Creative Destruction

November 15, 2006

The Times Deems Raping And Murdering A 14-Year-Old “Fallout” from “Frustration”

Filed under: Feminist Issues,Iraq — Ampersand @ 4:28 pm

The top three paragraphs from a story in today’s NY Times:

One of four Army infantrymen charged with raping a 14-year-old girl in Iraq last March and then killing her and her family pleaded guilty today to all charges in a military court at Fort Campbell, Ky.

The plea came on a day when a marine is scheduled to be sentenced at Camp Pendleton, Calif., for his part in the kidnapping and killing of an Iraqi man in a town to the west of Baghdad.

The legal actions are part of the fallout of the fighting in Iraq, where insurgent fighters blend in with the civilian population, frustrating soldiers who are subject to roadside bombing and other attacks.

Holy fucking shit!

So when four infantrymen decide to rape a 14-year-old girl and kill her and her whole family, that’s “fallout” from the frustration soldiers feel because “insurgent fighters blend?”

Yes, I’m sure the soldiers thought that the 14-year-old they raped and murdered – not to mention her 7-year-old sister, who they also murdered – were insurgents blending with civilians. In no way was this a problem of a culture of entitlement, racism and misogyny, combined with giving green soldiers absolute authority over civilians that some of them think of as subhuman.

Heck no! It’s the fault of those damn blending insurgent Iraqis!

(The soldier, by the way, plead guilty in order to take the death penalty off the table. The Times says he’ll probably get sentenced to life, but could be out in 20 years.)

* * *

It’s besides the point of this post, but I feel obliged to point out that the other case the Times mentioned involves soldiers who planned to kidnap and murder an alleged insurgent, but grabbed and killed the wrong man. That’s a genuine example of a death resulting from “insurgents blending with civilians,” I guess; but it’s mainly an example of the inevitable result of believing that war justifies punishing alleged “insurgents” without trial or defense. George Bush and conservatives have been fighting hard to erode the right of trial and defense, and their thinking may have influenced the murderers in this case.

18 Comments »

  1. I read the soldier plead not guilty. There’s too many on his side to plead anything else.

    Occording to some of our leadership, Iraq is delivered to these modern day biblical fighters for Israel. Iraq is under Yahweh’s curse of destruction”. These warriors of god can do no wrong.

    This is more reason why, “anti-semitism”, that’s what it is when you truely are against this whole religious non-sense, and 2000 year jew reverence, 2000 years of Bullshit, is completely right. The “atheist” who is not an anti-semite, can go fuck a donkey as far as I am conserned. The jews are not a persecuted people, that’s a superstitious religious belief, in fact they control the west enough to weld it’s hammer upon nations, and yet they’re still “persecuted”. Why do we believe this garbage? It’s religion; whether that religion be transmitted in a Church, or so called “Secular humanism” bleeding through your favorite TV program. It’s all religion and it all has roots in the hebrew dark age abomination. Non Serviam!

    Comment by Justice for Palestine — November 15, 2006 @ 8:23 pm | Reply

  2. I read the soldier plead not guilty.

    Yeah, you read a lot of things, and not critically, apparently.

    Comment by bobhayes — November 15, 2006 @ 8:26 pm | Reply

  3. That was Steven D. Green who plead not guilty, probably to a different rape and murder spree. But my hatred of the holy jew in spite of supertitious so called “atheists” stands.

    All we are doing in Iraq is battling the eternal holy king jew’s Hittites, Cannanites, and Amelekites. All the stock market is is a great jewish ponzi scheme. I can’t wait for the day they get theirs, and their cosmic paternal force that even “atheists” subscribe to is burnt aflame by Surt.

    Comment by Justice for Palestine — November 15, 2006 @ 8:50 pm | Reply

  4. OK. Fellow bloggers, I’ve about reached my limit on Mr. Justice for Palestine. Can I get a second?

    Comment by bobhayes — November 15, 2006 @ 9:13 pm | Reply

  5. Seconded!

    Comment by Ampersand — November 15, 2006 @ 9:17 pm | Reply

  6. Justice for Palestine, you are hereby banned. Go, and trouble us no more.

    Comment by bobhayes — November 15, 2006 @ 9:30 pm | Reply

  7. Meh. As trolls went, he was at least entertaining.

    He was just too true-to-form to be anything but a complete caricature, though.

    Comment by Off Colfax — November 15, 2006 @ 9:35 pm | Reply

  8. It was you, under a false flag. Admit, you drunk!

    Comment by bobhayes — November 15, 2006 @ 9:36 pm | Reply

  9. Or is this Mel Gibson trolling us again?

    Comment by bobhayes — November 15, 2006 @ 9:36 pm | Reply

  10. OK. Fellow bloggers, I’ve about reached my limit on Mr. Justice for Palestine. Can I get a second?

    That’s still a minority of us. But then I suppose that’s enough for you since you control the Supreme Court.

    Well, never mind. The Surt thing piqued my interest, though. :P

    Holy fucking shit!

