59 Children Among the Dead in "Religion of Peace" Blast

[Michael Tee]

<<Somewhere in there, I find that you agree with me, that the Jahadi, was killing these children for the sake of the number.>>

Absolutely not.  My point ("at least two reasons") was that nobody really knows why.  My numerical reference to "29.5" children was just a feeble attempt at humour.

[Plane]

<<Somewhere in there, I find that you agree with me, that the Jahadi, was killing these children for the sake of the number.>>

Absolutely not.  My point ("at least two reasons") was that nobody really knows why.  My numerical reference to "29.5" children was just a feeble attempt at humour.

So why indeed do Jahadi seek out soft targets and kill themselves with them?
No number of chldren could be cosidered a military target.
I wonder why they don't quit doing this , they can't think this is good for their cause.

[BT]

I can also think up at least one reason for Americans blowing up the kids - - to "prove" that the Iraqis still need American troops to keep the country from degenerating into a blood-bath.

This happened in Afghanistan. The war i believe you called righteous.

[Michael Tee]

<<So why indeed do Jahadi seek out soft targets and kill themselves with them?
<<No number of chldren could be cosidered a military target.
<<I wonder why they don't quit doing this , they can't think this is good for their cause.>>

But I thought I already indicated two possible reasons and also that nobody really knows in any one case.  The possible reasons were revenge and fomenting anarchy or civil war.  Revenge might not be good for their cause as YOU interpret their cause, but they could be fighting for several things at the same time including national liberation (from foreign occupiers) and the honour of their tribe (which demands revenge.)   Or maybe they were just trying to terrorize some collaborators by killing their kids, which would intimidate others and stop them from collaborating.  (in the eyes of the killers - - in reality, maybe it would galvanize the parents of the murdered children)


<<This happened in Afghanistan. The war i believe you called righteous.>>

I don't think the American Army is capable of fighting a righteous war as presently led.  The leadership from the top down is morally degenerate, permits and encourages torture and murder and places virtually no controls on its soldiers, not one of whom has been executed to date for rape, torture or murder of civilians in Afghanistan.  We were speculating on why the kids were blown up and I speculated on WHO had blown them up.  I didn't say the Americans DID it, I said the Americans are CAPABLE of doing it and should never be ruled out as suspects, even if someone else "confesses" to the deed.

[BT]

I didn't say the Americans DID it, I said the Americans are CAPABLE of doing it and should never be ruled out as suspects, even if someone else "confesses" to the deed.

The Germans once thought the same thing of the Jews.

According to you, southerners still think the same of blacks.

If that type of generalized thinking is wrong, why isn't yours?

[Michael Tee]

<<The Germans once thought the same thing of the Jews.  [that they were CAPABLE of blowing up 59 kids and should never be ruled out as suspects even if somebody else has "confessed."]>>

No, the Germans thought much worse of the Jews.  The Germans thought that all Jews were criminally inclined AND racially inferior AND plotting the destruction of the Aryans.  All I said of the American military was that it was capable of committing that crime and should never be ruled out as a suspect.  Nothing I said referred to the GUILT of all Americans, the criminality of all Americans, the racial inferiority of all Americans or the aspirations to racial dominance of all Americans.

<<According to you, southerners still think the same of blacks.>>

Again, you have grossly overstated my views.  I am saying that white racism is a powerful force in the South as evidenced by the racism and popularity of figures such as Trent Lott, the late Strom Thurmond, Senator Macacawitz and others.  From time to time, this expresses itself in ugly acts of violence, most recently the display of nooses from pickup trucks.

<<If that type of generalized thinking is wrong, why isn't yours?>>

Because you made a false comparison.   My thinking [that the American military is capable of blowing up 59 kids and much worse] is correct.  I did not say that all U.S. soldiers or even that most of them would do it, but the military could certainly find the men for the job.  They have already killed many more than that number, most of it probably covered up, but some of it exposed despite the best cover-up efforts they are capable of.  Fortunately they seem like a pretty stupid bunch, so the cover-ups aren't quite all they could be.   

Thoughts like "All southerners hate blacks" or "All Jews are criminal and racially inferior" are incorrect.   Obviously because they lack any scientific validation and are way too broad.

