Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Our troops did WHAT?

Iraq US Troops Kidnapping

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 07:01 PM

Now, of course, I was in favor of taking the action we had to take in the war and the temporary occupation, but I will tell you this.  If this ends up being true, there better be a damn good explaination for it or I'm going to get really mad.  Just so you know how I feel about it in general.

However, this is *so* not in the character of our current military.  During Vietnam, perhaps, but I can't think that anyone has gotten to that level of frustration yet.  Not to mention that our military is better trained, fully volunteer and has dealt with shady occurrences before.  Unless the wife was somehow involved directly, it would be a court martialable offense to do anything like this.  Even if some rogue commander did it, they certainly wouldn't be giving interviews about it.  If it was a cover up of a conspiracy, I could see it, but having it be public knowledge?  No, there's something we're missing here.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#42 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 09:03 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 29 2003, 09:42 PM, said:

I remain unpersuaded by the conjecture to justify this
It's just as conjectural to go around saying it must be true because of course we all know those demons in American military uniforms always do this sort of thing because they're... well... those demons in American military uniforms... and that's just what those demons in American military uniforms do!

The difference is that one conjecture is outrageously in defiance of the actual observable behavioral patterns of American soldiers, and requires a fairly large number of rare exceptions to the rule to have just happened to end up on the same team together AND sufficiently open about being prone to do something like this to have found out that they could expect each other to go along with it instead of turning in the culprits to the MPs or whatever like anyone else in the military service would... while the other conjecture invents nothing new, calls on no outlandishly unlikely coincidences, doesn't involve figurative conviction without defense, and fits perfectly with known protocols, policies, and real-world practices that were established and shown to be in effect long before this story came out.

Edited by Delvo, 30 July 2003 - 09:33 PM.


#43 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 11:01 PM

Quote

It's just as conjectural to go around saying it must be true because of course we all know those demons in American military uniforms always do this sort of thing because they're... well... those demons in American military uniforms... and that's just what those demons in American military uniforms do!

I will wait a month before nreally believeing this, as the press seems to get very little right in Iraq, but for those who do believe it, we know our  guys did thingts in Veitnam and Korea. It's not so hard to believe it could have ahppen here as well.. Delvo, you have a short memory.
Can't Touch This!!

#44 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 01:52 AM

Delvo, we have strong indications that this particular incident is true:

-- It's appeared in several sources, including such obscure works as Fox News, the Washington Post, and MSNBC.
-- It's been a couple of days, and nobody has denied that the incident, in fact, took place. This isn't some 'anonymous source', either. I also note that Hoggs, before the quote, appeared in newspapers quite often. So.. where is he now?
-- The note said that the family would be released when he turned himself in. Further, Hoggs said that the family would have been released anyway. Therefore, they weren't dangerous enough to hold; they were just leverage to get him. That makes them innocent bystanders.
-- They knew where he would be, because he obviously had to find the note.

Let's say the daughter is 16.... so what? That doesn't make the action any less despicable.

And you can hardly accuse me, Delvo, of having an anti-military bias. Up until this point, I've been consistently supportive of every troop action in Iraq.

Re: the press not picking this up. Um... they *have* picked it up. The washington post isn't exactly an obscure one town newspaper....
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#45 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,651 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 02:04 AM

It's not thinking that American soldiers are demons. It's being a realist. Every single army on earth that is in search of vital information or needs to get custody of informants in theater uses carrots and sticks. I've seen footage on television of the people that have been taken in various raids on Baath party residences, and I've seen both women and men taken into custody. If two of the women taken into custody were found to be the wife and daughter of this man they were looking for, I can see someone getting the idea to leave this note at the abandoned home as an inducement to get this man to turn himself in. Not exactly kosher, but hardly the equivalent of what Serbs did in Bosnia.

If I were insisting that US soldiers regularly kidnapped women in the middle of the night to rape and torture them, or if I insisted that the US would have killed these women had the man not surrendered, then I'd deserve the hysterical condemnation. In this case, someone saw an advantage and took it too far. I'm still confident that this is not the only time something of this sort--not full-blown atrocities--might have occurred.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#46 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 02:15 AM

^Cardie, while I agree with you that this sort of thing happens all the time, it still doesn't make it right to.  If the Iraqis, for instance, were to kidnap Rumsfeld's wife and children (assuming he has them :p)  and hold them hostage, saying they'd release them when that war criminal Rumsfeld turned himself in to the Iraqi authorities (a not-unreasonable role reversal), we would be decrying that action as barbaric.

IMO it's NEVER ok for us to resort to these kind of tactics. Particuarly since the President assures us that we're NOT at war with Iraq any more.  :eek2:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#47 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,651 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 04:05 AM

I'm not saying it's all right; I'm just saying that it happens all the time, and it is very naive to expect that Americans are so much better than all other human beings on this planet that we, alone, would never do something like this. I'm not saying it's official policy. There've been news reports every single day of American raids and the rounding up and detaining of people, most of whom are eventually released. Rov, Sid and Delvo don't seem to be shocked at that. I'm betting this is simply an offshoot of one of these routine round-ups, so I can't see why people are now simply amazed that it could ever have happened. I'm just sensing a lot of naivete in this thread, something I lost after Vietnam.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#48 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 04:13 AM

Cardie, on Jul 30 2003, 10:55 AM, said:

I'm betting this is simply an offshoot of one of these routine round-ups, so I can't see why people are now simply amazed that it could ever have happened. I'm just sensing a lot of naivete in this thread
That's because you're reading and writing about something very different from what the rest of us have been. With the event phrased the way you put it, ya, it makes sense. But that's very different from what the article strained to imply, and what people are objecting to.

#49 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 05:04 AM

Delvo, on Jul 30 2003, 11:03 AM, said:

That's because you're reading and writing about something very different from what the rest of us have been. With the event phrased the way you put it, ya, it makes sense. But that's very different from what the article strained to imply, and what people are objecting to.
What do people think the article is implying? I thought it was pretty clear that the general's family were being detained because they were thought to have information about the general's whereabouts, and thus there would be no reason to hold them anymore if the general turned himself in.

Is there some other, more sinister way that other people are reading this?

--
Dev F

Edited by Dev F, 31 July 2003 - 05:05 AM.


#50 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,651 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 06:48 AM

^^I think people are reading this that soldiers snuck in and kidnapped two helpless women sleeping alone in their house and held them in order to blackmail the general into turning himself in. Since these roundups involve soldiers by night sneaking into houses and neighborhoods suspected of harboring Saddam sympathizers and rounding iup everyone therein for questioning, I don't see the big difference, but obviously others are seeing one. I had assumed that it was the placing of the implicitly threatening note, but I defer to others to explain what they thought Col. Hogg was describing.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#51 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 08:49 AM

Cardie, on Jul 30 2003, 12:38 PM, said:

^^I think people are reading this that soldiers snuck in and kidnapped two helpless women sleeping alone in their house and held them in order to blackmail the general into turning himself in. Since these roundups involve soldiers by night sneaking into houses and neighborhoods suspected of harboring Saddam sympathizers and rounding iup everyone therein for questioning, I don't see the big difference, but obviously others are seeing one. I had assumed that it was the placing of the implicitly threatening note, but I defer to others to explain what they thought Col. Hogg was describing.

Cardie
Unless I've lost my mind, the Colonel said that they arrested the man's wife and daughter, leaving a note behind telling him the way to get them released was to turn himself in.

That's pretty straightforward. I don't care if it happened in broad daylight, in the dead of night, or the middle of a snowstorm. :p :p

The fact is that the man's family was taken and held in an effort to force him to give himself up.

Or let me put it another way - in this country, you can arrest a suspect but you can't touch his sisters, his cousins or his aunts ;) in a effort to make him turn himself in. The only way that you can arrest the relatives is if you have reasonable proof that they were aiding and abetting him.

The Colonel admitted that he had nothing on this man's family and would ultimately release them. Ergo...his only reason for arresting them was to blackmail the guy into giving up.

Besides, if we arrest all the relatives of all the folks who participated in this regime in an effort to force the miscreants to turn themselves in, we'll have to arrest half the country.  :hehe:  :crazy:

Edited by Rhea, 31 July 2003 - 08:52 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#52 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 08:59 AM

There is no way to justify carting someone's family away and leaving a ransom note behind.

Period.
Posted Image

#53 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 12:02 PM

First off well said Uncle Sid.

Quote

Rov: -- It's been a couple of days, and nobody has denied that the incident, in fact, took place.

And very few if any of the liberal press outlets have started outcries against the US Military for this incident.  Come on is the liberal elements of the press really going to miss a chance to go after the US military on what some of you are seeing as a violation of international law.  So where are these stories if such a violation did occur?

Quote

Rov: Hoggs said that the family would have been released anyway. Therefore, they weren't dangerous enough to hold; they were just leverage to get him. .

Under the Geneva Convention you can only hold someone until the threat has passed.  So the scenarios is the Lt. General was the primary threat to US troops while they are accomplishes and the family had knowledge of his whereabouts.  The US Military can hold them until he is brought into custody but once he is in custody and the military would be obligated to release the family because the threat has passed.  


Quote

Rov: Let's say the daughter is 16.... so what? That doesn't make the action any less despicable.

Considering his rank Id say early to mid twenties is more likely for her age.  And consider some of the things that the Baathist has used children for in Iraq.  Id say it would be pretty despicable to leave the daughter and mother in a situation where they could be used as bait in an ambush on US troops.  

  

Quote

Rov: Re: the press not picking this up. Um... they *have* picked it up. The washington post isn't exactly an obscure one town newspaper....

Wow that would be a whole two sentences!  I mean this must put this right up here with Tailhook as a scandal.  Come on where are the editorials and stories citing it as an abuse of international law and US military law?

Quote

Rhea: Particuarly since the President assures us that we're NOT at war with Iraq any more.


Quote

DevF: I thought it was pretty clear that the general's family were being detained because they were thought to have information about the general's whereabouts, and thus there would be no reason to hold them anymore if the general turned himself in.

Exactly how I read it.  And under the Geneva Convention it would be a totally kosher action.


Quote

Rhea: The Colonel admitted that he had nothing on this man's family and would ultimately release them.

Conjecture!  I see nothing in the articles two whopping sentences where the Colonel says that he had nothing on the family.  They were released but the US Military has bigger fish to fry than charging the family for aid and abetting a former regime member.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#54 Blondie

Blondie

    The Peroxide Jihad

  • Dead account
  • 687 posts

Posted 07 August 2003 - 01:18 AM

Yeah, buddy...that's a courtmartial offense!
The ditz FKA TrancesHuggyPillow

#55 aphrael

aphrael
  • Islander
  • 282 posts

Posted 07 August 2003 - 07:46 AM

I'm not surprised.   :(

:elf:



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, US Troops, Kidnapping

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users