Soldier accused of assaulting Iraqi teenager and killing her and her family

updated 6:49 p.m. ET Aug. 26, 2008

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A federal judge in Kentucky has upheld civilian charges against a former 101st Airborne Division soldier accused in the sexual assault of an Iraqi teenager and the slayings of her and her family.

Steven Dale Green's attorneys challenged a law that allowed him to be indicted on civilian charges for alleged crimes that happened in a war zone while he was serving in the Army. He was discharged before the military could bring its own charges.

But U.S. District Judge Thomas Russell, in a series of rulings released Tuesday, upheld the constitutionality of the law and found that Green received due process as his case moved through the judicial system.

Green has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to face trial in April 2009. The 22-year-old from Midland, Texas, faces a possible death sentence if convicted on 16 charges that include premeditated murder and aggravated sexual assault. His lawyers have said they plan to use an insanity defense at trial.

Green's public defender, Patrick Bouldon, said the civilian justice system shouldn't handle cases involving the unfamiliar and extreme setting of a war zone.

"Certainly cases involving soldiers in the midst of a violent war are ones that belong within the military system," he said.

Sandy Focken, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Louisville, said prosecutors would review the rulings.

Others involved admitted to rape, murders
Four other soldiers pleaded guilty or were convicted for their role in targeting the 14-year-old girl from a checkpoint near Mahmoudiya, a village 20 miles south of Baghdad, and helping rape and kill her in 2006.

Two of the soldiers testified they took turns raping the girl while Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister. They also testified that Green raped the girl and shot her.

Green's lawyers challenged the constitutionality of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, a law written in 2000 and amended in 2004 primarily to allow the prosecution of civilian contractors who commit crimes while working for the U.S. overseas.

The attorneys argued their client could face death, a much harsher punishment than his alleged coconspirators received in military court. One soldier charged as an accessory was sentenced to five years, while sentences for three others ranged from 90 to 110 years.

Green had been honorably discharged from the military with psychiatric problems when allegations surfaced of U.S. military involvement in the slayings. He was arrested as a civilian.

The defense claimed discharging Green before he was criminally charged in the military system violated his due process rights. They cite testimony that Green reported his involvement to his commanding sergeant twice and was instructed to leave the military.

Russell ruled that the military did nothing wrong in discharging Green.

"This Court finds that Defendant's discharge was reasonably related to the Government's interest in ensuring that its soldiers are fit to serve," Russell wrote.

Russell also turned down multiple challenges to the federal death penalty act and the notice of intent to seek the death penalty in Green's case.

In a similar case, former Marine Jose Luis Nazario Jr. is on trial in California, charged with killing unarmed detainees in Iraq. The judge in his case also turned away a constitutional challenge to the law.

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo/_new/080826-green-vmed-4p.widec.jpg

Source

Now I know that when an American soldier in service of the US government does something wrong it's not reflective upon the US or the Allies or the Western Democratic Free World at all, unlike any Muslim who happens to do anything at all wrong is reflective upon the entire 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. I'm fully aware the two situations would be worlds apart. As one is the civilised people of the free world whilst the other are the barbaric haters of freedom.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 6^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

Now I know that when an American soldier in service of the US government does something wrong it's not reflective upon the US or the Allies or the Western Democratic Free World at all, unlike any Muslim who happens to do anything at all wrong is reflective upon the entire 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. I'm fully aware the two situations would be worlds apart. As one is the civilised people of the free world whilst the other are the barbaric haters of freedom.

This is disgusting, but it is not incited by ideology or a modus operandi.

Where's the extremism?

I agree, not extremists at all.
Just normal everyday US soldiers.

Here's a little something to add a little spice into it all...

-----

JUNEAU, Alaska — Borrowing the language of wartime President George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-president nominee, believes the US-led invasion of Iraq was a "task from God."

"Our national leaders are sending soldiers out on a task that is from God," Palin, Republican White House nominee John McCain, told ministry students at her former church, according to a newly revealed video.

A video of the speech, delivered in June, was posted on the website of the Wasilla Assembly of God, the evangelical church Palin has belonged to since he was a teenager, before being disseminated across the Internet.

In her address, the Alaska Governor urged the religious students to pray for the troops in Iraq.

"That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

Palin words echo the rhetoric of President Bush, who ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 on claims of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and links to Al-Qaeda, both claimed later proved ungrounded.

Bush has repeatedly portrayed his so-called war on terror, which included the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, as a battle between good and evil.

He upset many Muslims after the 9/11 attacks by referring to his war as a "crusade," a term which for many Muslims connotes a Christian battle against Islam.

The Wasilla Assembly of God and its parent denomination - the three-million member General Council of the Assemblies of God - espouse core beliefs not widely ascribed to by major Christian factions.

The denomination's website says some scholars believe that the "end times" foreshadowing the end of the world was confirmed in 1948, with the founding of Israel, marking the Jews' return to the Holy Land, fulfilling a Biblical prophecy.

The video of the speech gives a sense of how Palin's religion-colored approach to governance.

"What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys," Palin said.

"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded.

"But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

Palin asked the ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion gas pipeline in her Alaska state.

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."

A first-term governor, Palin is a pioneering figure in Alaska as the first woman and the youngest person to hold the state's top political post.

The 44-year-old mother of five, who comes from a devout Christian family, is graded as a right-wing Republican and a strong social conservative.

She is a family values champion, an upholder of gun rights and a supporter of the capital punishment.

Palin is also an ardent pro-life campaigner who gave birth in April to her fifth child, a boy, who has Downs Syndrome.

He Christian credentials and antiabortion views have been lauded by social conservatives.

She is already making history by becoming the first female on the Republican presidential ticket and the second woman on a major party's ticket.

If the Republicans win the November White House election, Palin will be the first ever woman vice president in American history.

Perhaps Trooper Green had been reading some passages from the Bible like these before the US government sent him off to do "God's task".


Quote:

Judges 21:20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, "Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the girls of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, then rush from the vineyards and each of you seize a wife from the girls of Shiloh and go to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, 'Do us a kindness by helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war, and you are innocent, since you did not give your daughters to them.' " 23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the girls were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.

Quote:

Numbers 31:7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. 13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 20:10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

-----

So Trooper Green is a member of an army, whose commanders describe them as doing God's Task, and we can see clearly verses from the Bible condoning and even commanding such activities, yet you think it's not extremism?

Would you if he was a Muslim quoting koran verses?

A Muslim  is not permitted ot rape and kill a person, no. And then kill all her family to cover it up...

This kind of thing is despicable to us, and I'm really disgusted you asked that question rather than just condemn this unhuman and barbaric act of your civilisation.

My point is to show that your Western civilisation is not as innocent and benign as you claim. It does similar things to what you accuse Islam of, and as we can see in this case, much worse.

Men are inherently evil and easy to take advantage of.

The fact they live in constant fear makes them easy prey to be manipulated and abused by the powers that be, and this can easily be done using organised religion is no big secret.

A Christian is neither permitted to kill and rape.

The Bible clearly states Thou Shalt not Kill, perhaps a pope changed it to murder, but the original tells you not to kill.

Quote:

The Bible clearly states Thou Shalt not Kill, perhaps a pope changed it to murder, but the original tells you not to kill.

According to the original Hebrew it says murder/slay/assasinate. So that pope probably just re-adjusted the translation to match the original language in which it's written. The original language is the authoritative text, not the translation/interpretation.

Kill wouldn't make sense, because in so many other cases in the Bible killing is prescribed. There are two Hebrew words most commonly used, one is used to specify killing that's considered lawful (naka) and the other unlawful (ra-tsakh).


Quote:

Men are inherently evil and easy to take advantage of.

I see, so when Westerners commit these kinds of acts, they are taken advantage of, when Muslims commit them, they're the most abominable evil creatures to exist... right?

Abu, you are doing what you accuse others of doing. Read my signature. You claim "the west" is biased against Islam, you are without doubt, biased against "the west".

True, but apparently when I'm biased against the West, it's wrong, when you're biased against Islam, it's all fine and dandy. And my bias is probably more of a 'correction' in response to the extreme bias I witness against Islam. Yours on the other hand seems to be quite genuine bias based on your hatred for Islam.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 9:03am:

A Muslim  is not permitted ot rape and kill a person, no. And then kill all her family to cover it up... This kind of thing is despicable to us, and I'm really disgusted you asked that question rather than just condemn this unhuman and barbaric act of your civilisation. My point is to show that your Western civilisation is not as innocent and benign as you claim. It does similar things to what you accuse Islam of, and as we can see in this case, much worse.

This kind of thing is despicable to most people Abu, but how do you know the soldier isn't a Muslim or Buddist or Atheist? I'm not sticking up for the christians they have as many problems as your mob ,but do you know this guys religion?

Quote:

This kind of thing is despicable to most people Abu, but how do you know the soldier isn't a Muslim or Buddist or Atheist? I'm not sticking up for the christians they have as many problems as your mob ,but do you know this guys religion?

Just like Christians, Atheists and others fight for Hezbollah, yet nobody ever makes mention of that fact. We only hear "Muslims this, Muslims that".

What's important is the belief/ideology held by the government/command that's controlling them, not so much their own individual beliefs.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 10:53am:

True, but apparently when I'm biased against the West, it's wrong, when you're biased against Islam, it's all fine and dandy. And my bias is probably more of a 'correction' in response to the extreme bias I witness against Islam. Yours on the other hand seems to be quite genuine bias based on your hatred for Islam.

Well, when I'm biased against Islam, in your view, I'm wrong, but when you're biased against the west it's all fine and dandy, in your view. Perhaps my bias is a response to your extreme bias that I witness against the west. Because, your hatred for all things western seems quite genuine.

Point is, we are each others enemy, plain and simple. We will never get along. You will fight for what you believe, as I will do the same. It will always clash.

Get your tail out of your mouth.

I am a Westerner, I live in Western society, and I appreciate many aspects of it. You fail to realise this when chasing your tail around in circles. I don't believe there has to be a clash, I believe people like you want there to be a clash, as do many of the politicians who increase their power and maintain their usefulness from it. The West always needs a bogeyman.. And this isn't going to change.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 11:24am:

Quote: This kind of thing is despicable to most people Abu, but how do you know the soldier isn't a Muslim or Buddist or Atheist? I'm not sticking up for the christians they have as many problems as your mob ,but do you know this guys religion? Just like Christians, Atheists and others fight for Hezbollah, yet nobody ever makes mention of that fact. We only hear "Muslims this, Muslims that". What's important is the belief/ideology held by the government/command that's controlling them, not so much their own individual beliefs.

So ,you're saying the USA gov made him do it? even if he turns out to be a Muslim? mm interesting.

I didn't say that in the slightest.

But he is a soldier, who is fighting under their banner, for their ideology, and he's representative of them. It's quite ironic that in this case you fumble and leap to disassociate the wrongdoer from his nation and it's ideology. Yet anytime a Muslim does something, all we hear is about how this is representative of Islam, and all Muslims must apologise and condemn this etc. etc.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 12:31pm:

I didn't say that in the slightest. But he is a soldier, who is fighting under their banner, for their ideology, and he's representative of them. It's quite ironic that in this case you fumble and leap to disassociate the wrongdoer from his nation and it's ideology. Yet anytime a Muslim does something, all we hear is about how this is representative of Islam, and all Muslims must apologise and condemn this etc. etc.

I dont recall ever doing that, care to show me some posts?

Read my words a little clearer.


Quote:

all we hear is about how this is representative of Islam

"all we hear..", not "atheist said..".

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 1:00pm:

Read my words a little clearer. Quote: all we hear is about how this is representative of Islam "all we hear..", not "atheist said..".

And your point?
I dont blame Islam for the worlds woes abu, I think the christians have a lot to answer for as well, paticularly the USA, under GW Bush who has let the christian loonys loose in powerfull positions.
Any gov that has religious  extemists involved in its decisions is bad news for all ,be they Muslim or Christian .

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 11:53am:

Get your tail out of your mouth. I am a Westerner, I live in Western society, and I appreciate many aspects of it. You fail to realise this when chasing your tail around in circles. I don't believe there has to be a clash, I believe people like you want there to be a clash, as do many of the politicians who increase their power and maintain their usefulness from it. The West always needs a bogeyman.. And this isn't going to change.

I don't want there to be a clash, I'm sick and tired of religious wars and carry on, I wish you'd all piss off, the lot of you, so those who want to live without bullcrap fairy tails impeding our lifestyle will be able to do so.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 6^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

Now I know that when an American soldier in service of the US government does something wrong it's not reflective upon the US or the Allies or the Western Democratic Free World at all, unlike any Muslim who happens to do anything at all wrong is reflective upon the entire 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. I'm fully aware the two situations would be worlds apart. As one is the civilised people of the free world whilst the other are the barbaric haters of freedom.

Compare this case when sick perpetrator is punished and case of rape in Saudi Arabia when the victim was punished with 200 lashes.

http://www.srigutta.com/2007/11/gang-rape-in-saudi-arabia-weird-justice.html

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 12:31pm:

I didn't say that in the slightest. But he is a soldier, who is fighting under their banner, for their ideology, and he's representative of them. It's quite ironic that in this case you fumble and leap to disassociate the wrongdoer from his nation and it's ideology. Yet anytime a Muslim does something, all we hear is about how this is representative of Islam, and all Muslims must apologise and condemn this etc. etc.

This is nonsense. The soldier is not representative of anything - that is why he is going to be court martialled and punished severly.
As to evil deeds by Muslims - other Muslims must apologise for and distance themselves from killings committed in the name of Islam, as shouted by the perpetrators themselves.
You do not need to apologise for criminals and crooks, rapists and murderers who happeen to be Muslims - but you must show your opposition convincingly when these acts are carried out with shouts of 'Allahu Akhbar', in the name of Islam, as jihad or when the perpetrators claim that Islam authorises them do such things.

When Islam is evoked by the perpetrators as the reason for their acts - this is the only point, the key. This is what requires your opposition because they are sullying your religion. You should condemn them, exclude them, give them up for proper punishement. And because it happens every day, you should do it every day, too. Big problem, big task.

Quote:

that is why he is going to be court martialled

Did you actually read the article? He's not going to be court-martialled.  In fact he's been given an honourable discharge, and is going to face this as a civilian.


Quote:

As to evil deeds by Muslims - other Muslims must apologise for and distance themselves from killings committed in the name of Islam, as shouted by the perpetrators themselves.

But you don't have to apologise for any of the crimes being committed in the name of Western Democracy, right? When your armies bomb innocent civilians into smithereens, that's just bad luck right? When your soldiers rape and pillage innocent civilians, they're just 'lone criminals', I see. When your armies obliterate entire towns, that's just a routine part of war, and we should just accpet it right?

You're nothing but a hypocrite, of the highest order soren.

As are you, abu.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 8:53pm:

Quote: that is why he is going to be court martialled Did you actually read the article? He's not going to be court-martialled.  In fact he's been given an honourable discharge, and is going to face this as a civilian. [quote]As to evil deeds by Muslims - other Muslims must apologise for and distance themselves from killings committed in the name of Islam, as shouted by the perpetrators themselves.

But you don't have to apologise for any of the crimes being committed in the name of Western Democracy, right? When your armies bomb innocent civilians into smithereens, that's just bad luck right? When your soldiers rape and pillage innocent civilians, they're just 'lone criminals', I see. When your armies obliterate entire towns, that's just a routine part of war, and we should just accpet it right?

You're nothing but a hypocrite, of the highest order soren.[/quote]


Absolutely no civilians are targeted in the name of western democacy, absolutely no atrocities are committed in the name of western democracy.

All the attrocities we know as islamic terrorism are explicitly commited in the name of and for the furtherance of Islam. Every beheading, every suicide bombing, every murder of schoolgirls, aid workers, every torching of embassies, every death threat to authors, cartoonists, race and religion is made explicitly in the name of Islam by those who commit them.

If you actually believed what you are incessantly saying about the evils of the West, you would have fled ages ago, trying to rescue yourself and your family.  But you haven't because you do not actually believe what you are saying to the extent that you would put your children where your mouth is and rescue them from this society.

You are living a lie. I am different from you and that is why I am not a hypocrite - I actually believe that this society is far superior to what you agitate for. So I live where I believe it is better for me and my family. I do not live a lie.

As to this soldier's court martial - you will see, his discharge will be revoked and he will also face military justice, wwhichever way the civilian case unfolds.

Only sith deal in absolutes.

Soren - I agree with you absolutely :-)

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 8:53pm:

But you don't have to apologise for any of the crimes being committed in the name of Western Democracy, right?

Can't reply fully at the moment, so later tonight.

But quickly, No I do not have to apologise for the actions of a criminal. That does not mean that I can't feel sorrow that it happened. One does not cancel the other out. If he is guilty, than he is less than vermin. He shuold be sent back to Iraq for a televised execution. Then they can do whatever they want with the body.

He's an American fighter who's broken his country's rules of engagement.

Likewise some Muslim fighters break the Islamic rules of engagement and target civilians, yet apparently all Muslims are responsible for them doing it, and have to make regular & very public condemnations of their actions in order to appease the other side...

The simple fact is there's a lot of hypocrisy at work here.

You said it!!!!!

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 10^th, 2008 at 5:56pm:

He's an American fighter who's broken his country's rules of engagement. Likewise some Muslim fighters break the Islamic rules of engagement and target civilians, yet apparently all Muslims are responsible for them doing it, and have to make regular & very public condemnations of their actions in order to appease the other side... The simple fact is there's a lot of hypocrisy at work here.

Forget the 'apparently'.  Muslims are the sea in which muslim terrorists and their masters swim. Muslim are responsible for them - they are acting in your religion's name. If you are comfortable with that, like so many millions of other muslims, you will continue to do nothing to stop them but will blame it all on the jews and the West.

Who exactly punishes the 'muslims fighters' who break the islamic rules of engagement and target civilians? Nobody. Instead, there is dancing on the street and bonus money paid to the 'martyr's' family.  


The hypocrisy is only on your side. There is no equivalence between Muslim terrorists and western populations or governments. To speak as if they were equivalent is rhetorical sleight of hand calculated to cover up a lie.

Muslims are no victims of anything except themselves. They organise their societies precisely along the lines of their understanding of Allah and Allah's decrees on human relationships. And it is there for all the world to see what that looks like.

absolutely !!!

Quote:

The hypocrisy is only on your side. There is no equivalence between Muslim terrorists and western populations or governments. To speak as if they were equivalent is rhetorical sleight of hand calculated to cover up a lie.

Agreed, there is no equivalence. One side is fighting for their very survival, and unfortunately sometimes some elements of them do resort to means that are not sanctioned by Islam. Whilst the other side is fighting for pure greed and extension of their hegemony... No equivalence at all.


Quote:

absolutely !!!

Why am I not surprised sprint is acting as your one man fanboy cheer squad?  ;D

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2008 at 12:31pm:

I didn't say that in the slightest. But he is a soldier, who is fighting under their banner, for their ideology, and he's representative of them. It's quite ironic that in this case you fumble and leap to disassociate the wrongdoer from his nation and it's ideology. Yet anytime a Muslim does something, all we hear is about how this is representative of Islam, and all Muslims must apologise and condemn this etc. etc.

That is YOUR claim

The country that you speak of are putting him on trial for FAILING to do those things. ie represent his country. He did not behave as a soldier at all in this action, he behaved as a criminal.

I have avoided as much of the extremist cat fighting as possible. I am responding here so Abu can possibly look at this sensibly rather than emotionally. I would rather have him at this forum so that I can ask sensible questions about the Islamic world.



abu_rashid wrote on Sep 6^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

Now I know that when an American soldier in service of the US government does something wrong it's not reflective upon the US or the Allies or the Western Democratic Free World at all

It seems to me that what is reflective here is that this individual is being bought to justice. The only ones defending him in these actions so far are the ones that are required to defend him as a matter of due process.

Has he claimed that his actions are sanctioned or encouraged by the political system he belongs to? The article does not state that. On what authority from the defendant and his country have you made this association of acceptance or encouragemnt for this behaviour. I have little doubt that what happened is a unique incident in Iraq. It is certainly not unique in war or to any particular side.

Anyone or group who would claim this individual as an ideological son would certainly be extremists, of the most base kind and should be vilified and monitored. If he claims that these actions were sanctioned or encouraged due to a Christian belief, I would suggest that any descent person would treat him as a liar or a fundamentalist disenfranchised with humanity.
                           
As I have stated earlier, if he is found guily, he should be returned to Iraq for execution. The Iraqis could do whatever they want with the body.


abu_rashid wrote on Sep 6^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

, unlike any Muslim who happens to do anything at all wrong is reflective upon the entire 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. I'm fully aware the two situations would be worlds apart. .

Your post is trying to make an association with this discusting criminal action and western democracy. It is a far-fetched and spurious associative claim. As spurious as those that make an association between the actions of hezbollah and the entire Mulim world.

YOU have to acknowledge however that it is groups such as hezbollah that use tems such as "In The Name Of Islam"' and let's be honest the middle east and the Muslim world is over represented by such groups. There are also regular demonstrations of popular support for these associations and their actions. I will admit that often these demonstrations of support are often locallized to areas of prolonged conflict (so understandable) and often exaggerated by western media.

Sorry, but where is the corresponding support for this individual that would be apparent IF he were considered a role model example of the West that you are suggesting.


abu_rashid wrote on Sep 6^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

As one is the civilised people of the free world whilst the other are the barbaric haters of freedom

There are actually people on this forum that don't automatically think this, and prefer to judge things as best they are able and as fairly as they are able. Then you go and want to put words in their mouths.

Go ahead and post this scumbag as an extremist, murderous cretin. Criticize his being discharged from the armed forces honourably, yes that needs to be investigated. But he is being bought to trial, and to be punished probably with the extreme form of punishment in the western system. And NO RIGHT MINDED PERSON wants to give cause for anyone to duplicate his actions. He will not be missed.

You have the added bonus of believing his punishments in the afterlife will be painful, long, and many.

Just to pick you up on the last point you made Locutious, christianity teaches that you can do anything, no matter how repulsive, and still go to heaven, if you accept jesus into your heart before you die.

I am all for giving people a chance at redemption, but the lack of morality is staggering in this religious belief.
By the same cockeyed belief, a person could live an unselfish, generous life doing nothing but good, but if they do not accept jesus as their lord and saviour, they are condemned to hell.
Gotta love that good time religious feeilng.

Yeah Christianity sucks in the sense that you don't have to be good to be rewarded, just ask for forgiveness and believe.

No wonder the mafia are so in love with being Catholic.

Quote:

I am responding here so Abu can possibly look at this sensibly rather than emotionally.

I'm not really looking at this emotionally. In fact quite rationally. I'm just hoping to balance out the usual anti-Islamic fanatical nonsense we see posted here, by showing that the West have their fair share of poor conduct in times of conflict. I could also bring things like Fallujah and Haditha, many of which the government of the USA still supports as being correct actions, but which were clearly war crimes.


Quote:

Has he claimed that his actions are sanctioned or encouraged by the political system he belongs to?

Irrelevant, he performed these actions, not just he but 4 other US soldiers took part in it also. They not only raped the 14 yo and burnt her body, but they murdered her parents and 5 yo. sister at point blank range. when we couple this with the stuff done at Abu Ghraib, the worst of which is still yet to come out and other isolated instances of mistreating and murdering civilians, show that this kind of activity is endemic. It is not just a one off, by a lone wolf, it is an activity that's agreeable to their colleagues too. Similar stories have been told by veterans of the first Iraq war.

They may disassociate themselves from it when it's made public, and then commit him to trial, even though they previouslyt discharged him honourably, but they know this kind of stuff is going on all the time, and they let it continue.


Quote:

I have little doubt that what happened is a unique incident in Iraq

Perhaps you should do a little reading, it's not all that unique..

http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/rape.html
http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

even American female soldiers are vulnerable
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/06/27/lavena_johnson/


Quote:

Your post is trying to make an association with this discusting criminal action and western democracy. It is a far-fetched and spurious associative claim. As spurious as those that make an association between the actions of hezbollah and the entire Mulim world.

So you got my point then?