    So when four infantrymen decide to rape a 14-year-old girl and kill her and her whole family, that’s “fallout” from the frustration soldiers feel because “insurgent fighters blend?”

    Yes, I’m sure the soldiers thought that the 14-year-old they raped and murdered – not to mention her 7-year-old sister, who they also murdered – were insurgents blending with civilians. In no way was this a problem of a culture of entitlement, racism and misogyny, combined with giving green soldiers absolute authority over civilians that some of them think of as subhuman.

    We raped her and killed them all, but it was self-defense, your honor!

    Comment by Tuomas — November 16, 2006 @ 12:08 am | Reply

  11. But then I suppose that’s enough for you since you control the Supreme Court.

    Damn right. You’re lucky I permit parliamentary procedure at all.

    Comment by bobhayes — November 16, 2006 @ 1:29 am | Reply

  12. In no way was this a problem of a culture of entitlement, racism and misogyny,

    Yeah, the U.S. is so much more sexist and racist than Iraq. I mean, in the U.S. the whites gassed villages full of black people, and there is a great risk that the different ethnic groups in the U.S. are going to break into a civil war.

    combined with giving green soldiers absolute authority over civilians that some of them think of as subhuman

    Here I agree with you. The folks who got us into this war do bear some of the blame. There is no way to occupy a country without problems like this, because the very nature of occupation creates a sense of “superiors” and “inferiors.”

    Comment by Glaivester — November 16, 2006 @ 8:04 pm | Reply

  13. In no way was this a problem of a culture of entitlement, racism and misogyny,

    Yeah, the U.S. is so much more sexist and racist than Iraq.

    Sigh.

    The statement “there is a problem with a culture of entitlement, racism and misogyny in the US, including among the armed forces” in no way suggests that the US is worse than Iraq. On the contrary, I’m quite sure that things are worse in Iraq, and have written time and again about the horrible sexism in Iraq.

    You’re disagreeing with a view that was never stated, or even implied, by my post.

    Comment by Ampersand — November 17, 2006 @ 4:11 pm | Reply

  14. Okay, Amp, I ‘ll admit that I overreacted there.

    Still, I don’t think that the U.S. is this terrible racist country or that these war crimes were committed because of general racism.

    They were committed because of the nature of occupation. It is impossible to occupy a country long-term without eventually setting up “superiors” (the occupiers) and “inferiors” (the occupied).

    One thing I think we agree on – we ought to get out as soon as possible, or this sort of thing will only happen more frequently.

    Comment by Glaivester — November 17, 2006 @ 7:32 pm | Reply

  15. They were committed because of the nature of occupation. It is impossible to occupy a country long-term without eventually setting up “superiors” (the occupiers) and “inferiors” (the occupied).

    Iraq is a huge Stanford Prison Experiment.

    Comment by Daran — November 18, 2006 @ 1:38 am | Reply

  16. The NY Times:

    The legal actions are part of the fallout of the fighting in Iraq, where insurgent fighters blend in with the civilian population, frustrating soldiers who are subject to roadside bombing and other attacks.

    Ampersand:

    So when four infantrymen decide to rape a 14-year-old girl and kill her and her whole family, that’s “fallout” from the frustration soldiers feel because “insurgent fighters blend?”

    Yes, I’m sure the soldiers thought that the 14-year-old they raped and murdered – not to mention her 7-year-old sister, who they also murdered – were insurgents blending with civilians. In no way was this a problem of a culture of entitlement, racism and misogyny, combined with giving green soldiers absolute authority over civilians that some of them think of as subhuman.

    Heck no! It’s the fault of those damn blending insurgent Iraqis!

    We’ve not seen in Iraq the kinds of atrocity I often talk about, the systematic extermination of entire populations of men, accompanied by the wholesale rape of women, which seems to be an otherwise ubiquitous feature of warfare. That suggests that our culture is less malignant than others in at least some respects.

    “Frustration”, and stress certainly is a cause of lawlessness among both occupiers and occupied. Individuals on both sides live in the knowledge that they could be killed or seriously injured at any time without warning. This is a causal factor in much the same way that poverty and social deprivation is a causal factor in crime outside war zones. Acknowledging these causes is not an attempt to shift the blame from the perpetrators, who are still responsible for their actions.

    Comment by Daran — November 18, 2006 @ 6:45 am | Reply

  17. We’ve not seen in Iraq the kinds of atrocity I often talk about, the systematic extermination of entire populations of men, accompanied by the wholesale rape of women, which seems to be an otherwise ubiquitous feature of warfare. That suggests that our culture is less malignant than others in at least some respects.

    That was my point in my response to Ampersand. Why do we always talk about why our culture is likely to cause soldiers to commit the atrocities they do commit, instead of asking why we are so much more subdued in warfare than most of the people in the world?

    Comment by Glaivester — November 20, 2006 @ 1:48 pm | Reply

  18. They were committed because of the nature of occupation.

    the nature of occupation=racism in every historical case I can think of, with the possible, though arguable, exception of Ireland.

    Comment by curiousgyrl — December 1, 2006 @ 12:11 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: