"I hated Iraqis, your honour," Barker told military judge Lt. Col Richard Anderson. "They can smile at you, then shoot you in your face without thinking about it." - taken from AP
Source: The Star, 17.11.2006, page W48
My view: What a noble excuse to rape a 14 year-old girl...
Sadly, similar atrocities have been carried out by soldiers serving in every army there has ever been, including all the Arab and muslim ones. All you can do is take the appropriate action, which the Americans have done - he is only escaping execution as he agreed to plead guilty and testify against the others involved.
Sadly, similar atrocities have been carried out by soldiers serving in every army there has ever been, including all the Arab and muslim ones. All you can do is take the appropriate action, which the Americans have done - he is only escaping execution as he agreed to plead guilty and testify against the others involved.
no, i can guarentee that no muslim army has ever commited such a disgusting and disgraceful act. maybe pakistani, arab etc armies, but rules of jihad quite clearly say that that is haraam.
The freed slave shall walk on the blood of his masters
"Coffee is the only thing I like integrated" - El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz (Malcolm X)
no, i can guarentee that no muslim army has ever commited such a disgusting and disgraceful act. maybe pakistani, arab etc armies, but rules of jihad quite clearly say that that is haraam.
Maybe the rules say it is haram. Just like the US rules say rape is a criminal act under any circumstances.
Quite frankly, I think there is more clarity on this issue within US law than in Islamic law. Apparently there are still plenty of Muslims who feel a Muhajedeen can have sex with their non-Muslim female captives.
Question: At the present time, is it Halal to have a sexual intercourse with your Loundi (a female prisoner of war) without getting married to her?.
Answer: A wife becomes permissible after shar’i marriage and a concubine becomes permissible to the man who owns her. She may originally be a prisoner of war, and a Muslim may obtain a concubine from the ruler or commander if he took part in fighting in jihad, or if he buys her from her owner. She becomes permissible for him by virtue of his ownership after it is established that she is not pregnant by waiting for one menstrual cycle, or until she has given birth if she is pregnant.
So how am I to interpret this? If a female is captured, the commander can give her to one of the Muslim fighters who then 'owns' her and can have intercourse with her? Nowhere in the answer does it give any indication that the 'female captive' has any right to refuse either becoming a slave or having intercourse.
Whatever other rulings there might be in Islam, clearly Islamic law is much more vague and unclear on the issue than US military law! US law does not make any exceptions on this. Intercourse without the consent of the woman is rape. End of story, no discussion possible.
Well I wonder how many more acts like these go unreported.
Hmm but I guess everyone will just brush it off "Its only a minority" or "When it happens they are caught" hmm, yea, I wonder how real those words are.
I guess it might give me something to think about next time I hear of a suicide bombing.
Not that I condome suicide bombing, but at least this might be an insight into why stuff like that sometimes happens.
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
"no, i can guarentee that no muslim army has ever commited such a disgusting and disgraceful act."
What a ridiculous statement.
Not ridiculous. A very true statement. No Muslim would be able to commit such act.
Sadly, there are people that call themselves Muslims who have done so.
There is no justification for such acts and the US code for military justice, the UCMJ, does forbid such acts and such behavior from it's military personnel. It is obvious there are some people who do not adhere to the UCMJ.
It is apparant that some soldiers do not follow what they were taught:
As set out in the Statute, crimes against humanity include crimes such as the extermination of civilians, enslavement, torture, rape, forced pregnancy, persecution on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds, and enforced disappearances - but only when they are part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
The "widespread or systematic" qualification for crimes against humanity is very important, as it provides a higher threshold, requiring a particular magnitude and/or scope before a crime qualifies for the Court's jurisdiction. This differentiates random acts of violence - such as rape, murder, or even torture - that could be carried out, perhaps even by soldiers in uniform, but which may not actually qualify as crimes against humanity.
War crimes include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict, and in armed conflict "not of an international character", as listed in the Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale
Note that Military law includes a section on Islamic Law:
Islamic Law
See also Islam Is Not the Enemy on War on Terrorism page, with declarations of Islamic leaders and conferences
Islamic Rulings on Warfare (local copy), by Aboul-Enein and Zuhur SSI, Oct 2004
Jihad's Captives: Prisoners of War in Islam (local copy), by Thomas, posted by USAFA Department of Law - examines some of the Islamic laws of war
World Wide Web Virtual Library
Islamic and Middle Eastern Law
Islamic and Middle Eastern Law - country by country
Islamic Law links on the web
Usul al-Fiqh al Islami, book on Islamic Jurisprudence
Islamic Legal Theory and Interpretation, including several downloadable books
The Concept and Practice of Jihad in Islam, by Knapp, in Parameters, Spring 2003
"I hated Iraqis, your honour," Barker told military judge Lt. Col Richard Anderson. "They can smile at you, then shoot you in your face without thinking about it." - taken from AP
Source: The Star, 17.11.2006, page W48
My view: What a noble excuse to rape a 14 year-old girl...
It certainly is no excuse for raping a young girl. But this statement by Barker does show an important view into the thinking of the average soldier. Whether the view is popular or not, it can be somewhat understood, even by those that hate the soldiers. And very well may be a goal of those that fight against them. That goal is to get into the heads of the soldiers, and create paranoia. This affects their morale.
They see all these smiling faces, and any one of them could be about to kill them. This would make anyone paranoid. And yes, because of this, over time, you would hate them too.
It certainly is no excuse for raping a young girl. But this statement by Barker does show an important view into the thinking of the average soldier. Whether the view is popular or not, it can be somewhat understood, even by those that hate the soldiers. And very well may be a goal of those that fight against them. That goal is to get into the heads of the soldiers, and create paranoia. This affects their morale.
They see all these smiling faces, and any one of them could be about to kill them. This would make anyone paranoid. And yes, because of this, over time, you would hate them too.
During the war in Vietnam, US troops massacred civilians in the hamlet of My Lai. Your post reminded me of the event as the state of paranoia was present then as it is now.
During the war in Vietnam, US troops massacred civilians in the hamlet of My Lai. Your post reminded me of the event as the state of paranoia was present then as it is now.
I should know that.... seems I have hole in my knowledge bucket, my memory is pouring out the bottom.
I was thinking of Vietnam when I made the post. This paranoia is a powerful tool.
I wonder if Barker was using this as an excuse in his trial, or if it just came out in the questioning by lawyers?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks