(Paddlec1) wrote in message ...
From: (Backyard Renegade)
Date: 5/13/04 7:30 AM Mountain Daylight Time
Message-id:

Wilko wrote in message
.. .
Paddlec1 wrote:

Yep, just an "isolated incident". Here's something from the CBC.

"3000 Prisoners Slaughtered in Afganastan

This video is about how the US slaughtered 3000 Afgan prisoners of war.
The
video is big - 55 megs download and it is shocking. It makes the Black
Hole of
Calcutta look like a picnic. These prisoners were left in sealed truck
containers to suffocate and fry in the hot sun. The few that survived a
week
were taken out and shot an buried in mass graves.

The video is EXTREMELY disturbing and it will give you nightmares. If you
are
not ready to see this footage - DO NOT WATCH IT !!! This is NAZI level
stuff."

http://marc.perkel.com/images/AfganPOWsKilled.mov

The funny thing is that this documentary was shown on German and Dutch
TV almost two years ago, not too long after the invasion of Afghanistan.
I posted about seeing it in a thread about the war in Afghanistan on
Boatertalk, and got a wave of resentment and being called a liar because
it wasn't shown on any U.S. TV station, therefore it wasn't true.

If only that link had been available then.

The sad thing is you are so ignorant and arrogant you beleive this
crap, as if you are the only one who is aware. Bull****... Yes I know
coming back to this group and picking on one of the biggest trolls

Would you like to do a little search, and document that assertion?

will get me the warnings and physical threats I got last time from
Dennis

"Physical threats"? That's a rather harsh accusation. How about some evidence
to support that. Failing that, how about an appology?

and others who of course love free speech until it is not in
line with their agenda but you guys and your little circle jerk are
getting a little out of touch with the real world...

Or, maybe some of us have some personal experience with this war crap that
would make us a little les gullable.

Dennis

I suppose the off list email you sent me last year warning me of how
big and tough Charlie and Wilko were, and also noting in a PS that you
were big and tough too was not meant as a threat. Used to have respect
for your views, now you are just a mad troll joke...
Later

I think they are called "advisors" because it is not politically
expedient to call them what they really are, which is "combatants".
It's kind of a back door way to get your guys on the ground without
actually admiting to what you are doing.

Maybe an analogy would be useful he

Say you are the nation of Current Designs (paddling-related content
here), and you are being attacked by the nation of Necky. The nation
of Sawyer is providing "advisors", who are helping the combatants of
Necky. Maybe they are providing advice, maybe they are providing arms
and supplies, and just maybe every once in a while one of them pulls a
trigger, even though he's "not supposed to". Are you going to feel
any particular debt to the Sawyerites? After all, they're only
providing advisors.

On 13 May 2004 10:08:53 GMT, ospam (Larry Cable)
wrote:

Pete, we have provided arms and advisors to many an ally that we didn't control
thier political or command structure, that's why they are called advisors. Some
that get supported are strictly politically expediate, think Stalin, and some
are long term relationships. Should we take responsiblity for the slaughter of
Polish Army Officers by Stalin because we supported him when he entered the war
with Hitler?


Yeah, it sure is a hairy position. The folks you're advising are
sometimes ungrateful enough to use the expertise they gained from you,
against you. That's if the pols don't feed you to the wolves to save
their own hides. I'm kind of confused: were we or were we not
involved in Laos back in the 60's, for example?

The Advisors are often in a pretty hairy position. They are often supporting
groups that don't particularly like the US, but want the technical and tactical
support that we can provide. Afganistan is a perfect example of this type of
situation.


SYOTR
Larry C.

Hi Brian,

Please proceed to the nearest mirror, look yourself in the eye, and
read your message that appears below. See who looks ridiculous.
;^)

HEY BRIAN, THIS IS PETE!!!

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:44:56 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:
They just want to whine and complain, and
they're going to do that whether there's any reason to or not. Logical
argument isn't going to sway them, since facts are irrelevant to them.
Irrational statements, conspiracy theories and wildly fantastic
correlations to unrelated historical events are their stock in trade.
They'll go to any length to try to prove their point, even if it makes
them look ridiculous. They're just trying to forward their wrong-headed
agenda, nothing more, and it will go on ad-nauseum.

Oh well, at least we live in a country where everyone gets to speak
their piece.

Larry Cable wrote:

seldom_seen wrote:

Does anyone else recognize this language, and get a bit of a chill
from it?

"We provided advisors, in particular fire control and forward air
controllers, to the Northern Alliance. The US did not command the
unit nor have control over the action of its troops."

Pete, we have provided arms and advisors to many an ally that we didn't control
thier political or command structure, that's why they are called advisors. Some
that get supported are strictly politically expediate, think Stalin, and some
are long term relationships. Should we take responsiblity for the slaughter of
Polish Army Officers by Stalin because we supported him when he entered the war
with Hitler?

If there were U.S. advisors at the scene of the slaughter, then you
definately should take responsibility. Just standing around doing
nothing when people are being tortured or murdered means that you're
involved as well. It's not as if these so called advisors aren't a party
in a war, even if their designation seems to point in another direction.

The Advisors are often in a pretty hairy position. They are often supporting
groups that don't particularly like the US, but want the technical and tactical
support that we can provide. Afganistan is a perfect example of this type of
situation.

Does that make them any less involved in the conflict or the U.S.
government any less responsible? Often these so called advisors are in
effect leading these groups of foreign troops and if these troops don't
work on the U.S. orders (direct or indirect), and the group will lose
all (material, financial and direct military) support from the U.S. if
they go out on their own, ignoring orders given by the so called
advisors. That's a pretty strong pressure tool, especially in times of war.

Sure, at times they are just bystanders unable to stop something
horrible from going on, but I seriously doubt that this is the case most
of the time.

As for this being an all out war: you can't have it both ways. Either
you adhere to things like international law and the Geneva conventions
for example, using them to call this a fight for freedom and against
terrorism, or you engage in similarly disgusting tactics as the
terrorists, agreeing with the commonplace use of torture, prisoner abuse
and locking up great quantities of innocent people without looking after
their human rights.

You can't keep the moral advantage on your side if you invade sovereign
countries with lies as the only motivation, severly limiting freedom for
the people of such a nation and supporting regimes like Israel that
consider murder and attacks against civilians to be normal policy.

The U.S. government has been using double standards and strong arm
tactics for quite some time now, but I'm surprised that it takes so long
for the limited international support for this behaviour to fall apart.

--
Wilko van den Bergh Wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

seldom_seen

Typed in Message-ID:

I think they are called "advisors" because it is not politically
expedient to call them what they really are, which is "combatants".
It's kind of a back door way to get your guys on the ground without
actually admiting to what you are doing.

They are called advisors because they aren't doing the actual ground combat or
are they an official part of the local command structure.. I don't think there
has been any pretext that these people were not in combat in the present
situation. We do have actual combat troops in the same area, so that seems to
be a pretty lame arguement.


SYOTR
Larry C.

Wilko

Typed in Message-ID:

If there were U.S. advisors at the scene of the slaughter, then you
definately should take responsibility. Just standing around doing
nothing when people are being tortured or murdered means that you're
involved as well. It's not as if these so called advisors aren't a party
in a war, even if their designation seems to point in another direction..

Then NATO and the European community is responsible for the ethnic cleansing of
the Serbian Population from Croatia and the atrocities committed by the
Croatians?
The European community didn't do anything to stop that action, which is
directly responsible for the debacle that followed in the Balkans.


Often these so called advisors are in
effect leading these groups of foreign troops and if these troops don't
work on the U.S. orders (direct or indirect), and the group will lose
all (material, financial and direct military) support from the U.S

I don't see that in Afganistan. The local Militias had a command structure
already in place and were by all non secret accounts pretty independent.
Support does not mean control. While the US has leverage with these groups,
that does not mean day to day control of the complete infrastructure.

Often in War you are forced to choose Allies that you would have perferred not
to deal with in Peace. Stalin in WWII (or the French :^)) for example. And that
is what the current situation is, whether you want to recognize that or not, a
War. Even the best of the local Middle Eastern governments are despotic and
oppressive, so what real choices are available?



As for this being an all out war: you can't have it both ways. Either
you adhere to things like international law and the Geneva conventions
for example, using them to call this a fight for freedom and against
terrorism, or you engage in similarly disgusting tactics as the
terrorists, agreeing with the

commonplace use of torture, prisoner abuse
and locking up great quantities of innocent people without looking after
their human rights.

In reality, the Terrorist have little protection under either international law
or the Geneva Convention. While the Taliban would fall under the protection of
the Convention, there is nothing in it that would prevent you from executing
members of Al Quada whenever you captured one.

How do you know that these people are innocent? I think that is an assumption
that is a stretch in a combat zone.

The U.S. government has been using double standards and strong arm
tactics for quite some time now, but I'm surprised that it takes so long
for the limited international support for this behaviour to fall apa

Yet you didn't seem to mind when NATO
intervened in the Balkans without UN support and the oppositions of most of
Slavic Europe.

