NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?

(visit www.bugmenot.com if it asks for registration, and I seriously don't recommend reading the accounts over breakfast)

"Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time"

Gee, I'm so glad this sort of thing "has stopped" and is "not a wide spread problem". "Band of brothers" my bum! :rolleyes:

You forgot to mention this lovely tidbit:
In earlier treatment of Dilawar, one soldier told investigators that when the prisoner was beaten: "He screamed out, Allah, Allah, Allah, and my first reaction was he was crying out to his God.

"It became a running joke and people kept showing up to give him a strike just to hear him scream Allah... It went on over a 24-hour period and I would think that it was over 100 strikes."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4566159.stm

its nice to see that after 50 years of abuse, genocide, war and oppresion, the iraqi people get what they deserve :rolleyes: peace, freedom and democracy

Jesus Fucking Christ.

It will never end.

Personally I can no longer believe this is some isolated or unordered abuse. The military has gone down another rung on my scale of respect we should have for the military, for me it's now a 3/10. Hun, freaking Huns.

Let it be known that this crap is NOT being done in my name. Don't even pretend - this is sadism, not by any stretch of the imagination a defense of MY rights.

All I can do is apolgoize on behalf of the 49% who didn't vote for this.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Way to jump to conclusions, because the Media is never wrong (newsweek).

its nice to see that after 50 years of abuse, genocide, war and oppresion, the iraqi people get what they deserve :rolleyes: peace, freedom and democracy


this allegedly takes place in Afganistan.

And the Army is always in the right. There are hundreds of abuse reports, several confirmed by multiple sources. Stop denying and take a look at the REAL WORLD.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

It will never end.

Personally I can no longer believe this is some isolated or unordered abuse. The military has gone down another rung on my scale of respect we should have for the military, for me it's now a 3/10. Hun, freaking Huns.

Let it be known that this crap is NOT being done in my name. Don't even pretend - this is sadism, not by any stretch of the imagination a defense of MY rights.

All I can do is apolgoize on behalf of the 49% who didn't vote for this.

I'm all for it.

It wouldn't matter if the interrogators had asked them nicely with pretty please on top - the people who oppose the mere fact that anyone was detained no matter what they did and that anyone was questioned, no matter what form the questioning took, will oppose and decry ANY treatment and ANY detention and ANY questioning.

I happen not to believe most of the abuse stories as being official policy - I tend to believe they are isolated incidents not related to policy.

Modern interrogation techniques involve the use of drugs. You don't have to beat anyone, or scare them, or make them uncomfortable. Everyone - and I mean everyone - will talk. And the results are far more accurate than anything that involves the use of pain or abuse.

If methamphetamine and versed are used in combination, the person being questioned will freely talk, will see the questioner as their friend, feel at ease in the situation no matter how agitated they were to begin with, and will have no memory of ever being questioned or having given any answers at all.

They will come around later, thinking they've had a drug-induced nap, but won't remember any details after the injection.

Yes, there's probably the interrogator here and there with a foot up his own ass who wants to play like he's in the movies. But considering how effective the drugs are (you can question the person again and again and compare their answers, and they have no way to lie or cover up since they can't remember what they said the last time), why you would believe that physical abuse is the standard practice is beyond me.

Not one of you could resist the meth/versed combination. Not one.

I'm all for it.

It wouldn't matter if the interrogators had asked them nicely with pretty please on top - the people who oppose the mere fact that anyone was detained no matter what they did and that anyone was questioned, no matter what form the questioning took, will oppose and decry ANY treatment and ANY detention and ANY questioning.

I happen not to believe most of the abuse stories as being official policy - I tend to believe they are isolated incidents not related to policy.

Modern interrogation techniques involve the use of drugs. You don't have to beat anyone, or scare them, or make them uncomfortable. Everyone - and I mean everyone - will talk. And the results are far more accurate than anything that involves the use of pain or abuse.

If methamphetamine and versed are used in combination, the person being questioned will freely talk, will see the questioner as their friend, feel at ease in the situation no matter how agitated they were to begin with, and will have no memory of ever being questioned or having given any answers at all.

They will come around later, thinking they've had a drug-induced nap, but won't remember any details after the injection.



Not one of you could resist the meth/versed combination. Not one.

I was given versed for an upper endoscopy I needed to be awake for. Apparently, I was awake, but I have absolutely zero recollection of the test. Nor the ride home. My wife claims I was functioning, but called me "Ozzy" as I walked and talked like Ozzy Osbourne for an hour or so afterward. She said I was totally cooperative and docile. I have no memory whatsoever. I'm glad she didnt think to ask me any pointed questions. Or did she?

What a great way to win hearts and minds. If we keep this up we can't help but win the Afghanis over to our side.

Seriously, those involved need to serve very long prison sentences.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Way to jump to conclusions, because the Media is never wrong (newsweek).

This is all taken from a U.S. report on the matter. Nice that you didn't even read the article before you decided to turn a blind eye to your country's disgrace.

Oh, and Newsweek? Wasn't wrong after all. (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/19/usdom10981.htm) What a surprise.

I was given versed for an upper endoscopy I needed to be awake for. Apparently, I was awake, but I have absolutely zero recollection of the test. Nor the ride home. My wife claims I was functioning, but called me "Ozzy" as I walked and talked like Ozzy Osbourne for an hour or so afterward. She said I was totally cooperative and docile. I have no memory whatsoever. I'm glad she didnt think to ask me any pointed questions. Or did she?

The methamphetamine puts you in a condition where you can't stop talking. The versed makes you feel very comfortable, and it also has the property of wiping out your short term memory while it's in your system.

It's the primary reason versed is used in so many operative settings - even if the other anesthetic wears off and the patient feels agnonizing pain, they won't remember it at all.