Mozzaok and easel - That's not my understanding of christianity.
Really good point you have bought up.
Start a new thread if you want a chat on it.
Topics get lost if just left to ramble aimlessly

easel wrote on Sep 11^th, 2008 at 6:02pm:

Yeah Christianity sucks in the sense that you don't have to be good to be rewarded, just ask for forgiveness and believe. No wonder the mafia are so in love with being Catholic.

I used to get a laugh out of those smug bumper sticker slogans "Christians aren't Perfect... Just forgiven"

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:

[quote] I'm not really looking at this emotionally. In fact quite rationally. I'm just hoping to balance out the usual anti-Islamic fanatical nonsense we see posted here, by showing that the West have their fair share of poor conduct in times of conflict. I could also bring things like Fallujah and Haditha, many of which the government of the USA still supports as being correct actions, but which were clearly war crimes.

Just by way of exposing extremism, in case you are wondering where to file this or whether it is on topic:

It is not anti-Islamic fanaticism to notice that only Muslims murder and maim innocent civilians in the name of their religion and as a matter of deliberate policy - in Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, London, Madrid, not to mention the killing and maiming of innocent fellow muslims virtully every day in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq.
I am not even talking about the fighting of armies and police. I am talking about the deliberate and routine targeting of civilians.

There is no other religion today that is used so consistently and frequently and bloodily to justify the murder of innocents. Islam is the only religion today that can be and therefore is used as justification for murder of innocents.

I am not the one who uses islam to justify murder. I am not the anti-islamic fanatic who gives Islam a bad name. I did not make the muslim suicide bombers blow up themselves at the gates of universities in Iraq just when the young students came out in the afternoon. There were no scary Jooos or evil Ameericans there. The  Pakistani chavs who blew up themselves and scores of others in London were not brainswahed by me, horrible anti-islamic fanatic that I am. Equally, none of the Madrid bombers, the beheders of Thai schoolgirls and teachers, the Indian train bombers, nor the the pizzeria and wedding boimbers were under my evil anti-islamic mind-control.

I am not enabling and justifying these murderers, so do no call me a fanatic for merely noticing and saying what is happning for all to see.

You are implicated by your own co-religionists, not by me, and you need to face it, as do millions of your fellow Muslims. Shouting islamophobia or getting sooky is not going to cut it any more.

Quote:

You are implicated by your own co-religionists, not by me, and you need to face it, as do millions of your fellow Muslims.

Are you implicated by the filthy actions of Trooper Green? Or by the prison guards and interrogators of Abu Ghraib? Or by the Thai government forcing Muslim children to attend Buddhist temples and preventing them speaking their own language?

Contrary to your fantasy view of Muslims, we don't just go around attacking anyone for nothing. Usually Muslims are provoked and oppressed into the actions they take, and only do so after suffering a lot. Like the Muslims of Palestine, who suffered over 40 years of oppression, murder, occupation before the first suicide bomber was ever even dreamt of. Let us see how you'd respond after living under such conditions for so long. Of course you'd do it Gandhi style right? Look to any single situation where Muslims are engaged in conflict, look at the HISTORY of the situation there, not just the last 5 minutes, and you'll see Muslims are usually retaliating, not instigating the conflict.


Quote:

It is not anti-Islamic fanaticism to notice that only Muslims murder and maim innocent civilians in the name of their religion and as a matter of deliberate policy

Are you forgetting the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland? Or the Lord's Resistance Army? Or the Jewish Settlers? Or the Hindus of Gujarat? Who burn Muslims alive? Your view of the world soren is a very narrow one. You are wearing blinkers, that only allow you to see the retaliation of Muslims, yet you completely disregard the circumstances that drive them to it. You also completely ignore all the other violence going on in the world that's got nothing to do with Muslims, or in which Muslims are purely the victims.

locutius wrote on Sep 11^th, 2008 at 3:03pm:

I have little doubt that what happened is a unique incident in Iraq. It is certainly not unique in war or to any particular side.

Ah yes, I do usually proof read my posts a little better. That first sentence should read " is NOT a unique incident in Iraq" My apologies. Such a claim, that it is a one-off would be ridiculous.

mozza & easel, yep agree with those sentiments. Buying "Get out of jail" cards in advance was also very popular, as was signing over all your property to the church on your death bed. Maybe it still is. The mafia example I have used when Italian catholic relatives of mine have noticed what good family men make up the mafia. The fact that they prey and inflict misery on other families seemed to be forgotten because they attend church. Just goes to show you can convince yourself of anything.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:

Quote: Has he claimed that his actions are sanctioned or encouraged by the political system he belongs to? Irrelevant, he performed these actions, not just he but 4 other US soldiers took part in it also.

But it is NOT irrelevant. It's relavance is the basis of your argument. He made no such claim and far more importantly, no third party/nation/political system or ideology have made a claim on his behalf. That is completely relevant.



abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:

They may disassociate themselves from it when it's made public, and then commit him to trial, even though they previouslyt discharged him honourably, but they know this kind of stuff is going on all the time, and they let it continue.

Now you speak of disassociation rather than representative. The fact that they tried to hide it (wrongly) should give you an insight to the rightful public feeling of this and similar crimes. I will agree that there needs to be a level of scrutiny and investigation that can find and bring to justice anyone who committs similar and deliberate acts. And make them public. I can suspect things that are likely to be happening, but can't be indignant for a specific case if I have no knowledge of it.

And he IS being committed to trial. I'm not saying it has not happened but how many extremist Islamic groups or individuals are bought to trial in Muslim countries?

I am not including deaths caused by colateral damage. That is a completely separate issue.



Quote:

Your post is trying to make an association with this discusting criminal action and western democracy. It is a far-fetched and spurious associative claim. As spurious as those that make an association between the actions of hezbollah and the entire Mulim world.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11^th, 2008 at 8:30pm:

So you got my point then?

I got your point, but did you get mine about public global perception about Islamic groups proudly CLAIMING violent actions IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. And the silence, probably from fear of becoming a target from the same groups, of other Islamic leaders and communities.

locutius wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 1:53pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11th, 2008 at 8:30pm: Quote: Has he claimed that his actions are sanctioned or encouraged by the political system he belongs to? Irrelevant, he performed these actions, not just he but 4 other US soldiers took part in it also. But it is NOT irrelevant. It's relavance is the basis of your argument. He made no such claim and far more importantly, no third party/nation/political system or ideology have made a claim on his behalf. That is completely relevant. ...

Not only that but also if abu_rashid uses this sort of argument as valid he would have to admit that ANY CRIME PERPETRATED BY A MUSLIM is due to religion of Islam  :o

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 12:15am:

[quote] You also completely ignore all the other violence going on in the world that's got nothing to do with Muslims, or in which Muslims are purely the victims.

Sorry, you cannot set yourself up as the victim, not with history holding you by the scruff of the neck.

Islam has never been anything other than a conquering, enslaving, expansionist political system of tribal pagan Arabs. Its pretensions to revealed religion are naive and fairy tale-like.  The Koran and the haadiths are an unerring list of misunderstandings of and resentment towards both Jewish and Christian writing and religion by Mohammed and his followers, who have never read or digested any of the stuff they denounced and against which they set themselves up in the most vehement and bloody-minded opposition. Islam is motivated by its resentment for the rejection of Muhammed as a prophet by Christians and especially Jews, whom he set out to impress and copy.

 Indeed, Islam is inconcievable in any terms except in opposition to Judaism and Christianity. Take out of the Koran everything that is not in oppositin or in the spirit of resentment and you have nothing left that is new or an improvement on anything that went before.

Islam is as Islam does. Its history is an endless story of expansion, provocation, conquest and counter-attack. The crusades, that celebrated bit of muslim victimhood, was but a late and reluctant retaliation for decades, centuries of muslim menacing and take over of the Christian Levant and Byzantine territory.
Don't tell us that the Arabs were invited into the Byzantine Empire, into Spain, to the Balkans, to the gates of Vienna, and to India.  

Here's a bit of history to back up the above:

"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

Well put, don't you think?

Or try this on for size:

"The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on."

And so on indeed.

Just by way of exposing extremism, you understand.

Wow, 2 nameless quotes about Islam in India.. I'm impressed!

How about you try these on for size? A few quotes by perhaps the most famous Hindu of modern times, Gandhi about Islam:


Quote:

I  wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.

Quote:

The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom not only for Muslims but for all of mankind.

Quote:

My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.

Quote:

Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.

Kush is a Persian word for mountain or peak, and is used for many other mountain ranges. When you cut and paste arguments about which you have no genuine knowledge yourself, you're likely to be shown up.

In modern Persian, the word "Kush" is derived from the verb Kushtan - to defeat, kill, or subdue.

Want a shoehorn to get your foot out?

The mountains were named because of the hindu slaughter.
When you have NO objective Islamic scholars to give you unbiased facts, you tend to think Islam is perfect in every way, and no matter how many of their crimes are exposed, you will maintain it is all a western lie.
You are displaying slavish devotion, by surrendering your ability to objectively examine what you are being taught.

The muslim slaughter of the hindus is regarded as the worst act of attempted genocide in history, with figures of eight million being slaughtered.
That is when the muslims stole their lands, Maybe they should go back into afghanistan and kill all the muslims to get their land back, you claim ancient tribal connections as justifying modern assaults on israel, so fair is fair.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 11:02pm:

Quote: Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. Kush is a Persian word for mountain or peak, and is used for many other mountain ranges. When you cut and paste arguments about which you have no genuine knowledge yourself, you're likely to be shown up.

As if...


The earliest known use of this name - HINDU KUSH - was by the famous Arab traveller, Ibn Battuta aroundd 1334:

"Another reason for our halt was fear of the snow, for on the road there is a mountain called Hindu Kush, which means "Slayer of Indians," because the slave boys and girls who are brought from India die there in large numbers as a result of the extreme cold and the quantity of snow."