[Plane]

  They have already killed many more than that number, most of it probably covered up, but some of it exposed despite the best cover-up efforts they are capable of.  Fortunately they seem like a pretty stupid bunch, so the cover-ups aren't quite all they could be.   

There is a lot working against such coverups.
Why should  we suppose  that we already know about most such incidents and that most coverups have failed?

[BT]

The Germans thought that all Jews were criminally inclined AND racially inferior AND plotting the destruction of the Aryans.

So if they just said some jews.... they would have been fine?

And where is your scientific data concerning the military?

[Michael Tee]

I think the strongest thing working FOR the coverups is the camaraderie between the soldiers who are the only living witnesses.  Usually they'd be smart enough to kill all witnesses, but even those they miss will probably go into hiding, terrified of coming forward.  So the only real risk of exposure comes from one of them talking too much.  Sometimes you have incredible stupidity, such as using the souvenir photos as screensavers, where soldiers who aren't part of the original group of criminals not only see them but have a chance to copy them.  But that's gotta be a very rare kind of stupidity.  Happened only once - - Abu Ghraib.  Most of these guys won't rat out a brother, not after their bonding experiences together.

I just don't know of any force operating in the opposite direction of exposure that's anywhere near as powerful as the bonding of the men.  Add to the bonding, there is the ability to exterminate or intimidate witnesses, the reluctance of the brass to expose the atrocities, and the reluctance of the MSM to go with the exposure of it.  All very powerful factors promoting cover-up.  Nothing like that promoting exposure.

My rule of thumb would be that for every known war crime or atrocity, there must be AT LEAST ten that were successfully covered up.  We are only seeing the tip of the ice-berg.  Pooch, Rich, sirs and some of the other pro-military posters in the group believe that there were WWII Allied atrocities just as bad as anything from Nam or Iraq that were successfully covered up for over sixty years, so the number of successful cover-ups in Iraq must be enormous by that standard.

[Plane]

I think the strongest thing working FOR the coverups is the camaraderie between the soldiers who are the only living witnesses.  Usually they'd be smart enough to kill all witnesses, but even those they miss will probably go into hiding, terrified of coming forward.  So the only real risk of exposure comes from one of them talking too much.  Sometimes you have incredible stupidity, such as using the souvenir photos as screensavers, where soldiers who aren't part of the original group of criminals not only see them but have a chance to copy them.  But that's gotta be a very rare kind of stupidity.  Happened only once - - Abu Ghraib.  Most of these guys won't rat out a brother, not after their bonding experiences together.

I just don't know of any force operating in the opposite direction of exposure that's anywhere near as powerful as the bonding of the men.  Add to the bonding, there is the ability to exterminate or intimidate witnesses, the reluctance of the brass to expose the atrocities, and the reluctance of the MSM to go with the exposure of it.  All very powerful factors promoting cover-up.  Nothing like that promoting exposure.

My rule of thumb would be that for every known war crime or atrocity, there must be AT LEAST ten that were successfully covered up.  We are only seeing the tip of the ice-berg.  Pooch, Rich, sirs and some of the other pro-military posters in the group believe that there were WWII Allied atrocities just as bad as anything from Nam or Iraq that were successfully covered up for over sixty years, so the number of successful cover-ups in Iraq must be enormous by that standard.

A platoon is at least sixty persons that travel together and keeping  secret inside a platoon is very hard.
A secret is safe with three as long as two of the three are dead.

During WWII things tht we might consider atrocitys were not considered so , I have heard first hand about shooting prisoners rather than accepting their surrender which happened a lot to Japaneese in the Phillipines , but it caused little fuss at the time , we tolerate so much less now that less seems like more.

[Michael Tee]

<<So if they just said some jews.... they would have been fine?>>

Well, if it was only "some" Jews, where was the rationale for trying to exterminate the entire race?  They could have said "some Germans" with equal validity and then would have had to commit mass suicide to be consistent with the extermination of an entire race for the defects of only some.

<<And where is your scientific data concerning the military?>>

Every atrocity they commit, every child they've killed, is proof of what they're capable of.  Bob Kerrey got a Silver Star for slitting the throats of two grandparents and three little grandchildren, all tied up, and none of it would have come to light until ONE of the guys with him finally spoke of it.  I read of similar atrocities by LURPS (LRRPs) in Viet Nam.  In Cuba there's a museum which showed what U.S. mercenaries did to young kids in the countryside who had been sent there as teachers in the literacy campaigns of the early 1960s.  I have no doubt at all as to what U.S. forces are capable of.  (And no, that's not a blanket indictment because there are probably some soldiers who wouldn't do any of those things.  But I believe most would keep quiet about it if they did see them.)

[Michael Tee]

<<A platoon is at least sixty persons that travel together and keeping  secret inside a platoon is very hard.
A secret is safe with three as long as two of the three are dead.>>

There are smaller units than platoons.  A LRRPs ("LURPS") patrol in Viet Nam was about five or six guys.  Nothing much ever published about their atrocities.  The My Lai massacre was company level, I believe, but witnessed by an American helicopter pilot who wasn't part of the murder squad.  Even so, it took a year for the story to come out in the U.S.  The VC press office in Paris had issued a press release naming My Lai AND "Charlie Company" within the first week of the massacre.  There's a whole book devoted to just the official cover-up.  It gives you an idea what you're up against, just trying to get a story to see the light of day.  This was a big one, with over 800 victims, the pilot and other stuff that put it way beyond cover-up, but that didn't stop them from trying.

I would think most of the massacres and atrocities are small-scale, with units much smaller than platoon level doing most or all of the torture and/or killing.  Word will almost never get out.  The bonds between the men are just way too strong for that.

[The_Professor]

Atrocities are just that ---atrocious. However, they are indeed a part of war and will never be completely eliminated. I do think, however, you greatly exaggerate the number of them, MT, in order to further your aim of degrading the U.s> and in this instacne, the U.S. military. And, yes, your previous Canadians commit them too because tis is human nature to commit errors of judgment. The birth of Canada only shows that even Canadians are vicious, bloodthirsty HUMANS. To exaggerate the number of them is a disservice to the military of ALL nations. In the many years I have spent around military types, I have never seen it and I have been involved in some "interesting" firefights. I was in the Intel business for some years and I thus saw events as reported and not reported. None involved atrocities even though it would have been easy for a stress-induced soldier to "justify".

Are you free to further your aim? Many many times ad nauseum. Sure. It just should be put in perspective.

[Michael Tee]

Well of course it's possible I overestimated the number of U.S. atrocities.  Anything that's done in secret and is covered up to the maximum extent possible is bound to be overestimated or underestimated.  It's like trying to estimate how much weed is smoked at the  local college or how many tonnes of cocaine were imported last year.

 I admit the Canadian army has committed terrible atrocities in Somalia, which is the only one I'm aware of, but they aren't as active as the U.S. military and don't get as much chance to do evil.

I'm not so fatalistic as to believe that it's impossible to conduct war without atrocities.  I don't think they were committed to any large extent by Allied forces in WWII except for the killing of captured or surrendering Japs, which I know of first-hand from my dad's first cousin, who was a private in the U.S. Army in the Pacific in some of the island campaigns.  Frankly, the Japanese treatment of captured Allied prisoners was truly atrocious and they had sacrificed any right they might have otherwise had to be treated humanely and compassionately.  If you knew what those fucking bastards had done to Allied prisoners (a good friend of mine was in Tokyo Bay during the surrender ceremonies and participated in the liberation of the first liberated POWs in mainland Japan) you would understand U.S. and British Empire attitudes towards them a little better.

I think overall the answer to the problem is discipline.  There has to be a serious will from the top to enforce humane behaviour.  There has to be iron discipline top-down, with examples made.  Commanders have to be dismissed, lower ranks and other active participants actually executed as examples, in order to get the message through that atrocities will not be tolerated, looking the other way will not be tolerated.  I believe with the right tools, including the liberal application of the death penalty, it should be possible to eliminate atrocities or at least reduce them to WWII levels or lower, even in wartime.

[Plane]

They very likely are hapening at a lower rate than during WWII.

Everything you state about coverups now was even more applicable sixty years ago.

Commanders in Aganistan and Iraq are trying to wn over the population  they very likely make this clear to the rank and file.