Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by spyder207
The ones who are "complaining" about the injustice,
are the troops who carried out the orders!
[edit on 3/15/0808 by jackinthebox]
First off, lay off the whole "you are ignorant" charade - especially to someone who is trying to give your narrow vision of reality some appropriate
perspective. It has become a tradition here at ATS to call everyone ignorant if they don't see your point or agree with you. You've been pulled into
the trend - probably unconscious of the whole communal process, which is not surprising, considering. It makes one look like a silly fool. On that
note, I figure you'll do it in the future.
Ok, so why does it matter if the troops who did the torturing are now complaining about it?
Why, they don't like the fact that to attempt to extract important information, they had to torture someone?
Who in their right mind would? Well, there are plenty of people.
In the end, they are the ones that did it. You can't just blame it on the leadership like you seem to be doing.
Sure, they feel bad. Maybe they feel bad because they didn't want to do it in the first place, but gave in. Maybe they feel guilty about it and want
to place blame on the leadership so that the whole world feels sorry for the poor poor soldier who tortures people. They feel like they screwed up so
much that they now have to tell the whole world as to to shift the blame from their
own hands to that of the leadership.
"The voices told me to do it" Sure... sure, they did. Great excuse.
Torture and war are ageless. This is not a case of "Look what we are turning into," but a case of, "Look at what we have always been." We are in
an age of media, smuggled video evidence and lack of testicular fortitude juxtaposed with anti-US propaganda and conspiracy; all of this nasty stuff
is being brought to the public. You can concentrate on the US, but it is entirely in vein. You can bring a 10,000 year old practice to the public, but
it's not going to change anything. It's always going to be done as long as there is war.
DC-"If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of a person's child, there's no law that can sop
that? That's what you wrote in the August 2002 memo"
JY-"I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that"
So, by Yoo's logic it's OK as long as the President thinks he needs to do that.
You have got to be kidding me. This is truly appalling.
Is that the most abstract form of torture he could come up with to get an illogical emotional reaction out of his audience?
I wonder if the President would authorize the creation of a tornado? Or maybe using zombies to kill a village. Well, if that's what the god damn
commander in chief thinks needs to be done then he will authorize it, and someone on the end of the chain of command will do it - and then some of the
mentally disturbed will whine about carrying it out to gain some sympathy from the public so they don't feel as bad about der wittle selves because
they didn't have the fortitude to say, "# this #."
You can place your blame on whoever the hell you want in that chain of command, but there is only one person there that "crushed the testicles," for
whatever reason.
You know, this is typical of the whole conspiracy mentality: "I'm the victim." It is apparent that you identify with the role of
torturer as
victim here and not torturee with your skewed worldview.
EDIT to add: Your comment reeks of ignorance. You have no idea who here has served, has not served, or would be willing to serve. My brother is in
Baghdad at this very moment, as if that was really any of your business.
Wow. I guess that makes you a war vet.
So hypothetically speaking, if your BROTHER IN BAGHDAD came home and told you that he tortured a few prisoners until they died, what would you say?
"Oh, you poor baby. You poor poor victim of the military! How dare they make you do such horrible things! You are the victim here, and they are the
evil evil monsters!"
or
"WHAT THE # WERE YOU THINKING YOU IDIOT! YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE BALLS TO GO WITH YOUR CONVICTIONS?"
You probably wouldn't do either because they are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Funny enough, the 1st appears to be your stance as it relates
to people whom you do not know.
I've got a better one. Play this honestly now.
Who do you like better? the POW or your brother? Choose only one.
Assume your brother was just killed by a rebel assault, or maybe just hit by a random RPG attack. Assume that foreknowledge of this attack could have
been coerced out of a POW (has a wife and 4 children) by sticking needles in his eyes and breaking both of his knee caps. Maybe they found the guys 10
year old son and crushed his testicles. The guy that was supposed to do it stood up to his convictions and said he wouldn't do it, so it took 10
minutes to get another guy in there that would. By the time the information was retrieved from the subject, your brother and his entire squad was
dead. Disintigrated. You won't be hearing from him again, much less seeing him. Nor will any of the people who knew the rest of troops in his squad.
If only the first guy had the gumption, your brother and his entire squad would be safe.
Sgt. Dead B. Dirt - Wife and 3 children
Cpl. Blood N. Bones - Girlfriend who he was engaged to
Cpl. Thanks 4. Nothing - Wife and 2 sons
LCpl. Your A. BadBrother - You know
PFC. Damn U. Jerk - Girlfriend and two step children
PVT. Go 2. Hell - Nobody
PVT. You R. Next - Girlfriend
PVT. Coming 4. You - Newlywed wife.
Remember, you have to play it honestly. You can't say "Oh no, that wouldn't happen," as it's not part of the game. Let's see if you can even
manage that.