Personally, my opinion of it is that Continental Europe would like to sit back
and let the US and the Brits do all the dirty work and except the benefits of
that effort,
while point at how aweful our behavior is while do it.


SYOTR
Larry C.

Backyard Renegade wrote:
The sad thing is you are so ignorant and arrogant you beleive this
crap, as if you are the only one who is aware. Bull****... Yes I know
coming back to this group and picking on one of the biggest trolls

Would you like to do a little search, and document that assertion?


will get me the warnings and physical threats I got last time from
Dennis

"Physical threats"? That's a rather harsh accusation. How about some evidence
to support that. Failing that, how about an appology?

and others who of course love free speech until it is not in

line with their agenda but you guys and your little circle jerk are
getting a little out of touch with the real world...

Or, maybe some of us have some personal experience with this war crap that
would make us a little les gullable.

Dennis


I suppose the off list email you sent me last year warning me of how
big and tough Charlie and Wilko were, and also noting in a PS that you
were big and tough too was not meant as a threat. Used to have respect
for your views, now you are just a mad troll joke...
Later

While I didn't receive any threats (which would have been laughable
anyway), I did get bombarded with his whine-y, bleating emails until I
blocked them. It's too bad, as initially we had some rational
discussions and it seemed that he was interested in real discussion and
finding the truth. At some point, he went over the edge and became
nothing more than a pain-in-the-ass crybaby that glommed onto anything
negative that he could find about the war, the military and/or the Bush
Administration, whether it was true or not. It's sad to see someone who
is so desperate to convince themselves of the validity of their position
that they'll eagerly accept any information, no matter how suspect or
bogus, that supports it.

Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:48:35 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:


Fine. Two more people have already been court martialed and I'm sure
there are more to come. As I said, the investigations are ongoing. What
is it with you and others here that you have to have the whole story
RIGHT NOW!? It's going to take time to get to the bottom of this. Is
that so unreasonable?


RIGHT NOW I can tell that more than just "6 or 7" were involved. I didn't
need any hearings to determine that. Why are we being told it was "just a
few bad apples" when RIGHT NOW there is plenty to suggest it went much
higher than that? I don't demand the whole story RIGHT NOW but then
neither am I trying to close my eyes to evidence that is available RIGHT
NOW.

That's not the story that's coming out of the hearings (though it is the
opinion of some individuals). The blame is going well up the chain of
command and it's looking entirely likely that at least one general and
one colonel will be court martialed, plus their subordinates in the
chain of command. While it appears that there were only a handful of
people who actually perpetrated the offenses, the web of culpability is
definitely going to extend much further.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:16:52 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:

That's not the story that's coming out of the hearings (though it is the
opinion of some individuals).

There is no report from any congressional committee that I am aware of,
your perception that "that's not the story that's coming out of the
hearings" is simply your perception, nothing more. It is no more the
consensus of any hearing than the "opinion of some individuals." I watch
some of the hearings too (on C-Span) and get a radically different picture.

The blame is going well up the chain of
command and it's looking entirely likely that at least one general and
one colonel will be court martialed, plus their subordinates in the
chain of command.

I can see 8 individuals, none of which are female, in one picture. There
have been at least 3 females charged, shown in other pictures. That's
eleven I can count RIGHT NOW. With your "6 or 7" bad apples and the
general and the colonel that's only 9 at the most. And the general and
colonel don't appear in ANY photograph that I'm aware of. The "handful"
you refer to looks like it's going to have to be an awfully big hand
involved.

While it appears that there were only a handful of
people who actually perpetrated the offenses, the web of culpability is
definitely going to extend much further.

If military investigators are at all like you I'm pretty certain that some
(many) of those responsible will never be looked at. Just to make it clear
to you, eleven is greater than the sum of your "bad apples" and those you
have indicated in the chain of command. My friend, either you are closing
your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not
aware of the caliber of disaster... (Apologies to the Music Man).

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
We are the CroMagnon of the future

From: (Backyard Renegade)

snip

will get me the warnings and physical threats I got last time from
Dennis

"Physical threats"? That's a rather harsh accusation. How about some
evidence
to support that. Failing that, how about an appology?

snip

I suppose the off list email you sent me last year warning me of how
big and tough Charlie and Wilko were, and also noting in a PS that you
were big and tough too was not meant as a threat. Used to have respect
for your views, now you are just a mad troll joke...
Later

It's pretty serious stuff to accuse someone of what would be a criminal
offense. I'd say produce the evidence or shut the hell up.

Dennis