A B-17 War Story

CWO4 Dave Mann wrote:

Charlie wrote:
Here's the rub.

What do you do with an enemy who is intentionally targeting innocent
civilians? Such as al quaida.

If you have an enemy combatant in custody, and you believe that said
enemy combatant has information regarding impending attacks on said
civilian targets, what do you do?

As an American citizen, I want my government to do *anything* it takes
to extract that information from the enemy combatant, who, by the way,
by not wearing the uniform and fighting under the banner of a country,
does not qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention.

While the principles of not resorting to torture are noble to be sure, I
am *not* willing to sacrifice the lives of my family and myself to
uphold that lofty principle.

In conflict after conflict, from Bataan to Hanoi to Somalia to Iraq, our
enemy has proven that they have not the slightest hesitation in
torturing our soldiers - our high standards not withstanding. So the
argument that we need to take the high road to prevent future
mistreatment of our soldiers falls flat under the weight of the facts.

Just the opinion of one American civilian who has the highest respect
and gratitude for the service of our fighting men and women, and wants
to give them the benefit of every tool imaginable to protect us.

Charlie

Gentlemen and Ladies:

The US military has always (at least in my service since 1961)
completely rejected torture and other physical means of coercion. Now
just because officially certain things are not permitted, didn't mean
that torture has not taken place. The Abu Ghrab and other related
incidents are examples. I personally saw torture when I was in Vietnam,
torture at the hands of South Korean MI personnel handling North
Vietnamese Army POW's. It was abhorrent to me then as the memory of it
is now. You will ask why I didn't attempt to stop the torture, and I
will answer because I was weak-willed at that time and turned my back,
departing the area, in essence putting my blind eye to the telescope.

Where arguments about killing or targeting civilians vis a vis military
personnel fall down is in warfare which involves civilians who are
exposed to that war.

The bombings of Dresden and Tokyo are perfect examples where the
civilian populace was specifically targeted by US and British military
forces. There were monumental numbers of casualties among the
"innocent" civilians. Of course, at that time, the policy of the Allies
was that anyone who supported a war against the allies was not innocent
but compliant.

In the cases of formally recognized military powers warring against each
other, practically all organized military and nations recognize the
Geneva Conventions or at least some semblance of those conventions.

Of course, the oriental nations, with the very different philosophy
about prisoners of war and about "treatment" flies in the face of
treatment of POW's by civilized nations. Excellent examples of this
include the Japanese during WW2, the North Koreans and Chinese during
the Korean War and, of course, the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese,
specifically the communist Viets held an all time record on butchery and
brutality. But, remember that culture is what drives people to do what
they do. The Oriental culture is a brutal one which has a callous
disregard for human life. There can be no debate upon that subject
since it has been proven over and gain.

Members of the Middle Eastern culture, specifically those who have
Surrendered to al-Islam (The Muslim), also view treatment of people
through a completely different "lens" than do Occidentals or even
Orientals of the Chinese subcontinent. In the case of the case of the
Muslim, the well-being, including lives, of non-Muslim (infidels and
pagans) is held to a degree which is lower than that of the female. The
female is held "one step down" from that of the Muslim male.
Accordingly, the infidel and/or pagan is not considered a whole human
being in the eyes of various Islamic dogma. They are certain non-Muslim
who are protected by rules set forth in the Holy Koran .. the so-called
"People of the Book". People of the Book include some Middle-Eastern
Christian sects which exist to this day in Muslim countries and which
are lauded for their protection of the Prophet Mohammad (Blessings and
All Grace Upon Him).

So, when a non-Muslim is captured or taken hostage, he or she can be
treated the same as a dog or other non-sentient animal and slaughtered
if necessary. This is the common thought behind the killings of
hostages including beheading and shootings. As difficult as it is for
Westerners to accept it, the homicide of hostages is as common to the
Middle East as the killing of "surrendered and dishonored enemy" in the
hands of the Japanese of World War Two. Religious or cultural beliefs
in both cases, you see.

This is an intense and complex situation. There is no way that it can
be accepted or even understood in side the frames of reference which we
Westerners have from early childhood. We can use all of the usual
arguments such as "what if a terrorist has an A Bomb planted and we have
to torture him" ... all the way to "well what if it were your child held
hostage" .. putting the argument on a personal and direct level versus
generalities.