It wouldn't matter if the interrogators had asked them nicely with pretty please on top - the people who oppose the mere fact that anyone was detained no matter what they did and that anyone was questioned, no matter what form the questioning took, will oppose and decry ANY treatment and ANY detention and ANY questioning. I happen not to believe most of the abuse stories as being official policy - I tend to believe they are isolated incidents not related to policy.

I couldn't agree more.

You also feel great on meth and versed. Everyone is your best friend in the world and you deeply believe it.

I don't see how that can be considered torture.

These poor, poor innocent GIs. They so deserve all our loving and support for doing such an awesome job in the muslim world. They are the ones spreading freedom and liberty and democracy and western economy to the outskirts of the uncivilized world. These innocent GI-boys with barely any training and lacking equipment, which just happens to cost billions upon billions of dollars and apparently doesn't reach them. Oh how dare these reporter-islamists report such events and violate the sanctitiy of the American military with their truth. I am deeply troubled by the truthfulness in these reports. It rapes my worldview and my deep disbelief that these poor innocent boy-GIs with their sweet cuddly smiles and innocent baby hands would ever do such a thing. :eek:

Ein Deutscher']These poor, poor innocent GIs. They so deserve all our loving and support for doing such an awesome job in the muslim world. They are the ones spreading freedom and liberty and democracy and western economy to the outskirts of the uncivilized world. These innocent GI-boys with barely any training and lacking equipment, which just happens to cost billions upon billions of dollars and apparently doesn't reach them. Oh how dare these reporter-islamists report such events and violate the sanctitiy of the American military with their truth. I am deeply troubled by the truthfulness in these reports. It rapes my worldview and my deep disbelief that these poor innocent boy-GIs with their sweet cuddly smiles and innocent baby hands would ever do such a thing. :eek:

Those, poor, poor German policemen. They so deserve all our loving and support for doing such an awesome job of killing and crippling their fellow Germans with water cannon...

Those, poor, poor German policemen. They so deserve all our loving and support for doing such an awesome job of killing and crippling their fellow Germans with water cannon...

Yeah, because the actions of the German police excuse the atrocities commited by US armed forces.

Yeah, because the actions of the German police excuse the atrocities commited by US armed forces.

Yes, because we love to hear Pot, Kettle, Black

I guess somethings never change, when it comes to the government and their armies.Its a shame too see such poor morality if there is any....

Ein Deutscher']These poor, poor innocent GIs. They so deserve all our loving and support for doing such an awesome job in the muslim world. They are the ones spreading freedom and liberty and democracy and western economy to the outskirts of the uncivilized world. These innocent GI-boys with barely any training and lacking equipment, which just happens to cost billions upon billions of dollars and apparently doesn't reach them. Oh how dare these reporter-islamists report such events and violate the sanctitiy of the American military with their truth. I am deeply troubled by the truthfulness in these reports. It rapes my worldview and my deep disbelief that these poor innocent boy-GIs with their sweet cuddly smiles and innocent baby hands would ever do such a thing. :eek:


All kidding aside-do you have any sort of counseling to help you with the bitterness? I really havent seen someone so consistantly bitter before.
Dont get me wrong-this subject, as well as numerous others, are all very troubling to people that care. I dont like to hear any of this.

But it seems to be consuming you. Neither you or I have the answers to solve any of these problems. Dont let this stuff eat you alive. The world is full of atrocities since the dawn of man. And unfortunately, we can expect them to continue. But dont let it consume you.

It may be a moot point, but I noticed that Whispering Legs said nothing about what to do with the Interrogators which he said, in his own words, "with a foot up his own ass who wants to play like he's in the movies".

I certainly hope he doesn't mean that they should be given a pat on the back for engaging in some rather sadistic measures.

Unprofessionalism, is unprofessionalism.

Those, poor, poor German policemen. They so deserve all our loving and support for doing such an awesome job of killing and crippling their fellow Germans with water cannon...
Yes. They deserve all our support, just like these poor, poor GI-boy cuddlies. We need to support them all with all our love and give them all the heartily support we can give and pray for their well-being and that they return with all limbs attached and these poor, poor policemen who are just doing their patriotic freedom duty by protecting someone, deserve all our heart-given, complete support so they can return to their mothers and kids and enjoy their god given liberty and peace. Amen.

Yes, because we love to hear Pot, Kettle, Black

German armed forces aren't commiting atrocities. US ones are. So it's not even a pot calling the kettle, much less a black pot.

Nor does it excuse the US atrocities in any way.

Ein Deutscher']Yes. They deserve all our support, just like these poor, poor GI-boy cuddlies. We need to support them all with all our love and give them all the heartily support we can give and pray for their well-being and that they return with all limbs attached and these poor, poor policemen who are just doing their patriotic freedom duty by protecting someone, deserve all our heart-given, complete support so they can return to their mothers and kids and enjoy their god given liberty and peace. Amen.


And the Germans have such a wonderful humanitarian record.

If Newsweek wasn't in the wrong then why did they retract the story fully?

All kidding aside-do you have any sort of counseling to help you with the bitterness? I really havent seen someone so consistantly bitter before.
Dont get me wrong-this subject, as well as numerous others, are all very troubling to people that care. I dont like to hear any of this.

But it seems to be consuming you. Neither you or I have the answers to solve any of these problems. Dont let this stuff eat you alive. The world is full of atrocities since the dawn of man. And unfortunately, we can expect them to continue. But dont let it consume you.
I'm so thankful for your moral support and your concern over my psychological well-being. But worry not, I have religion to turn to. My God helps me overcome any troubled times. *prays* And don't forget supporting the poor and helpless GI boys in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not their fault for trying to have fun and that the islamist terrorists can't take it like a man.

And the Germans have such a wonderful humanitarian record.
Aye that they do. Aren't you supporting your GIs and policemen and firefighters? This sounds very unpatriotic to me. Shame on you. Now go and repent for your sins.

If Newsweek wasn't in the wrong then why did they retract the story fully?

They didn't (until after pressure from the US government (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/16/newsweek.quran/)). They didn't say that the events never happened, just that their source had backed out of them.

But, as the link I provided to Human Rights Watch confirms, there are a lot of other sources corraborating what Newsweek reported on.

But this isn't a thread on media or Newsweek. This is about an official US report on the subject that the media are paraphrasing. There is no error here.

To me, for the US military to roll out the same tired excuse of 'a few bad eggs, poorly trained and ill-equipped for their roles as prison guards and interrogators and thus no-one higher up the chain can be considered responsible' is nothing short of obscene.
Ignoring whether it may or may not be true that these are isolated instances, the fact that they've been occuring round the world and keep popping up shows that the Pentagon has not done anything to rectify the problem of lack of training/equipment, psychological testing of guards etc. Which means those higher-up making the decisions should be held accountable. They've known about these abuses for years now, and have still done very little to ensure they stop happening. That's negligence (and possibly implied acceptance and support for these practises) imo.

If Newsweek wasn't in the wrong then why did they retract the story fully?
Because the US government pressured them into doing so. Whatever it was, the report was correct - but someone high up apparently didn't like it. However we need to support such things - retracting reports that happened, but are disliked by government officials is the right thing to do. Support the report retracters and the poor GI boys. *prays*

Ein Deutscher']Aye that they do. Aren't you supporting your GIs and policemen and firefighters? This sounds very unpatriotic to me. Shame on you. Now go and repent for your sins.

1) I'm not American.

2) I forget, did you pull their teeth out before, or after they died?

Speaking of supporting the armed forces though - I think you'll be pleased to note that I'm quite proud of what my nation did to Dresden.

To me, for the US military to roll out the same tired excuse of 'a few bad eggs, poorly trained and ill-equipped for their roles as prison guards and interrogators and thus no-one higher up the chain can be considered responsible' is nothing short of obscene.
Ignoring whether it may or may not be true that these are isolated instances, the fact that they've been occuring round the world and keep popping up shows that the Pentagon has not done anything to rectify the problem of lack of training/equipment, psychological testing of guards etc. Which means those higher-up making the decisions should be held accountable. They've known about these abuses for years now, and have still done very little to ensure they stop happening. That's negligence (and possibly implied acceptance and support for these practises) imo.
How true and yet how unpatriotic and unsupportive of these poor and innocent GIs. Congratulations, I completely agree with you. :p

They didn't. They didn't say that the events never happened, just that their source had backed out of them.

Sorry but yes they did fully retract it because they did get the story wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/16/newsweek.quran/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-16-newsweek-usat_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/-/2/hi/americas/4553639.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051600443.html

As you can see, yep they did retract the story. Thanks for playing.

BTW: The government didn't pressure them at all. Nice try!

1) I'm not American.

2) I forget, did you pull their teeth out before, or after they died?

Speaking of supporting the armed forces though - I think you'll be pleased to note that I'm quite proud of what my nation did to Dresden.
Sorry, I did not pull anyone's teeth out yet. Can you explain? Oh and support these poor GIs while you're at it. They need all our support. Oh and being pleased of war crimes is fine. We all are pleased when thousands of people die needlessly in huge firestorms, it's just fun and the right thing to do. Thus you have my complete support. :D

Sorry but yes they did fully retract it because they did get the story wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/16/newsweek.quran/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-16-newsweek-usat_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/-/2/hi/americas/4553639.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051600443.html

As you can see, yep they did retract the story. Thanks for playing.

BTW: The government didn't pressure them at all. Nice try!

You didn't read what I linked to in that post, did you? Also you fail to explain how the story is corraborated by otther sources such as the HRW. Really, Newsweek fumbled on a source and was forced to retract after government pressure. The story itself is very much true, it seems.

[QUOTE=Carnivorous Lickers]Neither you or I have the answers to solve any of these problems. QUOTE]

Do you really believe that? Speaking as an officer's child, I would say that we do have answers to solve the problems as they occur within our own armed forces. Take out the people at the top who are responsible for condoning this sort of activity. Send Donald Rumsfeld up before the International Court of Justice - put someone else in charge who would come down hard on these reports, actually go investigate them, and enforce humanitarian discipline within his or her own ranks. For pity's sake! I personally think that if there was enough public outcry, enough activism against the Secretary of Defense, then the president would be forced to ask him to leave, at least.
Of course, I read in a military newspaper (published independently by retired officers for military families) a lot of opinions and letters reminding people that the real problem is the commanding officer of the whole bucket, which is to say the president. And frankly, if people within the military - from all ranks and backgrounds - are saying this and publishing this... that's pretty amazing, people. Even the military folks are ashamed to be a part of this country. That is so pathetic.

You didn't read what I linked to in that post, did you?

Sorry, but the government didn't pressure newsweek to retract the story. Newsweek admitted they got it wrong and that has been all over the friggin press.

Thanks for playing though.

Ein Deutscher'] We all are pleased when thousands of people die needlessly in huge firestorms, it's just fun and the right thing to do.

Indeed, it's a shame the number wasn't higher.

Sorry, but the government didn't pressure newsweek to retract the story. Newsweek admitted they got it wrong and that has been all over the friggin press.

Thanks for playing though.

You don't read what I write, do you?

Ein Deutscher']Yes. They deserve all our support, just like these poor, poor GI-boy cuddlies. We need to support them all with all our love and give them all the heartily support we can give and pray for their well-being and that they return with all limbs attached and these poor, poor policemen who are just doing their patriotic freedom duty by protecting someone, deserve all our heart-given, complete support so they can return to their mothers and kids and enjoy their god given liberty and peace. Amen.

Can I be Frank with you?

You don't read what I write, do you?

