British Commander Compares US Troops to Nazis

[Clancie]

Posted by Skeptic

Whatever makes you think you know what Bush is "shielded" from, if anything?

Well, he himself admits not reading newspapers or watching TV news. He relies only on what is handed him in his daily briefings. Why only expose yourself to information that is filtered to you by those with obvious biases and agendas (especially if you share those biases)? Would you? I wouldn't.

And I'm sure you saw the requirement now placed on demonstrators at his public appearances--that they cannot be visible to the President.

I call that "shielding" him from the reality of dissent and criticism (though obviously with his agreement). What do you call it?

 

[Skeptic]

RandFan,

Here's a video and transcript.

Video: US Soldiers Shooting wounded Iraqis

Hmmmmmm.... from the web site, "informationclearinghouse":

This web site is

An independent media source.

One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media.

.
.
.

This web site grew out of my personal frustration and anger at the failure of traditional commercial media to inform the American public, especially as it relates to US foreign policy.

A source of unreported (or under reported) news from around the globe.

.
.
.

This web site is the work of one person.

I am a private individual.

I am not affiliated with any particular political party.

I am not funded by any group.

I pay for all services associated with this site from my personal funds and readers' donations.

I am not independently wealthy.

I work and live in Southern California. (I could have guessed--Sk.)

As a guide to his objectivity, going to the home page (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/) shows that his idea of "objectivity" is "Palestinian children killed by israelies" (not a word mentions the israeli children killed by Palestinians, of course) and the "exposure" of how the evil zionists control the USA (e.g., "The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties").

Sorry, but somehow a one-person web site by an unnamed private individual who created it out of his "personal frustration" of the media not telling "the truth" (as he sees it) about the evil zionist control of the USA war machine (or the equivalent) does not an unbiased news source make.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Skeptic

Sorry, but somehow a one-person web site by an unnamed private individual ...

Actually, Skeptic, while that approach (discrediting the source) often works, here it doesn't.

The authenticity of this video (first shown in a British documentary, then last weekend shown again on CNN) is not in dispute by anyone at all, regardless of who is housing a link to it.

No one from the military disputed it when asked about it on CNN--they simply argued if it could be seen as justifiable.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, he himself admits not reading newspapers or watching TV news. He relies only on what is handed him in his daily briefings.

Well duh.

That's the advantage of being president: you get to get your information directly from the intelligence services or the high command, instead of relying on newpapers.

Why on earth should the opinion of a reporter from the NYT (for instance) be more reliable than that of the head of the CIA or the generals who are actually in Iraq?

Why only expose yourself to information that is filtered to you by those with obvious biases and agendas (especially if you share those biases)?

As opposed to what? Newspaper reporters? Gee, now THAT'S an unbiased group...

I call that "shielding" him from the reality of dissent and criticism (though obviously with his agreement). What do you call it?

Yeah, I'm sure Bush has NO IDEA many people oppose him on Iraq and that anti-war protestors even exist...Anyway, I call it taking the opinion of people who know what they are talking about over the opinionated rants of know-nothings.

The point of the "not visible to the president" rule is rather obvious, by the way, and has little to do with Bush: it had to do with discouraging the silly, adolescent idea of the protestors that if only the president will see their protest sign, he will find out "the truth" that all those nasty presidential advisors are "hiding" from him and instantly convert to their point of view.

Now that this rule is in force, they actually would have to protest without this fantasy to drive them--which, of course, significantly lowers the number of protestors, which was the whole point...

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Skeptic

Anyway, I call it taking the opinion of people who know what they are talking about over the opinionated rants of know-nothings.

So all those people writing for (for example, the NYT) are "know-nothings" unless, of course, you agree with them politically?

Yes, I guess you and Bush -are- on the same wavelength. I think that's exactly his point of view toward critical thinking, too.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

To make my point clearer about this topic...I think if the British military feels they are being forced to be part of US military policies and attitudes toward Iraqis that they completely disagree with, then by all means they should speak up.

The British Army has to, and indeed does, accept that the Americans have by far the greater preponderence of forces. They have to work with them. This is why sniping about them to the press is bad form.

This is the most arrogant US administration I can recall and the way Bush is shielded from dissent by his own habits and his advisers is a well-established recipe for foreign and domestic policy disasters.

This may or may not be true, depending on your outlook. It hardly excuses having a pop anonymously at your allies.

The British are not our subordinates, and from what I've seen and heard (including that film of our soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis rather than letting them surrender), the criticism above seems likely to be quite valid.

The British Army have shot unarmed civilians in the past. Scared soldiers (even very well trained ones) firing without properly identifying the nature of their targets is not the sole preserve of the Americans.

 

[Skeptic]

So all those people writing for (for example, the NYT) are "know-nothings" unless, of course, you agree with them politically?

Even if they do agree with me, very often. As G. B. Shaw once said, "I am not responsible for every idiot that agrees with me."

I didn't always have that opinion. I used to take the "analysis" in the newspaper seriously. But then I noticed that, in reality, most such "expert opinion" is simply the writer's momentary impression, regardless of how many predications they make about what "history teaches", etc.

I then did a trial run: I looked at a whole set of opinion pieces of what is "going to happen" according to the reporters of TIME magazine--only I checked two months of issues from a year ago. I did the same with what is "going to happen" according to the reporters of the NYT, only I checked two weeks' worth of issues from a year ago.

I found out that virtually NOTHING of what the writers at the time called "the obvious developments in the future will be..." or "now it is clear that..." or "the administration must realize that...", etc. had in fact occured; and those things that did come to pass, usually came to pass in a form so different than the reporters' "expert prediction" was as to make it meaningless. Tossing a coin, throwing at a dart board, or throwing a die would be a significant better predictor than the newspapers' analysis. Worse, most newspaper "experts" have an extremely annoying insomania: they reverse their "expert prediction" of what will happen two years from now virtually every week, without apology; so what good is such an "expert prediction"?

Is the CIA or FBI better? I don't know--I, unlike Bush, do not get CIA briefings. One hopes to God that they are. But that as it may be, even if CIA and FBI are imperfect, they cannot very well be worse than useless. Using the newspapers to "supplement" CIA or FBI analysis is the equivalent of using leeches to "supplement" chemotherapy (hey, we don't want to be "sheilded" from views the medical establishment, with its obvious interests, hides from us, do we? Bring on the bloodsucking!). Perhaps chemotherapy doesn't always work; leeches never do.

A case in point: the press is now giving Bush the third degree about the August 6th, 2001, of Al Quaeda being determined to strike the USA. This is seen as an intelligence failure. Perhaps it is; but at least they got the person and intention right. But what were the headlines in the world at August 2001? What were the NYT and other papers--the ones Bush should have relied on for "other points of view"--talking about?

Well, the NYT on that day had the following op-ed articles: "The Nuclear Winter of 1945" (it was the day the bomb fell on Hiroshima), "Free Trade and Mexican Trucking", "Bare-Bone Budgeting", ""Virtue is not Easy to Foster", "In America: tainted justice" (about a death-row inmate), "A half-hearted push at reform" (on the elections). Not a word about any terror threat. Not, in fact, a word that was remembered the next week. And this of course is typical. What would he have gained from reading the NYT? Nothing at all.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan,

Here's a video and transcript.

Video: US Soldiers Shooting wounded Iraqis

Thanks Clancie,

Sadly there have always been and always will be atrocities committed by soldiers of any country. There have always been and always will be those who like to hurt and kill. They exist right now in our ranks and have always existed and always will exist. Any criminal activity should be prosecuted to its fullest.

I don't know how this can be attributed to Bush or his administrations. Certainly there was no memo encouraging this behavior and no one has come forward with claims that the American military encourage this behavior.

It should be pointed out that the American soldier and the American military has had a better rep than many if not most other country's military.

I'm not really certain of the point of the soldiers doing this. Do the British deny that their soldiers ever commit crimes? At best the incident is anecdotal. Do you have something to buttress this incident to show that it is typical of or specific to the behavior of American troops?

I do appreciate the link.

RandFan

 

[a_unique_person]

Thanks Clancie,

Sadly there have always been and always will be atrocities committed by soldiers of any country. There have always been and always will be those who like to hurt and kill. They exist right now in our ranks and have always existed and always will exist. Any criminal activity should be prosecuted to its fullest.

I don't know how this can be attributed to Bush or his administrations. Certainly there was no memo encouraging this behavior and no one has come forward with claims that the American military encourage this behavior.

It should be pointed out that the American soldier and the American military has had a better rep than many if not most other country's military.

It all depends on what information source you are using. From where I sit, they have a pretty bad reputation from various eras, Vietnam in particular comes to mind, with the attitude of the US to the 'gooks'. Even BOB has the guts to not pull it's punches.

 

[a_unique_person]

Actually, Skeptic, while that approach (discrediting the source) often works, here it doesn't.

The authenticity of this video (first shown in a British documentary, then last weekend shown again on CNN) is not in dispute by anyone at all, regardless of who is housing a link to it.

No one from the military disputed it when asked about it on CNN--they simply argued if it could be seen as justifiable.

Unfortunately, Skeptic appears to be unable to accept any criticism of his two favourite causes, the US and Israel.

 

[Reginald]

I agree but I must say that there are times when officers and soldiers should stray from the chain of command. Daniel Elsberg wasn't a soldier or officer but I think it was important for the information in the Pentagon Papers to get out. I'm saying this as a vocal supporter of the merits of Vietnam. I think the Holocaust would have been an appropriate time to bypass chain of command.

These are just my inexperienced and perhaps ignorant thoughts and feelings. I would love your response to them. Assuming of course that I was coherent enough to respond to.

RandFan

Abundantly coherent as always.

They are a couple of very extreme exceptions you have chosen there and I can't in honesty say, with hand on heart, that my belief in the chain of command and the military serving the government could hold up against them. But they are extremes. I would say that IMO it would take something close to the scale of those however, to make me think twice about changing my position.

Even in a situation as big as the current Iraq conflict, the scale would suggest that there will be a high probability of injustices, irregular behaviors and unprofessional conduct. However, as we stand, at this point in time I see nothing that I consider (I don't want to make this seem heartless) sufficiently irregular to warrant sniping via the press by one side of the alliance by the other. I believe that all parties are having a say. I believe that the US and UK have different styles of occupation, neither is right or wrong. As a slight aside, but to some degree relevant given your reference, when the German's invaded the channel isles in WW2 they applied a completely different strategy to that in say Poland, in that they were instructed to be courteous to the inhabitants, even not pick the flowers. I raise this point to illustrate that even in a single military force, the tactics of any occupations are dynamic.

Throughout this entire thread, I have remained concerned about the validity of the opening post. Given the recent "decorating" of reports in the UK by a certain BBC reporter, I have become particularly wary of any reported anonymous sources.

I remain confident in the integrity of the military structure of both the UK and US, I also remain confident in the integrity of the UK/US alliance.

 

[demon]

If the British commander compares US Troops to Nazis or not, the parallels are clear enough.

The main characteristic of Nazi reprisals was their ferocity and their wild lack of proportion.

They used them for exactly the same purpose as the Americans: to terrify (terrorise) the population, raise their anger against resisters, and to quell the resisters by peer group pressure.

History shows that they were unsuccessful.

American universities have dozens of example of Nazi reprisals on their websites. Any questioning warmonger could easily look at them, join up the dots, and find out that the US imperial army has become the very monster that it once fought with such heroism.

For example, the reprisals as the Nazi armies retreated from Italy were fearsome, e.g. at Marzabotto near the Leftist city of Bologna, here:

http://www.courses.drew.edu/FA2002/frsm-1-005/partisans2.html

Or here's another from Yugoslavia that shows, as the website says, that "an easy conquest does not mean an easy occupation, even with local help".

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/savich3.html

Extraordinarily, the US Office of War Information published posters denouncing "Nazi Brutality" that showed manacled men with sacks over their heads, exactly as Arabs are treated in Iraq by US troops today.

http://images.library.uiuc.edu:8081/tdc/image/8285821842002_ww20158p.jpg

I take no pleasure in denouncing the US forces as neo-Nazis. Fallujeh was carried out by the Marines, a particularly brainwashed and brutal lot. I just hope that comments made by people like this British commander somehow get out there to the people in the thick of it and make them think.

I don't practise Xtianity or any religion but it offends me that those bloodthirsty lunatics took their sordid, criminal and totally disproportionate revenge during the holy days of Easter. Not because of the religion, but because they knew that the western world would be on holiday and the media would skim over it all the more easily.

I haven't seen such wicked cynicism since the bombing of Hanoi (Haiphong). They carried that out over Christmas, when the calendar happened to dictate that there would be no newspapers and few TV news bulletins for several days in a row. Kissinger later received the Nobel peace prize, so get ready for anything.

Fair play to the British guy for saying it. Nothing has been more revealing of the supine, craven nature of our "free and impartial" media than the refusal to call things by their proper names - resistance, atrocity, reprisals, fascists- instead we have "civil war", "defensive measures", "military containment" and "our allies, leaders of the coalition and the free world".


Watchdog: Probe Needed Into U.S. Action in Falluja
Tue Apr 13,11:12 AM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=6&u=/nm/20040413/ts_nm/iraq_falluja_rights_dc

 

[RandFan]

If the British commander compares US Troops to Nazis or not, the parallels are clear enough.

The main characteristic of Nazi reprisals was their ferocity and their wild lack of proportion.

They used them for exactly the same purpose as the Americans: to terrify (terrorise) the population, raise their anger against resisters, and to quell the resisters by peer group pressure.

Rebuttal to agenda-driven Holocaust revisionism

The Truth About The Holocaust

• One of the Nazis favorite methods of intimidation was execution.
  
• The Nazis first rounded up and executed those deemed "harmful" including those who were disabled and those with genetic disorders later homosexuals were added to the list.
  
• The Nazis enjoyed stripping naked their victims before execution to thoroughly humiliate them.
  
• The Nazis liked to single out children and old people to kill for sport.
  