The argument that we as "civilized countries" should never torture fails
to take into consideration that no people or country should torture. We
always manage to brand Muslim or Japanese or Vietnamese or Cambodians as
barbaric savages -- disregarding their own thousand years of culture.
That is the easy path, make out your enemy to be a savage and then you
can do anything you want to him.

Where does this philosophy take us? Back to the original question "To
torture or not to torture". People who torture should be prepared to
suffer the consequences of their violation of regulations. It is as
simple as that. Those who have been punished after the Abu Ghrab
fiasco, deserved what they received in punishment and in my opinion, the
punishment skipped over a whole lot of other culpable people of all
ranks and services.

What if the regulations change? What if the rules are rewritten and
officially published to say that a certain type of torture is acceptable
whilst others are still OK? This is the Water-boarding versus Bright
Lights theory (argument actually). Is subjecting a prisoner to high
intensity flood lights 24 hours per day while strapped to a chair,
torture .. or simply "harassment". Is strapping the same to an ironing
board type contraption and doing a see-saw with him into a source of
water to emulate drowning torture or only "physical discomfort"?

And if your answer -- as an interrogator -- is that these are "Tortures"
then you are honor and duty bound to refuse any order to comply with
conduct of that torture. A soldier will never get into trouble for
refusing an unlawful order. That, by the way, was the mistake that many
made at Abu Ghrab, they didn't think about their actions, took the words
or orders from someone above them, and rarely refused to act improperly.
Add that mix to the Lynndie England types and her inbred trailer trash
associates, and we had what we had there .. And I am including Generals
Karpinsky and Fast in that description of trailer trash idiots, too.

I am waiting for an answer: To torture or not to torture ... That is
the question.

----------------------------------

Extract from a recent classroom lecture by the author;

Some of my military career was spent conducting interrogations for
Military Intelligence purposes. I am at this time a visiting
"professor" at the University of Military Intelligence at Ft Huachuca,
AZ, where the Department of Defense has combined efforts to train ALL
counterintelligence personnel (including interrogation specialists) in
the proper ways and means to extract information from prisoners.

(c) 2007 by David E. Mann, PhD(Hist)

how about: do unto others as they do unto us? at least it's biblical... %-)

redc1c4,
everyone in the chain @ Abu Ghrab should have fried. top to bottom.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:49:25 -0800, redc1c4 wrote:

CWO4 Dave Mann wrote:

Charlie wrote:
Here's the rub.

What do you do with an enemy who is intentionally targeting innocent
civilians? Such as al quaida.

If you have an enemy combatant in custody, and you believe that said
enemy combatant has information regarding impending attacks on said
civilian targets, what do you do?

As an American citizen, I want my government to do *anything* it takes
to extract that information from the enemy combatant, who, by the way,
by not wearing the uniform and fighting under the banner of a country,
does not qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention.

While the principles of not resorting to torture are noble to be sure, I
am *not* willing to sacrifice the lives of my family and myself to
uphold that lofty principle.

In conflict after conflict, from Bataan to Hanoi to Somalia to Iraq, our
enemy has proven that they have not the slightest hesitation in
torturing our soldiers - our high standards not withstanding. So the
argument that we need to take the high road to prevent future
mistreatment of our soldiers falls flat under the weight of the facts.

Just the opinion of one American civilian who has the highest respect
and gratitude for the service of our fighting men and women, and wants
to give them the benefit of every tool imaginable to protect us.

Charlie

Gentlemen and Ladies:

The US military has always (at least in my service since 1961)
completely rejected torture and other physical means of coercion. Now
just because officially certain things are not permitted, didn't mean
that torture has not taken place. The Abu Ghrab and other related
incidents are examples. I personally saw torture when I was in Vietnam,
torture at the hands of South Korean MI personnel handling North
Vietnamese Army POW's. It was abhorrent to me then as the memory of it
is now. You will ask why I didn't attempt to stop the torture, and I
will answer because I was weak-willed at that time and turned my back,
departing the area, in essence putting my blind eye to the telescope.

Where arguments about killing or targeting civilians vis a vis military
personnel fall down is in warfare which involves civilians who are
exposed to that war.