ALl I know is that Newsweek had shoddy journalism on this story. That is all that is needed to know. Because of it 17 people died for no reason.

You don't read what I write, do you?

Why waste our brain cells with such mindless drivel?

Can I be Frank with you?


This is the internet, you can be anyone you want to! :)

ALl I know is that Newsweek had shoddy journalism on this story. That is all that is needed to know. Because of it 17 people died for no reason.

Again, you fail to explain all the other sources that corrobrate their story, and the fact that the retraction was due to a source backing off, not to any admission that the story was false, and after US government pressure.

And here I quote the CNN article you yourself linked to:

"But the magazine did not completely disavow the story until Monday's statement from Whitaker. That followed remarks earlier in the day from Bush administration officials who called for a full retraction.

"There were other elements in this story that people are not concerned about," he told PBS. "This is the one detail everyone is concerned about, and we are prepared to retract that."

It seems like you should not only start reading what I write, but what you yourself link to aswell. Cause it seems that "all you need to know" doesn't get you very far at all.

All of this is irrelevant to the Times story that this thread is about. Don't force me to ask for a thread split.

Why waste our brain cells with such mindless drivel?

Shoo, troll.

Again, you fail to explain all the other sources that corrobrate their story, and the fact that the retraction was due to a source backing off, not to any admission that the story was false, and after US government pressure.

The US government DID NOT PRESSURE NEWSWEEK!!!!!! Get that through your head. That would be censorship and none of that was taking place. God in heaven.

It seems like you should not only start reading what I write, but what you yourself link to aswell. Cause it seems that "all you need to know" doesn't get you very far at all.

You also need to stop believing everything the press feeds you. I don't trust everything the press feeds me. No one should trust the press 100% of the time. Apparently you do. Thanks for playing.

Indeed, it's a shame the number wasn't higher.
Indeed. But with atomic bombs and other new weapons such as space weaponry, I am sure the US will easily top this - if it hasn't already during the last 60 years since WW2. Why is there no ranking yet btw? This would make great material for a contest. Genocide Idol... :eek:

The US government DID NOT PRESSURE NEWSWEEK!!!!!! Get that through your head. That would be censorship and none of that was taking place. God in heaven.



You also need to stop believing everything the press feeds you. I don't trust everything the press feeds me. No one should trust the press 100% of the time. Apparently you do. Thanks for playing.
Oh of course there was no government pressure. The US government is so honest and good and truthful - how dare anyone suspects foul doing by the US government when we all know how great and wonderful it is. We should support the president and his wonderful administration boys and girls who so gracefully evade all blame. :eek:

This is the internet, you can be anyone you want to! :)

Ah, alright then. I'll be Frank.

@[NS]Ein Deutscher

Hi, I'm Frank.

You're a fucking moron.

Have a nice day.

PS:

Probably should have brought this up first, Frank is an asshole of few words. ;)

The US government DID NOT PRESSURE NEWSWEEK!!!!!! Get that through your head. That would be censorship and none of that was taking place. God in heaven.

Again, read:

"But the magazine did not completely disavow the story until Monday's statement from Whitaker. That followed remarks earlier in the day from Bush administration officials who called for a full retraction."

You also need to stop believing everything the press feeds you. I don't trust everything the press feeds me. No one should trust the press 100% of the time. Apparently you do. Thanks for playing.

You need to start playing the game yourself, soon. As I said, the story in Newsweek was correct - the retraction is due to not inaccuracy of the story, but by a source backtracking and the US government pressuring the paper to retract.

But this is, as I said, off-topic for the Times article paraphrasing a US report. Stay on topic and leave your erronous claims about Newsweek out of this, lest I demand that this thread be split.

Ein Deutscher']I'm so thankful for your moral support and your concern over my psychological well-being. But worry not, I have religion to turn to. My God helps me overcome any troubled times. *prays* And don't forget supporting the poor and helpless GI boys in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not their fault for trying to have fun and that the islamist terrorists can't take it like a man.


I was actually concerned and not being sarcastic. If religion does actually help you, I'm glad. Just because i dont agree with your point of view doesnt mean I dont recognize that your arguements in here are consuming and self destructive. Right or wrong, it doesnt matter.
I didnt mock you or what you think. I dont need to kick a guy when its clear he's already down. Good luck to you.

If Newsweek wasn't in the wrong then why did they retract the story fully?

because their source changed hir mind about where they'd read about the koran down the toilet thing - it might not have been in an official gov't investigation report. perhaps it was from one of the multiple other news stories that reported the same sort of thing from numerous distinct sources over the past few years.

You need to start playing the game yourself, soon. As I said, the story in Newsweek was correct - the retraction is due to not inaccuracy of the story, but by a source backtracking and the US government pressuring the paper to retract.

Prove it!

It's funny that some in here have assumed that the report is accurate.

Assuming it is:

a)THIS.. is.. war. Was isn't pretty. Anyone naive enough to think that it is... perhaps is not willing to allow (or consciously so) that to preserve freedom for the vast majority of people means that out of necessity they will have to be protected from those who oppose it (the insurgents in Iraq, for example).

I doubt the validity of this... could easily be hashed up by some anti-Bush, anti-America lie-spreader. But even if it is true, while it isn't pretty, there are things we have to do to help kill terrorism in Iraq and around the world. They just had their first free vote in about 50 years; we can't let the nut-jobs render their voices moot.

Maybe the guy was innocent. Maybe the guy was in on some plan to blow up 50 innocent people -- on purpose -- in a market square in Baghdad. I have no sympathy for such people... no treatment is too poor for them. If he wouldn't answer the interrogators' questions, other means are necessary to obtain information from him. If they beat him on the legs as is alleged in the report, the act of beating him on the legs does seem harsh. Maybe they should just have given him some amytol (or whatever it's called) to get the info out of him.

As for the Newsweek flame-story about the Koran being flushed down the toilet, it has been rendered false. It is a non-issue.

any self-respecting journalist, especially an anti-America/Bush one like the guy who made the Koran-flush report, will fight tooth and nail for a story if he believes that what he's writing is true. If, however, he knows that it is rife with error, he is more willing to retract it. This was a pretty quick retraction. But dang, some of you sound like you want it to be true. lol

The US government DID NOT PRESSURE NEWSWEEK!!!!!! Get that through your head. That would be censorship and none of that was taking place. God in heaven.

Don't mean to get in the middle of your pissing contest here, but uh yes, the government did pressure NewsWeek to retract the story even though now the Red Cross is saying the same thing.

Scott McClellan said that even after pressure from the Bush admin that they feel NewsWeek did not go far enough. Now if Bush's own press secretary is saying they pressured NewsWeek, why don't you believe it?

Shoo, troll.


Shoo, limp-wristed wuss!

Jesus Fucking Christ.

It will never end.

Personally I can no longer believe this is some isolated or unordered abuse. The military has gone down another rung on my scale of respect we should have for the military, for me it's now a 3/10. Hun, freaking Huns.

Let it be known that this crap is NOT being done in my name. Don't even pretend - this is sadism, not by any stretch of the imagination a defense of MY rights.

All I can do is apolgoize on behalf of the 49% who didn't vote for this.

What do you want, people that had reports of other abuse (Amnesty, and other NGO's that follow torturing around the world) before were pointed by the finger by most right wing extremists or other nazi scum on this forum, today we see that they were right and that the toruring is off course not isolated.

In the free European world, our non censured press gave lots of facts before (from Iraqi's, Afghans etc.) so this does not surprise me anymore. Does it supriss anyone in the US? The ones that are surprised really need to regard the free press from abroad some more.
I feel pitty for those national guards and reservists wich name also will be destroyed by those Rumy assholes, guys that never wanted to be there and have the most casualties amongst US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, whilst the torturering US SS is out of reach :rolleyes:

Prove it!

I just did, by quoting your own source and linking to HRW and its numerous sources supporting the Newsweek story.

Really you have to start reading soon. And again I repeat, this is off-topic.

Shoo, limp-wristed wuss!

I'm gay, so? You think your little homophobia is relevant? I don't see you in any way dispelling the US report paraphrased.

I was actually concerned and not being sarcastic. If religion does actually help you, I'm glad. Just because i dont agree with your point of view doesnt mean I dont recognize that your arguements in here are consuming and self destructive. Right or wrong, it doesnt matter.
I didnt mock you or what you think. I dont need to kick a guy when its clear he's already down. Good luck to you.
Well to be honest, I'm not religious and I don't give a rat's arse over what you think about me and my psychological state. I'm adding my 2 cents where I think they are necessary. For that I don't need your permission nor your concern. That I often rant about what's going on is due to the fact that I'm concerned over where all this is headed.

I just did, by quoting your own source and linking to HRW and its numerous sources supporting the Newsweek story.

Really you have to start reading soon. And again I repeat, this is off-topic.

You proved nothing. You stated an allegation and if I was newsweek, I would've made the same allegation. However, the story has been proved false. However, you still haven't proved that the allegation made regarding pressure from the US Government. I'm still waiting.

What do you want, people that had reports of other abuse (Amnesty, and other NGO's that follow torturing around the world) before were pointed by the finger by most right wing extremists or other nazi scum on this forum, today we see that they were right and that the toruring is off course not isolated.

In the free European world, our non censured press gave lots of facts before (from Iraqi's, Afghans etc.) so this does not surprise me anymore. Does it supriss anyone in the US? The ones that are surprised really need to regard the free press from abroad some more.
I feel pitty for those national guards and reservists wich name also will be destroyed by those Rumy assholes, guys that never wanted to be there and have the most casualties amongst US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, whilst the torturering US SS is out of reach :rolleyes:

and yet so many iraqis voted... lol. have you ever considered that your "free" Euro press discounted the opinions of the majority of Iraqis and only printed stories of anti-American Sunnis? Hmmm... When you have an agenda, it's pretty easy to sift and winnow the "truths" you wish to find, and then report only those.

Don't mean to get in the middle of your pissing contest here, but uh yes, the government did pressure NewsWeek to retract the story even though now the Red Cross is saying the same thing.

Scott McClellan said that even after pressure from the Bush admin that they feel NewsWeek did not go far enough. Now if Bush's own press secretary is saying they pressured NewsWeek, why don't you believe it?

It's true.

It's true.

PRovide proof! I'm waiting.

You proved nothing. You stated an allegation and if I was newsweek, I would've made the same allegation. However, the story has been proved false.

Again, second time I post the HRW link. You have to start reading, soon.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/19/usdom10981.htm


However, you still haven't proved that the allegation made regarding pressure from the US Government. I'm still waiting.

Again, for the third time I quote your own source:

"But the magazine did not completely disavow the story until Monday's statement from Whitaker. That followed remarks earlier in the day from Bush administration officials who called for a full retraction."

You proved nothing. You stated an allegation and if I was newsweek, I would've made the same allegation. However, the story has been proved false. However, you still haven't proved that the allegation made regarding pressure from the US Government. I'm still waiting.

LOL, no, anything that's anti-Bush or anti-America is inherently and obviously correct! Who are you to question the motives of a liberal-biased writer?

lmao

it is null and void... it didn't happen... forget about it. when a p[ublication pulls its own story, it is either by rule of the court (an injunction) or of their own prerogative.

Since this was a case of the latter, it is OBVIOUS that the story was false.

