The trouble is, there are so many mistakes, and frankly there’s little evidence they are being corrected - “letters of reprimand” aren’t really much of a punishment for torturing prisoners (and getting your fellow soldiers killed in the inevitable backlash)
As lots of people have been pointing out - strong allegations of abuse (and even of deaths in custody) have been swept under the carpet for a long time, it’s taken these pictures to get some action. US troops have been heavy-handed and trigger-happy with civilians - no-one seems to be trying to change that at all
We agree totally on something!
But “If we leave” will become “When we leave” if the coalition doesn’t get its act together right now
It’s quite possible that we don’t know all that happened, however I’d like to point out that this is not a Watergate. There is no cover-up. There was an internal investigation and results were communicated to the media, as it should be. The proper authorities have done their job, now it’s Media’s turn to make a big stink. That’s what we have this stupid, arrogant Media blowhards for: to make a big stink once in a while.
“Men are humiliated for being treated like a woman” Nope, If the cross cultural divide is really that wide, I fear we’ll never going to understand each-other.
Observe, ladies and gentleman, a true master of double-think in action. He signs his posts:
…but really believes, apparently, that…
In other words, free inquiry is okay, as long as it isn’t too free – or something, I guess.
And, when presented with these minor foibles of the human spirit (like the spectacle of Americans torturing Iraqis), no one can wax poetic like New Is:
What do you mean “we,” Is? Were not you the very poster who wrote:
and…
and…
and…
and…
Sounds to me very much as if you do, indeed, accept these things, to the point of embarking on a passionate defense of them, and those who committed them. You accept them to such an extent that you label a “free inquiry” into them as a “big stink” raised by the “stupid, arrogant, blowhard” media.
Continuing:
What heart-warming drivel!
Torture = “real Democracy!”
Defense of torture is the “best we can show them!”
If so, is there any wonder that they don’t want anything to do with the democracy you’re trying to shove down their throat?
Given the choice between a horsewhipping and being sodomised with a broomstick as allegedly happened to some prisoners I’d choose a whipping. Pain is fleeting, humiliation is eternal.
Well, Pat Buchanan, a staunch Republican if there ever was one, on Joe Scarborough show Tuesday evening came flat out and said [paraphrase] “The idea of a democratically free Iraq is utopian. The President needs to find the earliest possible exit strategy”.
Torture has gone on throughout history and I’m confident that it occurs right here in the USA on a regular basis. It’s not going to stop happening in Iraq just because they “MAYBE” get some variation of a democratic process.
If anyone here would like to refer to the OP, the gentleman in question was told to strip for a search and was naked for 15 mins. No broomhandles, no photos.
I’m asking whether it really is possible for someone to dread that, being “treated like a woman”, more than chronic physical torture involving electrocution, beatings and being hung from the ceiling.
It may well be the case but I am yet to be convinced.
Trouble is, we don’t really know what happened - other than he wasn’t sodomized.
My WAG is that he’s saying things for effect, comparing his treatment by Americans to Saddam’s goons to show how pissed-off he is - either way, he’s still pissed-off.
Incidently I know someone who was strip-searched at an airport - he told me he found it a much more shocking experience than he’d expected, and he’s a tough-guy with no sexual hang-ups
Let my Arab half that is all too well familiar with the sort of culture we talk about here, convince you.
Let me also tell to those who focus on the word “women” and bring that automatically in connection with the idea " this is a proof that these men take women as being subservient to men", that they are prejudiced without knowing and thus without having a clue of the finesses behind what that man said.
First some insight in the theory behind this mindset which has to do with local culture and traditions that are intertwined with Islam:
It is a command for a man to provide for his wife and children. That is his repsonsibility only.
He is also held responsible for their welfare and safety. Women are to be protected against any possible danger by the men. This implies of course that they are regarded as being defenseless against brutality. This is one of the reasons why women in several Islamic societies are seen as not capable to travel in safety on their own. (And before you start screaming "what an idiotic point of view and what a blatant discrimination: admit that in the West women would also rather choose to go out with two or a few in an area or at a time they perceive as potential dangerous.)
It is the responsibility of the woman to take care of everything that is related with the household and the children, yet she is not asked to go out and search for a job and provide for the money to run the household.
Seen point 1, many men would even see it as an insult to their dignity that a woman “needs” to work. I don’t see in that so much difference in the mentality of many men in the West. A significant amount of Western men still feels it as a sort of “insult” if their wife earns more then they are and there are still men who “don’t want” their wife to work.
The woman can however take a job if she wants to and what she earns is for her alone. The husband can’t ask her to put it in the household. The husband has even the obligation to provide for help in the household if the woman has a demanding job that leaves her no time for her obligations at home.
There are of course many real-life situations where this theory is only partially put in practice. But in traditional societies point 1 and 2 are deeply ingrained in the culture, which is the case at many locations and many families in a country like Iraq.
If the man in this interview said: “they wanted us to feel like a woman” as expression of the depth of the humiliation, he refers to point 1. He means that he was put in a position where he was completely defenseless, not able to even defend himself. He “felt like a woman” who in his worldview and education cannot defend herself against brutality and relies on him to provide for her defence and safety.
Imagine yourself to be a man in such a society, used to act like a man, used to have the responsibility for your wife, children, mother, sisters. Your honor and dignity depends on the way you manage to fit in the role that is expected from you since birth.
And then invading foreigners put you in a position where all you have learned to be is taken from you. You are forced to be litteraly naked. Both physical and mental because you have no means to defend yourself, like you can do by taking a beating without loosing a shred of your manhood and dignity. Like he said: That it is just a beating.
Being stripped off your dignity as a man is being stripped off from all what is expected from you as a man. You have nothing left from the role you are supposed to furfill in society. You are no longer a man. You are put in the role of the woman who is in your society protected by men because she is perceived as defenseless against brutality.
It is the ultimate humiliation for a man in such a society and has less to do with how women are perceived then with what is expected from the men to be for being accepted as a man.
Add to this that such forced nudity on itself is already enough horror to deal with, let be that you are exposed to mocking strangers including women.
Islam commands modesty for both men and women. You don’t walk around naked, you don’t watch nudity and in traditional societies you are not at all used to strip of see someone strip.
I remember I posted on a thread (or maybe I created it myself, I don’t remember) regarding pictures of Iraqi men being stripped and forced to run naked trough the streat by US soldiers, under the eyes of women. Nobody here seemed to have any idea nor was prepared to understand what a humiliation that was, both for the men involved and for the women in the street.
People don’t seem to get the idea that not the whole world likes to have nudity slapped around your ears and forced upon you as if it is nothing special at all.
Sorry for you Iskander… but Svinlesha has a good point. The quotes he pointed out seem to indicate that if you were a Military Police in Iraq that you would be torturing those Iraqis prisoners as well. Apparently the US public doesn’t like prisoners being tortured even if they “deserve it”. Maybe this has nothing to do with “real democracy” or with the US trying or not to help Iraq… but it sure stinks.
Now if someone telling you are wrong is the same thing as loving Saddam... then you should check out your skewed view of the world. I suggest you go kiss Rumsfeld's ass instead.
And I do hope for you that you realize that the terrorists in Iraq are not the Iraqis defending their nation against the invaders = I hope for you that you realize that when you speak of “terrorist” regarding iraq, the invaders are the ones you speak of.
I am impressed by the concise clarity of your posts, New Isk, that you can deliver wholesale carloads of disinformation in but a few words.
I hasten to note that it is only the post itself I criticize as wildly inaccurate. I am sure the poster is, himself, the very soul of candor and even-handed veracity. A happy estimation of wholesome character I have little doubt he extends to me, with the same spirit of non-partisan inquiry.
New Iskander, don’t tell anyone to “kiss Saddam’s ass” in Great Debates. In fact, don’t tell anyone to kiss anyone’s ass in GD. I don’t really think telling anyone to kiss any part of Saddam is appropriate. In fact, I’m having trouble coming up with any good reason why anyone should tell anybody else to kiss anyone or anything, in the middle of a Great Debates thread.
Elucidator, as you are obviously aware, the rule is “attack the post, not the poster”. Going beyond a certain level of snideness about this rule means you aren’t really obeying the rule.