The bombings of Dresden and Tokyo are perfect examples where the
civilian populace was specifically targeted by US and British military
forces. There were monumental numbers of casualties among the
"innocent" civilians. Of course, at that time, the policy of the Allies
was that anyone who supported a war against the allies was not innocent
but compliant.

In the cases of formally recognized military powers warring against each
other, practically all organized military and nations recognize the
Geneva Conventions or at least some semblance of those conventions.

Of course, the oriental nations, with the very different philosophy
about prisoners of war and about "treatment" flies in the face of
treatment of POW's by civilized nations. Excellent examples of this
include the Japanese during WW2, the North Koreans and Chinese during
the Korean War and, of course, the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese,
specifically the communist Viets held an all time record on butchery and
brutality. But, remember that culture is what drives people to do what
they do. The Oriental culture is a brutal one which has a callous
disregard for human life. There can be no debate upon that subject
since it has been proven over and gain.

Members of the Middle Eastern culture, specifically those who have
Surrendered to al-Islam (The Muslim), also view treatment of people
through a completely different "lens" than do Occidentals or even
Orientals of the Chinese subcontinent. In the case of the case of the
Muslim, the well-being, including lives, of non-Muslim (infidels and
pagans) is held to a degree which is lower than that of the female. The
female is held "one step down" from that of the Muslim male.
Accordingly, the infidel and/or pagan is not considered a whole human
being in the eyes of various Islamic dogma. They are certain non-Muslim
who are protected by rules set forth in the Holy Koran .. the so-called
"People of the Book". People of the Book include some Middle-Eastern
Christian sects which exist to this day in Muslim countries and which
are lauded for their protection of the Prophet Mohammad (Blessings and
All Grace Upon Him).

So, when a non-Muslim is captured or taken hostage, he or she can be
treated the same as a dog or other non-sentient animal and slaughtered
if necessary. This is the common thought behind the killings of
hostages including beheading and shootings. As difficult as it is for
Westerners to accept it, the homicide of hostages is as common to the
Middle East as the killing of "surrendered and dishonored enemy" in the
hands of the Japanese of World War Two. Religious or cultural beliefs
in both cases, you see.

This is an intense and complex situation. There is no way that it can
be accepted or even understood in side the frames of reference which we
Westerners have from early childhood. We can use all of the usual
arguments such as "what if a terrorist has an A Bomb planted and we have
to torture him" ... all the way to "well what if it were your child held
hostage" .. putting the argument on a personal and direct level versus
generalities.

The argument that we as "civilized countries" should never torture fails
to take into consideration that no people or country should torture. We
always manage to brand Muslim or Japanese or Vietnamese or Cambodians as
barbaric savages -- disregarding their own thousand years of culture.
That is the easy path, make out your enemy to be a savage and then you
can do anything you want to him.

Where does this philosophy take us? Back to the original question "To
torture or not to torture". People who torture should be prepared to
suffer the consequences of their violation of regulations. It is as
simple as that. Those who have been punished after the Abu Ghrab
fiasco, deserved what they received in punishment and in my opinion, the
punishment skipped over a whole lot of other culpable people of all
ranks and services.

What if the regulations change? What if the rules are rewritten and
officially published to say that a certain type of torture is acceptable
whilst others are still OK? This is the Water-boarding versus Bright
Lights theory (argument actually). Is subjecting a prisoner to high
intensity flood lights 24 hours per day while strapped to a chair,
torture .. or simply "harassment". Is strapping the same to an ironing
board type contraption and doing a see-saw with him into a source of
water to emulate drowning torture or only "physical discomfort"?

And if your answer -- as an interrogator -- is that these are "Tortures"
then you are honor and duty bound to refuse any order to comply with
conduct of that torture. A soldier will never get into trouble for
refusing an unlawful order. That, by the way, was the mistake that many
made at Abu Ghrab, they didn't think about their actions, took the words
or orders from someone above them, and rarely refused to act improperly.
Add that mix to the Lynndie England types and her inbred trailer trash
associates, and we had what we had there .. And I am including Generals
Karpinsky and Fast in that description of trailer trash idiots, too.

I am waiting for an answer: To torture or not to torture ... That is
the question.

----------------------------------

Extract from a recent classroom lecture by the author;

Some of my military career was spent conducting interrogations for
Military Intelligence purposes. I am at this time a visiting
"professor" at the University of Military Intelligence at Ft Huachuca,
AZ, where the Department of Defense has combined efforts to train ALL
counterintelligence personnel (including interrogation specialists) in
the proper ways and means to extract information from prisoners.