You proved nothing. You stated an allegation and if I was newsweek, I would've made the same allegation. However, the story has been proved false. However, you still haven't proved that the allegation made regarding pressure from the US Government. I'm still waiting.
The story wasn't false at all. Although this source retracted his story and thus Newsweek claimed their story was false, there have been numerous other claims by prisoners, as reported by the Red Cross, that these allegiations are actually true. After seeing the numerous tortures and prisoner deaths caused by the US military, I think a desecration of the Koran is one of the least serious incidents and simultaneously one of the most likely incidents due to the ease with which something like this can be done and the added humiliation this causes to prisoners. After all, we know by now that the US military wants to use humiliation and torture as much as possible to get whatever info it wants.

LOL, no, anything that's anti-Bush or anti-America is inherently and obviously correct! Who are you to question the motives of a liberal-biased writer?

lmao

it is null and void... it didn't happen... forget about it. when a p[ublication pulls its own story, it is either by rule of the court (an injunction) or of their own prerogative.

Since this was a case of the latter, it is OBVIOUS that the story was false.

So now the Red Cross is a liberal-biased writer?

I'm all for it.

It wouldn't matter if the interrogators had asked them nicely with pretty please on top - the people who oppose the mere fact that anyone was detained no matter what they did and that anyone was questioned, no matter what form the questioning took, will oppose and decry ANY treatment and ANY detention and ANY questioning.



As usual, Whispering Legs jumps in with both feet in his mouth without checking his facts.

It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time

So, you're all for beating an innocent man to death. Go USA!

LOL, no, anything that's anti-Bush or anti-America is inherently and obviously correct! Who are you to question the motives of a liberal-biased writer?

lmao

it is null and void... it didn't happen... forget about it. when a p[ublication pulls its own story, it is either by rule of the court (an injunction) or of their own prerogative.

Since this was a case of the latter, it is OBVIOUS that the story was false.
The incident happened anyway, since it was reported elsewhere too - namely by the Red Cross, which happens to have very high credibility.

Again, second time I post the HRW link. You have to start reading, soon.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/19/usdom10981.htm




Again, for the third time I quote your own source:

"But the magazine did not completely disavow the story until Monday's statement from Whitaker. That followed remarks earlier in the day from Bush administration officials who called for a full retraction."

Newsflash to Fass, newsflash to Fass:

George Bush cannot shut down Newsweek magazine nor any story it wishes to run. Only a judge can do that.

Meaning: If Newsweek pulled the story, it's because the absurd flaming allegations made were false.

and yet so many iraqis voted... lol. have you ever considered that your "free" Euro press discounted the opinions of the majority of Iraqis and only printed stories of anti-American Sunnis? Hmmm... When you have an agenda, it's pretty easy to sift and winnow the "truths" you wish to find, and then report only those.

Well that is not my press or the opinion here in the free world. Non biased press (so not your regime press that off course just installed a guy as vice president in Iraq, a ex spy, drugsdealer,criminal, cia agent, AND on interpolls list) gave all sources. BTW, loser, you forgot the Kurds (yeah, in your press they don't speak about them). It is a question off standards, and those are higher here (like 99% of the world outside your 4th Reih knows :p ).

Hell kid, grow up nobody here supports neither Sunnis, Sjihites (allthough we are better informed and know the majors like all Sistani atc) or Kurds.

Newsflash to Fass, newsflash to Fass:

George Bush cannot shut down Newsweek magazine nor any story it wishes to run. Only a judge can do that.

Meaning: If Newsweek pulled the story, it's because the absurd flaming allegations made were false.

And yet the Red Cross says it's true.

Newsflash to Fass, newsflash to Fass:

George Bush cannot shut down Newsweek magazine nor any story it wishes to run. Only a judge can do that.

Newsflash to you: Governent pressure != government shutting down.

Meaning: If Newsweek pulled the story, it's because the absurd flaming allegations made were false.

Wow, you failed to read the HRW too. Had you, you would have seen that the story hasn't been proved false at all. It has actually become more credible.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050516/ap_on_re_us/newsweek_quran

I'm seeing nothing about government Pressure. Not even from McClellan.

Ein Deutscher']The incident happened anyway, since it was reported elsewhere too - namely by the Red Cross, which happens to have very high credibility.

I'm not going to put faith in the testimony of someone who may be biased against America.

If you hate America (or any country) and you get wind of a story against it, and if you think that you can hurt the country by supporting the story, you might say what the Red Cross said. After all, they're over there, right? What liberal, who really wants an excuse to hate America, won't believe something said against America... who won't jump to conclusions and "believe" that said trash is true?

You could say the same about me, except that in this case i'm assuming that it's a bunch of bullshit. Although -- ah-HA! -- Newsweek pulled the story, so I have a LOGICAL BASIS for not believing in the validity of the Koran-flush story. Adn they didn't pull the story under a bench injunction, either.

2 Points:

NY TIMES- Bastion of anti-Bush liberal feeling, and an unashamed tabloid on par with the British 'The Sun' newspaper. Description seems thin at best.

Fallujah- 4 American contractors brutally killed and their bodies horrifically mutilated by faceless and purely evil men, then burnt. Their families never got to bury their fathers, sons or brothers. Ken Bigley, a British captive, held in real captivity in a 5 by 5 steel cage for over a month before being killed. He had witnessed the brutal execution of two of his freinds weeks before he himself was executed. The list keeps going and going and going...

And you complain because one known terrorist had water squirted on him? and then died because he was chained to a roof? I think you need to get your perspectives in order.

And yet the Red Cross says it's true.

Care to provide a link to it?

Newsflash to you: Governent pressure != government shutting down.



Wow, you failed to read the HRW too. Had you, you would have seen that the story hasn't been proved false at all. It has actually become more credible.

I'm not reading some site you provided for fear that my irises might turn red with all the socialistic love flowing therefrom.

hehe

As usual, Whispering Legs jumps in with both feet in his mouth without checking his facts.



So, you're all for beating an innocent man to death. Go USA!