Was that the only non-fault you could find with the account of peace loving muslim influence in India?

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2008 at 10:44pm:

Wow, 2 nameless quotes about Islam in India.. I'm impressed! How about you try these on for size? A few quotes by perhaps the most famous Hindu of modern times, Gandhi about Islam: Quote: I  wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life. [quote]The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom not only for Muslims but for all of mankind.

Quote:

My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.

[/quote]


Fat good all that did him and the people of the subcontinent. Ghandi still got killed and India still got partitioned ALONG RELIGIOUS LINES. How funny and unexpected is that?
ANd now look at the buggers. India is making a fist of it, after fluffing around with socialism for decades - but the Pakistanis, the muslims, they are in strife as per bloody usual- but only after being further divided into Paksistan and Banglasdesh, with much brotherly muslim blood spilled. How unusual. Must be all the jooooos in Islamabad and Dhaka, mind-controlling as they do across all muslim countries.  Or something.

Islam is on its last legs. The whole idea of ' you can't question Muhammad, you can't question the Koran' is unsustainable and indefensible and unacceptable to literate people.  And once you start questioning, Islam might not have the depth or revelatory force to withstand ordinary, lived experience and human expectations. It is not proving to be a fruitful force, has not been for centuries. The time for it has long passed.

Quote:

The mountains were named because of the hindu slaughter.

Mozza, got any source for it? Or just a link to jihadwatch.com maybe? I've seen plenty of other mountains in Iran named <something> kush. I've found over 291 place names in Iran alone that contain the word Kush, perhaps they all refer to Muslim slaughters of Hindus and Zoroastrians right?

James Rennel, a British geographer and surveyor wrote during his survey of the mountain range:


Quote:

"The same hindu- 'mountain' [in Scythian or Saka languages] is in the name Hindǚ-kuš, where the kuš means 'side, region' connected with Chr. Sogd. qwšy 'side' with -ti- Armenian Parthian k'oušt 'side, region.'

There you have it from your own Western sources.


Quote:

you claim ancient tribal connections as justifying modern assaults on israel, so fair is fair.

1948 is ancient? Did you study the explusion of the Palestinians in ancient history at school did you mozza?  ;D

soren,


Quote:

The earliest known use of this name - HINDU KUSH - was by the famous Arab traveller, Ibn Battuta aroundd 1334

Actually the term Hindu Kush dates back to Sassanid Persian, which predates Ibn Battuta by about 600 years. Nice try though. Just because Ibn Battuta apparently mentioned the term, and gave a possible etymology for it, doesn't mean he was the first to use it. I don't know where you got that idea from.

Also note that the etymology alluded to by Ibn Battua refers to death by cold weather, not by the swords of those war-mongering Muslim raiders.


Quote:

Was that the only non-fault you could find with the account of peace loving muslim influence in India?

You provided two nameless quotes. How about you at least put a name to them before we even consider them on the table for discussion, as is the usual etiquette in civilised debate.

Or is it just your modus operandi to go around quoting people about whom you know absolutely nothing (not even their names).. so long as they happen to be attacking Islam?

Can't you at least write at the bottom "Some bloke said this..."??   ;D

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 13^th, 2008 at 1:21am:

You provided two nameless quotes. How about you at least put a name to them before we even consider them on the table for discussion, as is the usual etiquette in civilised debate. Or is it just your modus operandi to go around quoting people about whom you know absolutely nothing (not even their names).. so long as they happen to be attacking Islam? Can't you at least write at the bottom "Some bloke said this..."??   ;D

Will Durant
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Will+Durant+&x=16&y=18

and

Koenraad Elst
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Koenraad%20Elst&page=1



Next time there'll be a charge for doing the research for you.

I see...

So you've got a quote by a 20th. century American Eurocentrist Orientalist, and a far-right neo-Fascist from Belgium. Both of them about a millenium removed from the actual events they claim to be speaking about.

Couldn't muster up anyone from within the intervening 1000 years that's past since the events, nor anyone from the actual civilisations that were involved in the events? Figures.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 13^th, 2008 at 9:50am:

I see... So you've got a quote by a 20th. century American Eurocentrist Orientalist, and a far-right neo-Fascist from Belgium. Both of them about a millenium removed from the actual events they claim to be speaking about. Couldn't muster up anyone from within the intervening 1000 years that's past since the events, nor anyone from the actual civilisations that were involved in the events? Figures.

Glad to see that the facts are not in dispute, only the scary identities of those who bring the news.
American? Enough said.
Eurocentric (ie not thirdworldist)  - horrific,
Oreintalists (ie got the measure of muslims just right) despicable.
Belgian? What can I say?
Right-wing - cover your eyes, children,  what?
And of course, say neofascist if you can't say islamophobe  - as you are not allowed. (I am glad you remembered what I said on another thread - the next guy who accuses anyone of islamophobia is a rotten egg.) So neofascist is the next expletive for those who do not thing Islam is a religion of... ahem... peace.