(c) 2007 by David E. Mann, PhD(Hist)

how about: do unto others as they do unto us? at least it's biblical... %-)

Perhaps you are being facetious, but it is really not biblical at all.

That is known as a reversal of what is called the "Ethic of Reciprocity,"
aka The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Even more simplistically, "treat others as you would like to be treated."

Quite different.

The first appearance in English was in 1477, citing a quotation from
Socrates (470 BC-399 BC): "Do to others as thou wouldst they should do to
thee, and do to none other but as thou wouldst be done to."

'The Golden Rule' is virtually universal. To see equivalent versions of
the Golden Rule in 21 world religions, check out:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm



SW



redc1c4,
everyone in the chain @ Abu Ghrab should have fried. top to bottom.

--
The quality of our thoughts is bordered on all sides by our facility with
language.

-J. Michael Straczynski, author (b.1954)

CWO4 Dave Mann wrote in
:


To read this:

of the Prophet Mohammad (Blessings and All Grace Upon Him).

....followed by this:

So, when a non-Muslim is captured or taken hostage, he or she can be
treated the same as a dog or other non-sentient animal and slaughtered
if necessary. This is the common thought behind the killings of
hostages including beheading and shootings.

....makes me want to puke.

If those are in fact the teachings of Mohammad, then may nothing but pain
and death be upon his satanic ass and his pig ******* sycophants...

"NO Political, social, or religious discussions of ANY sort..."

Wise words indeed. Of course, they're not mine - I'm just quoting
them. They're in the FAQ for this group.

Or doesn't the FAQ apply any more?

Anyone interested in seeing the full FAQ will find it at:

http://www.photogshangar.com/GuideforABPA.htm

http://www.aerophotointernational.com/guide.htm


--

Bob Harrington wrote:
CWO4 Dave Mann wrote in
:


To read this:

of the Prophet Mohammad (Blessings and All Grace Upon Him).

...followed by this:

So, when a non-Muslim is captured or taken hostage, he or she can be
treated the same as a dog or other non-sentient animal and slaughtered
if necessary. This is the common thought behind the killings of
hostages including beheading and shootings.

...makes me want to puke.

If those are in fact the teachings of Mohammad, then may nothing but pain
and death be upon his satanic ass and his pig ******* sycophants...



I know what you mean and how you feel.

Like all religious writings in foreign languages, statements are
changed, distorted, or don't read true as the original. The Holy Koran
is not alone in this; I have read source documents of the Holy Bible in
the Greek and Latin translations and when comparing those to my own copy
of the Holy Bible which I take with me each Wednesday night and Sunday
morning ... let's just say that I keep my own counsel when a member of
our Bible study groups and usually do not try to make up minds which are
already made up.

People believe what they wish to believe. Certainly culture and emotion
drives any religious interpretation. Nothing is more emotional than a
group of religious zealots who have been stirred up by a rabble rouser.
John Brown comes to mind when I write this, although I can't condemn
his goals. Look at the various religions and their sects, and you will
find wack-jobs (OK, not a scientific term but it works for me) every
place. The Christians, particularly the Southern Baptists, in which
faith I was raised, educated and still belong certainly produced their
fair share of extremists, specifically the Klu Klux Klan, the Snake
Handlers, and the anti-Integration movement of the 1950's 60's.

Now as to the Muslim: Americans mostly are tolerant people, or rather a
tolerant culture, or more specifically, we own the patent on cultural
tolerance and sensitivity. This, of course, is a relatively modern
event considering the Irish, Poles, Jews, Catholics, Negroes, Chinese,
Japanese, Atheists, Animists (have I missed anyone?) who have been
persecuted in one way or another here in the USA. I would point you
towards your local Register of Deeds office where you may ask to see
some deeds to properties dated back in the 1940's; I am sure you know
that there were "Restrictive Covenants" on almost all land and real
estate which discriminated against anyone not of Anglo-Saxon Protestant
origin.