Yeah, BTW I am investing on am and legg phroteses, the market is booming in the US. I 'am bying them according a hint off Rummy who made sure that after his own investements in "that" company, will also make sure that the boddies keep comming. Thanks to those handicaped soldiers, I'll make money. When it gets even worse, I'll get richer. Nice to have your man in DC :D

But again, it is pitty that the GI nazi's aren't hit and only those guys of the guards and reservists that also condem the oil war.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050516/ap_on_re_us/newsweek_quran

I'm seeing nothing about government Pressure. Not even from McClellan.

Nice to notice how you didn't even comment on the HRW link, as it shows that the Newsweek story isn't false.

I also quoted the CNN story, as I said. Anyhoo, which part of "That followed remarks earlier in the day from Bush administration officials who called for a full retraction" is it you're having troubles with?

known terrorist

had a trial, did he?

I'm not reading some site you provided for fear that my irises might turn red with all the socialistic love flowing therefrom.

hehe

Wow, the ignorance of what the HRW is is astounding. (Psst, they were founded to supervise the Helsinki accords on human rights abuses in the Soviet Union. So much for the HRW being socialists...). You are coming across as someone who's put their fingers in their ears and is going "lalalalala". Read the HRW link, and stop shaming yourself.

2 Points:

NY TIMES- Bastion of anti-Bush liberal feeling, and an unashamed tabloid on par with the British 'The Sun' newspaper. Description seems thin at best.

Fallujah- 4 American contractors brutally killed and their bodies horrifically mutilated by faceless and purely evil men, then burnt. Their families never got to bury their fathers, sons or brothers. Ken Bigley, a British captive, held in real captivity in a 5 by 5 steel cage for over a month before being killed. He had witnessed the brutal execution of two of his freinds weeks before he himself was executed. The list keeps going and going and going...

And you complain because one known terrorist had water squirted on him? and then died because he was chained to a roof? I think you need to get your perspectives in order.


They dont care about these events-Amercians are the enemy to them.
When you produce these stories-first they'll ask for proof, then dismiss it as your source wont be credible-by THEIR standards.
They are pleased to hear of Americans suffering and losing. Dont let them tell you any different. They arent concerned with human rights. They are nothing more than anti-Americans pretending to be concerned about human rights.

Yeah, BTW I am investing on am and legg phroteses, the market is booming in the US. I 'am bying them according a hint off Rummy who made sure that after his own investements in "that" company, will also make sure that the boddies keep comming. Thanks to those handicaped soldiers, I'll make money. When it gets even worse, I'll get richer. Nice to have your man in DC :D

But again, it is pitty that the GI nazi's aren't hit and only those guys of the guards and reservists that also condem the oil war.

utter stupidity

a)If it were an "oil war" as you so eloquently blaspheme, then we're making a TERRIBLE INVESTMENT. lmao. nothing supports this absurd assertion.

b)It is not illegal for an American citizen to invest in a company. lmao

c)Funny, but if memory serves, Nazis weren't out there fighting for the voting rights of the oppressed. Add this to the loooooong list of invalid, baseless America/Nazi Germany analogies. Such efforts only point to your shameless hate of America... you will say anything, even when it's dead wrong.

had a trial, did he?

Brown skin, beard, taxi driver...it all adds up.

They dont care about these events-Amercians are the enemy to them.
When you produce these stories-first they'll ask for proof, then dismiss it as your source wont be credible-by THEIR standards.
They are pleased to hear of Americans suffering and losing. Dont let them tell you any different. They arent concerned with human rights. They are nothing more than anti-Americans pretending to be concerned about human rights.

oh, no, Carnivorous Lickers, they LOVE human rights!

They believe that all people should be FREE!

It's just SWELL that Iraqis were able to elect their own government!

No, wait, America helped them do that... never mind. That was BAD!

2 Points:

NY TIMES- Bastion of anti-Bush liberal feeling, and an unashamed tabloid on par with the British 'The Sun' newspaper. Description seems thin at best.

All was taken from an official US report. Again, people, you have start reading things before you dismiss them!

And you complain because one known terrorist had water squirted on him? and then died because he was chained to a roof? I think you need to get your perspectives in order.

Again, he was believed to be innocent by the interragators themselves, as the US report itself says. You didn't read the story at all, did you?

All was taken from an official US report. Again, people, you have start reading things before you dismiss them!

Proof that they were taken from an official US report?

Wow, the ignorance of what the HRW is is astounding. (Psst, they were founded to supervise the Helsinki accords on human rights abuses in the Soviet Union. So much for the HRW being socialists...). You are coming across as someone who's put their fingers in their ears and is going "lalalalala". Read the HRW link, and stop shaming yourself.

Founded by whom?

Proof that they were taken from an official US report?

of course it's not an official US report. It was probably inked by some liberal blogger a la Dan Rather's air-tight Bush records. those were official too! lmao.

Fass
I meant that literally, my irises would turn red. I am tired and big words don't help at this point. The rest was added for effect.

Proof that they were taken from an official US report?

The story itself, and there was also a BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4566159.stm) in the first page called "US report reveals Afghan abuses".

"The deaths of two inmates and alleged abuse of others is detailed by the New York Times citing a 2,000-page document leaked from a US army investigation."

Really, you have to read the posts and stories if you want to participate and keep up with a discussion.

The story itself, and there was also a BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4566159.stm) in the first page called "US report reveals Afghan abuses".

"The deaths of two inmates and alleged abuse of others is detailed by the New York Times citing a 2,000-page document leaked from a US army investigation."

Really, you have to read the posts and stories if you want to participate and keep up with a discussion.

I guess you also didn't know that they too are being Punished? :rolleyes:

Oh dear, kamrat Fass. You've made the ultimate mistake of linking to the BBC as a source. Everyone knows that the BBC is run by communists.

Founded by whom?

