghanistan's population (and other Arab/Muslim populations). Let's not pretend that extremist Islamic ideology is some ultra-tiny fringe minority of these populations.

For the last time, stop mischaracterizing my statements. This reminds me of the same people that describe Lou Dobbs as anti-immigration when he is anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. It's as if you are unable to discern between the Taliban and other extremists and the broader Afghan population. I will not apologize for describing the Taliban as barbarians and subhumans.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Gabriel

Sir Bandelot · November 20, 2009

It's as if you are unable to discern between the Taliban and other extremists and the broader Afghan population. I will not apologize for describing the Taliban as barbarians and subhumans.

It's likely there are even people in the government of Afghanistan that are good friends with the Taliban, maybe due to family or tribal allegiance, and they do not think the Taliban are so bad. Lately we have also been hearing about "moderate Taliban", who might be included as part of the government. This is what Mr. Karzai wants to do.

So, unlike you the president of Afghanistan does not want to kill all the Taliban, everywhere. Some He even wants to collaborate with, as part of a call for a ceasefire. We're talkin amnesty, hand in your guns, and your crimes will be forgiven.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

Gabriel · November 20, 2009

It's likely there are even people in the government of Afghanistan that are good friends with the Taliban, maybe due to family or tribal allegiance, and they do not think the Taliban are so bad. Lately we have also been hearing about "moderate Taliban", who might be included as part of the government. This is what Mr. Karzai wants to do.

So, unlike you the president of Afghanistan does not want to kill all the Taliban, everywhere. Some He even wants to collaborate with, as part of a call for a ceasefire. We're talkin amnesty, hand in your guns, and your crimes will be forgiven.

Thanks, tips.

Sir Bandelot · November 20, 2009

Thanks, tips.

It's amazing how quickly everyone can become friends again. Just a simple matter of saying your sorry, shaking hands and we move on...

Gabriel · November 20, 2009

It's amazing how quickly everyone can become friends again. Just a simple matter of saying your sorry, shaking hands and we move on...

Did you honestly think I was unaware that there are Taliban animals serving in the Afghan government headed by Karzai? Did you honestly think I was unaware that differing degrees of "negotiations" have taken place between the Afghan government (and by extension America and the coalition) and terrorist scum?

I'll say it again - thanks, tips.

ToadBrother · November 20, 2009

How many times do I need to clarify that when I use the terms "barbarians and savages" I am referring to the extremist segment of the Afghan population (and other Arab/Muslim populations)? I have stated clearly that I do not see the Taliban and other terrorist organizations as one-in-the-same as the broader Afghan population. I am not naive, however, to the great degree to which Taliban-style ideology permeates Afghanistan's population (and other Arab/Muslim populations). Let's not pretend that extremist Islamic ideology is some ultra-tiny fringe minority of these populations.

But a lot of the beliefs you claim are the province of the Taliban are in fact held by the wider population. Do you think that the view of women in Afghanistan started with the Taliban? That's been a general view of women throughout Central Asia, and indeed among the Indo-Aryans (which the Afghanis are, despite the imported West Semitic religion).

For the last time, stop mischaracterizing my statements. This reminds me of the same people that describe Lou Dobbs as anti-immigration when he is anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. It's as if you are unable to discern between the Taliban and other extremists and the broader Afghan population. I will not apologize for describing the Taliban as barbarians and subhumans.

It figures you'd be a Dobbs fan. Oversimplification to the point of stupidity is his by-line, and yours as well.

Gabriel · November 20, 2009

But a lot of the beliefs you claim are the province of the Taliban are in fact held by the wider population. Do you think that the view of women in Afghanistan started with the Taliban? That's been a general view of women throughout Central Asia, and indeed among the Indo-Aryans (which the Afghanis are, despite the imported West Semitic religion).

I don't have an Ipsos-Reid poll to give me an idea to what degree these savage and barbaric practises are supported among the Afghan population, and neither do you. I am concerned, however, that a sizable portion of the Afghan population do subscribe to the barbaric traditions we've discussed in this thread and probably cannot be civilized. But who knows? Perhaps I am too sceptical. Still, you and I both know that not all Afghans are supporters of Taliban-esque ideology. I'm confident that there is a significant portion of the Afghan population worth salvaging and bringing into the 21st century.

What you mentioned above is one reason why I am very sceptical of referring to civilian casualties in Afghanistan as "innocent", though. If they perpetuate the barbaric practises of the dark ages that must be destroyed, I believe that them being dispatched serves a greater good. We don't need any more people on this planet like that.

You're STILL not acknowledging that the Afghan population cannot be painted with one broad brush stroke. I am making distinctions that need to be made, you aren't.

GostHacked · November 20, 2009

Pretty much everyone agrees Dresden was militarily meaningless, it achieved no military goal, and even at the time it was debated whether it went too far. It's one thing to bomb military targets, even industrial targets, but Dresden was pointless destruction.

Some would say killing civilians is an act of terrorism. It does seem like Dresden was that one act to end the war. As was both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I don't know I am not sure any one of them sit well with me.

Nazi Germany could have surrendered. Aside from that, they deserved it. Imagine how many millions of lives they destroyed! If there was ever a case where revenge was justified, then WWII was it. The Nazis were vicious and treacherous and showed little mercy to anyone. They also enjoyed strong internal support among Germans. If anything, Germany got off easily considering how evil its actions were.

German civilians deserved to get burned to death? Yes the Nazis were a bad bunch, but i'll bet you many Germans did not support them. It's how many people, and Jewish people especially, escaped death in those brutal camps. You are completely appauled that terrorists would take down the twin towers and kill close to 3000 people. As am I. But burning Dresden for example, to the ground in your eyes was the right thing to do because all of them are Nazi supporters. Eventhough some were not.

The Nazi regime was taken down and Germany was made a very difficult place to live with the wall dividing the country. Hitler was a master speaker. He was able to whip the masses to support the cause. Hitler made a cult out of himself really. And when you got that front and center stage with a population desparate for anything better than what they had after WW1, it makes for a serious mixture and well, that'll blow up in no time.

Yeah all germans are evil. Kill em all!!

How many times do I need to clarify that when I use the terms "barbarians and savages" I am referring to the extremist segment of the Afghan population (and other Arab/Muslim populations)? I have stated clearly that I do not see the Taliban and other terrorist organizations as one-in-the-same as the broader Afghan population.

And yet you equate all Germans as Nazi supporters. Maybe you want to clarify your self more here.

I am not naive, however, to the great degree to which Taliban-style ideology permeates Afghanistan's population (and other Arab/Muslim populations). Let's not pretend that extremist Islamic ideology is some ultra-tiny fringe minority of these populations.

Not all Afghans are Taliban, but all Afghans share the same ideology as the Taliban because it permeates society. A little confusing.

Topaz · November 20, 2009

Abuses are going on that that country as well as they did in Iraq and I have even read were Britain has abused their prisoners. The worse part of this war are the civilians who we are suppose to be helping and by the report I'm posting I can only say, I think NATO has done more harm than good in winning over the people. If you keep killing the people the more they will turn to help the Taliban. The Tories have left Canada with a high debt, continue in this stupid useless war, we can't win and this is Harper's war. If we want to know how the NATO is been fighting this war read the following but I will tell you there are pictures of a child burned by US bombs. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10506

Gabriel · November 20, 2009

Yeah all germans are evil. Kill em all!!

And yet you equate all Germans as Nazi supporters. Maybe you want to clarify your self more here.

I never said they all were. Just that more than enough of them were.

Not all Afghans are Taliban, but all Afghans share the same ideology as the Taliban because it permeates society. A little confusing.

Stop playing stupid. I never said all Afghans subscribe to barbaric ideology. What I said, quite clearly, was that I suspect MANY Afghans subscribe to barbarism and savagery. As I said earlier, it's quite difficult to gather a Gallup poll in Afghanistan to quantify to what degree the overall population are savages.

November 20, 2009

The Mongols were as civilized as any expansionist militaristic powers were at the time (consider Belgium and Italy in the late 19th and early 20th century, as well). The Romans certainly used very direct (and often harsh) military force to subjugate, and at least in the case of Carthage, I think they went way over the top (in an underhanded way some Roman writers seem to hint that they felt so, too, since the conflict was as much as anything else an economic one).

You know your society is fucked when you won't let your armies near the capital in case the general of that army decides to take power. There military was strong just not very loyal.

The German peoples were as close as to barbarians as Rome had to deal with until the Huns came along. The Germans could certainly unite, however, to beat the Romans; the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest pretty much drew the line permanently on the northern extent of the Empire, and also suggests that however barbaric Roman writers made them out to be, they were not quite the bunch of hostile tribal maniacs.

Yep, just like the Taliban isn't full of religous nuts, and even if they are that puts them more on the level of ancient Rome and Mideveal Europe than the "barbarians" of those time.

And that's part of the problem with labeling people as "barbarians" or "subhumans". Those words can be used to describe relative differences, but just as often they have been used by expansionist powers to justify provocations and invasions. I wouldn't use those terms to describe the Afghanis. Backwards, yes, but certainly no worse than some corners of Europe were in a few centuries ago. I don't think you'll win them to our kind of civilization by declaring them subhumans, insisting they're barbaric and basically stating their women and children are expendable.

You just sumed it up better than I could have, thanks.

November 20, 2009

How many times do I need to clarify that when I use the terms "barbarians and savages" I am referring to the extremist segment of the Afghan population (and other Arab/Muslim populations)? I have stated clearly that I do not see the Taliban and other terrorist organizations as one-in-the-same as the broader Afghan population. I am not naive, however, to the great degree to which Taliban-style ideology permeates Afghanistan's population (and other Arab/Muslim populations). Let's not pretend that extremist Islamic ideology is some ultra-tiny fringe minority of these populations.

For the last time, stop mischaracterizing my statements. This reminds me of the same people that describe Lou Dobbs as anti-immigration when he is anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. It's as if you are unable to discern between the Taliban and other extremists and the broader Afghan population. I will not apologize for describing the Taliban as barbarians and subhumans.

You haven't been stateing it clearly that your differentiating, in fact the way your going on makes it seem as though you're refering to them as a whole. With the Afghan's and Taliban as being the same thing.

It's typical with people like you advoacte the deaths of an entire people, then when you realize how appauled people are by it pretend you were only advacating the destruction of a really bad part of that society but at the same time advocate there destruction and the destruction of the entire people or most of the people becuase you think they all share the same idealalogy. Problem is if the majority of Afghan's shared the Taliban view point there would be a single town in Afghanistan that we could control.

Edited November 20, 2009 by TrueMetis

Gabriel · November 20, 2009

Yes, how culturally insensitive of me to refer to the selling of young girls into marriage for a goat as a barbaric practice. How ethnocentric I must be to even suggest that only savages throw acid in the faces of young girls trying to go to school to learn to read and write. How racist I must be to ever describe religious extremists who are opposed to laws prohibiting rape and the establishment of a minimum age for sexual consent as ANIMALS. Get real. Cease masquerading as some sort of champion of tolerance when in reality you are supporter of terrorists. There are many valuable cultures in this world. Islamic extremism a la Taliban isn't one of them. Only a fool would consider my statements controversial.

Gabriel · November 20, 2009

Feel free to continue lying about my statements and positions. I never supported the eradication of an entire people - unless you consider the Taliban and similar terrorist groups a people. My statements have been consistent since the beginning of this thread (and every other related thread). You seek to advance the status of the Taliban and other terrorist groups to that of some sort of civilization that should be shielded from eradication. I will no longer discuss this subject with you, btw. Your pathological dishonesty (and stupidity) lost its appeal long ago.

ToadBrother · November 20, 2009

Some would say killing civilians is an act of terrorism. It does seem like Dresden was that one act to end the war. As was both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I don't know I am not sure any one of them sit well with me.

Dresden didn't end the war. The Germans were already in full collapse. The Soviets were driving for Berlin from the East, and the Brits and Americans weren't far behind in the West. At least the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to an immediate surrender, the remnants of the German Army were still battling the Soviets in the streets of Berlin right up until the end.

ToadBrother · November 20, 2009

Stop playing stupid. I never said all Afghans subscribe to barbaric ideology. What I said, quite clearly, was that I suspect MANY Afghans subscribe to barbarism and savagery. As I said earlier, it's quite difficult to gather a Gallup poll in Afghanistan to quantify to what degree the overall population are savages.

I think you'll find most people in Central Asia hold similar views, maybe not as extreme, but certainly to one degree or another. Even the more Islamic societies are, to our standards, pretty backwards.

And therein lies your "kill all the bad ones" problem. What level of female suppression would you consider acceptable, and where would you draw the line? There ain't too many feminists in Afghanistan, or anywhere in the neighborhood.

Edited November 20, 2009 by ToadBrother

GostHacked · November 20, 2009

Dresden didn't end the war. The Germans were already in full collapse. The Soviets were driving for Berlin from the East, and the Brits and Americans weren't far behind in the West. At least the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to an immediate surrender, the remnants of the German Army were still battling the Soviets in the streets of Berlin right up until the end.

I stand corrected.

DogOnPorch · November 20, 2009

I stand corrected.

Aye...Dresden was in February 1945. A few months before the end. The Battle of Berlin was one of the bloodiest of WW2 and lasted for four months (Jan-Apr 1945). Elements of various fanatical German units fought against the Soviets right to the very end. Gotterdammerung...Twilight of the Gods. The first Russian units to occupy the German lines were Guard units and quite professional...then the various less restrainable types of Soviet troops (Siberians, Tartars etc) were let loose on the city in an orgy of revenge. Significant numbers of Berliners commited suicide rather than face the impending looting and raping. Many women tried hard to look ugly to little avail to avoid sexual assault. A dark time that didn't settle down until the Western Allies entered the city. Leon Uris's book 'Armageddon' details this period very well if you get a chance to pick it up.

Dresden, as nasty as it was, was just a footnote to the carnage going on all along both fronts...East and West. The truly regretable part about Dresden's bombing was that it was literally an untouched Medieval city...lost to humanity forever.

Edited November 20, 2009 by DogOnPorch