My point is not to take America to task .. we have taken ourselves to
task on the issue of Tolerance many times; sometimes we have come up
wanting, but mostly our tolerance beams forth as if a bright light in
the darkness of other countries. If you want examples, I can give them,
but without demonizing a particular country, I would point out that if
you have a "lower class accent" or if you are a Catholic versus a
Protestant, or if you are a member of the State Church but also a
practicing Scientologist or Christian Scientist, or an avowed Agnostic,
you will hear and see the consequences of your choice.

But, back to those who have Surrendered to al-Islam: The Muslim are a
multi-ethnic group; it is a religion which is supposed to be
"all-inclusive" In other words, if you Surrender, your fellow Muslim
are not permitted by their faith to discriminate or even act or treat
you differently.

I recommend, however, that you read accounts by some Caucasian Americans
who went on the pilgrimage to Mecca. You will find that they had some
"interesting" conversations with non-American English speakers. They
were universally viewed with suspicion; not ostracized, but it wasn't
until they had done the proper obeisances required of Pilgrims, that
they began to be accepted.

All of this behavior tells me that the Islamic world has the same
problems with religious tolerance within their own ranks as do other
religions.

Here, if you are a Catholic, go to your local Pentecostal Church for a
service -- this is not to say that this is the only place you would be
observed as a "stranger", (witness the furor in Israel when African Jews
who came to Israel were denounced by some Jewish religious leaders --
was that because they didn't fit the stereotype of an Eastern European
white person or that among Jews there are great divides among the
various sects of Judaism?). You get my drift, I am sure. Personally I
think it would be a hoot to sit in the front pew and do the usual
Catholic genuflections and so forth, but I digress.

The Middle Eastern culture is just as violent and as barbaric as other
cultures. We Westerners have just had the benefit of no deserts and no
camels to tame, nor have we a nomadic culture (unless you count the Roma
or Traveling People which are pretty much marginalized in the USA).
Nomadic cultures are, a priori, violent and judgmental; they are closed
societies of extended families with ties only to other strong families
with which their war and peace histories reach back hundreds of years in
competition for the same space of desert, steppes, mountains or valleys.

Muslims at this juncture of time in the same place as were the Kaiser's
Huns in WWI, the "Japs" and "Krauts" of WW2, the "Gooks: of the Korean
War, and the "Slopes" and "Dinks" of the Vietnam war. We call them
"Hajji's", "Camel Jockeys", "Rag Heads" .. all with the view of
depersonalizing the process of war.

The Muslim view us as "pagans", "infidels", "the great shaitan", and
host of other monikers, likewise to depersonalize us. This coupled with
the fact that most Muslim have never lived or even visited the USA, have
never known an American (of any color, creed or ethnic background), has
created an extremely intolerant and Zealous culture of hatred. Remember
that most Muslim in Third and Fourth World countries are only a
generation removed from the oxen, bullock, camel and influence of the
Gen'ni of the sands.

When such cultures are taken over into foment by nut-cases such as the
present Fuhrer of Iran, the only outcome is disaster. There is no way
to agreeably cope with someone who is driven by an insane desire to die
in a glorious manner for his or her god. I can only point you back to
the origins of the Kamikazi by example. And the Japanese youth who flew
their Baka model guided bombs into their enemy's ships off the coast of
Okinawa, they were likewise whipped to a religious fervor by zealotry.

Finally, I will tell you that having been a soldier for most of my adult
life, and have spoken at length to our oldest son who served three tours
of duty in Iraq, I believe in my heart that the American spirit will
prevail no matter what.
America is the only nation of peoples in the world where a penniless
immigrant can arrive via the Port of New York, begin driving a taxi the
next week and send his children to Columbia University to become
professionals, thus insuring that that imiigrant's successor generation
will become prosperous integrated citizens of the greatest Republic this
world has ever produced.


(c) 2007 by David E. Mann, PhD(Hist)

Part of my lecture series to future intelligence officers given April 2007.

Netko wrote:
"NO Political, social, or religious discussions of ANY sort..."

Wise words indeed. Of course, they're not mine - I'm just quoting
them. They're in the FAQ for this group.

Or doesn't the FAQ apply any more?

Anyone interested in seeing the full FAQ will find it at:

http://www.photogshangar.com/GuideforABPA.htm

http://www.aerophotointernational.com/guide.htm




Of course the FAQ still applies. This thread is a momentary aberration
and will hopefully cease. I have made my last post to the thread.

Here, have a picture.

Regards,

Dave