• The Nazis would force their victims to stand in line with their children and infants awaiting their slaughter.
  
• The Nazis would often force their victims to dig their own graves before execution.
  
• The Nazis loved to play cruel games like giving a mother a choice of which child would be spared and which child would be executed.
  
• The Nazis used civilians as slaves.
  
• The Nazis would ship captured civilians in locked boxcars without food or water where many died.

The purpose of the Army is to break things and kill people. Sometimes the methods used are blunt and unfortunately kill civilians and can be cruel without intending to be. Sometimes officers or soldiers go to far in their attempt to win the battle. Those who commit atrocities must be held accountable. That the U.S. Military engages in activities that can be paralleled to SOME of the activities of the Nazis is not proof that they are neo-Nazis.

Your argument is fallacious.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think the he was claiming they are Nazis. The treatment of the Vietnamese was infamous for the word 'gooks'. After Mai Lai, which was just about the only massacre that made it to the national attention, only one person was found guilty, then he was basically released, being placed under 'house arrest'.

The Nazis had to bring in the death camps because, apart from the sadists who enjoyed it, most troops who had to shoot unarmed civilians suffered long term stress and could not just kill people without suffering psychological damage, not matter what their ideology brainwashed them to believe.

The 'distancing' of the killer from the killed appears to be an essential part of the slaughter of others. The prime example of this is the the crew of a B52. They fly miles above the target, push a few buttons, and go home. The carnage that results is never apparent to them. I can't really see the difference, in practical terms, between these people and a suicide bomber. People get blown up either way.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think the he was claiming they are Nazis.

Hmmmm....

Demon

I take no pleasure in denouncing the US forces as neo-Nazis.

 

[RandFan]

The treatment of the Vietnamese was infamous for the word 'gooks'.

Just how much mileage can you get out of this? Yes, they were pejoratively called 'gooks' and to those imprisoned in Hanoi it seemed appropriate at the time.

I don't think calling ones enemy a "gook' is anything at all like shooting children in the back of the head for fun or stripping women naked before being shot. Sticks and stones and the butts of rifles will bash in a persons head but being called a "gook" somehow isn't quite as bad. The word "gook" just isn't going to stretch to cover all of the atrocities carried out by the Nazis.

 

[a_unique_person]

Just how much mileage can you get out of this? Yes, they were pejoratively called 'gooks' and to those imprisoned in Hanoi it seemed appropriate at the time.

I don't think calling ones enemy a "gook' is anything at all like shooting children in the back of the head for fun or stripping women naked before being shot. Sticks and stones and the butts of rifles will bash in a persons head but being called a "gook" somehow isn't quite as bad. The word "gook" just isn't going to stretch to cover all of the atrocities carried out by the Nazis.

Calling the Vietnamese Gooks was a part of the dehumanising process. Then, when you shoot them, it doesn't matter so much, they were only gooks anyway.

I just read "Chickenhawk". He described, besides his slow descent into a total nervous breakdown, for example, how they had the skull of a Vietnamese on their bar, with a string tied to it's skull, so they could open and close the jaw as a joke when they sang songs. If you look at the pictures of Mai Lai, there are plenty of civilians lying dead in ditches, with bullets in back.

Stop trying to avoid the truth. There were Australian troops in Vietnam. If Tet was what convinced the US public to get out of Vietnam, it was for Australians the graphic picutres of the slaughter at Mai Lai. I can still remember them.

 

[RandFan]

Calling the Vietnamese Gooks was a part of the dehumanising process. Then, when you shoot them, it doesn't matter so much, they were only gooks anyway.

I just read "Chickenhawk". He described, besides his slow descent into a total nervous breakdown, for example, how they had the skull of a Vietnamese on their bar, with a string tied to it's skull, so they could open and close the jaw as a joke when they sang songs. If you look at the pictures of Mai Lai, there are plenty of civilians lying dead in ditches, with bullets in back.

Stop trying to avoid the truth. There were Australian troops in Vietnam. If Tet was what convinced the US public to get out of Vietnam, it was for Australians the graphic picutres of the slaughter at Mai Lai. I can still remember them.

Mai Lai was one incident and to be sure there were others.

However, equating the soldiers in Iraq today with the Nazis of World War II is untenable.

 

[RandFan]

Stop trying to avoid the truth.

What truth am I trying to avoid? I am vary aware of the atrocities of Vietnam. I'm not trying to gloss over them. I accept that the scope of that conflict ensured that such incidents would occur and they will occur again. But you cannot claim that the Americans were equivelant to the Nazis who commited attrocities on such a grand scale (please see links above).

 

[a_unique_person]

Mai Lai was most definitely not one incident.

Australians faced up to what was being done in Vietnam, even if it was not Australian troops involved in this event.