Had you read the link, you would have known the answer to that question. Now before you make a futher mockery of yourself displaying all this ignorence of the things you're talking about, read. (http://www.hrw.org/about/whoweare.html)

Brown skin, beard, taxi driver...it all adds up.

we should make the american version of the game 'clue'. first one to make it to the center of the board and accuse the foreigner wins!

I guess you also didn't know that they too are being Punished? :rolleyes:

You didn't even read the first post of this thread, did you?

Had you read the link, you would have known the answer to that question. Now before you make a futher mockery of yourself displaying all this ignorence of the things you're talking about, read. (http://www.hrw.org/about/whoweare.html)


I make no such mockery. My arguments are based in logic. Your story's validity is questionable, regardless of what you claim its source to be.

I read the first line and then hit a wall.

Oh Sorry Fass. Yes I did.

HOwever, here's something for you to keep in mind. This is nothing new. Prisoner abuses have taken place in every single war. They just don't occur by the United States. I don't excuse it. I abhore it but they do occur. Why is everyone acting so surprised that some are taking place?

I make no such mockery. My arguments are based in logic. Your story's validity is questionable, regardless of what you claim its source to be.

You actually have to read it before you question its validity - the HRW story that is. Because you don't seem to have done that if you're actually trying to attack the HRW for being socialists (which they're not), as if that would make the story any less credible.

Oh, and the New York times story? Again, an official US report. You question that?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050516/ap_on_re_us/newsweek_quran

I'm seeing nothing about government Pressure. Not even from McClellan.

Newsweek at first apologized for its story and then retracted it under heavy pressure from the administration.

Source (http://www.fresnobee.com/24hour/nation/story/2403351p-10675328c.html)

You actually have to read it before you question its validity - the HRW story that is. Because you don't seem to have done that if you're actually trying to attack the HRW for being socialists (which they're not), as if that would make the story any less credible.

Oh, and the New York times story? Again, an official US report. You question that?

If the New York Times is publishing an "official" US Report, I wonder whether or not it's actually a US report... given how liberal-biased the Times is.

the "socialist" part was simply a generalization: most of these anti-US stories come from people who are liberal, and US liberals espouse many of the central tenets of socialism... call it guilt by association.

Oh Sorry Fass. Yes I did.

HOwever, here's something for you to keep in mind. This is nothing new. Prisoner abuses have taken place in every single war. They just don't occur by the United States. I don't excuse it. I abhore it but they do occur. Why is everyone acting so surprised that some are taking place?

The sad is that no one is surprised that the US is doing this. What we are up in arms about is that you claim to be better, and expect you to be better than the terrorists, but you clearly are failing at that. These stories need to be brought to light so that something be done to stop them. The fact that they keep surfacing over and over and over again show us that the US is a human rights violator. And that, you will be criticised for.

The sad is that no one is surprised that the US is doing this. What we are up in arms about is that you claim to be better, and expect you to be better than the terrorists, but you clearly are failing at that. These stories need to be brought to light so that something be done to stop them. The fact that they keep surfacing over and over and over again show us that the US is a human rights violator. And that, you will be criticised for.

And yet when I have criticized other nations for doing the samething, they are doing just like I was doing. Defending it. At least it is out there and the people responsible for it are getting thrown into the brig and being tossed out of the military.

We are punishing those responsible for abuses done to prisoners. That is getting lost in the press and that is a shame.

Now here's a question that I want answered. WHat about the human rights abuses done by UN Personel? I haven't heard much on this story but countless hours on Prisoner Abuse. Interesting I think.

If the New York Times is publishing an "official" US Report, I wonder whether or not it's actually a US report... given how liberal-biased the Times is.

How is that relevant to the fact that they have the 2000 page report?

the "socialist" part was simply a generalization: most of these anti-US stories come from people who are liberal, and US liberals espouse many of the central tenets of socialism... call it guilt by association.

How would that invalidate the story? How is that even relevant to the facts in the story?

there are degrees to thinggs, fass.

for instance, if we were as bad as the terrorists, we'd simply NUKE THE TERRORISTS. If they had a nuke, you can bet that they'd try to use it against us.

Or... we could load a tank with a bunch of huge bombs, remote-control-drive it into downtown Baghdad (or wherever) and detonate it, killing hundreds.

Terrorists do such things... we don't.

We are the good guys because we are trying to protect life, not destroy it.... well, except for the terrorists/insurgents... who must be killed or (if not killed) stopped.

If this really happened, then it is not good. We should not beat people. If he was not beaten but was simply squirted in the face for 5 seconds, then well, that is not torture. Forcing them to play with Barbie dolls is not a form of torture. Having a naked female rub her privates (or whatever) on them is not torture. Handcuffing them is not torture. Forcing them to watch cheerleader videos is not torture. It is, however, pretty boring... that last, anyway.

And while i wouldn't defend such bahavior:

If you're a soldier who's spent a year or so in some God-forsaken wasteland in an attempt to guarantee people freedom under a democratically-elected government and the only thing keeping you from going home is this damn insurgency, I would imagine that you'd be pretty damn pissed-off at insurgents you come in contact with.

And yet when I have criticized other nations for doing the samething, they are doing just like I was doing. Defending it. At least it is out there and the people responsible for it are getting thrown into the brig and being tossed out of the military.

But you see, "they're doing it too" is not an excuse. They are blamed as well (you wouldn't beleive the amount of press Islamic human rights abuses are getting, as well they should!), but that doesn't take the guilt off of the US.

We are punishing those responsible for abuses done to prisoners. That is getting lost in the press and that is a shame.

Now here's a question that I want answered. WHat about the human rights abuses done by UN Personel? I haven't heard much on this story but countless hours on Prisoner Abuse. Interesting I think.

That some of them were being punished was mentioned in the article. It was also mentioned that most hadn't been, and that the same team of interrogators was sent to Iraq afterwards, where reports of the same sort of abuses have been documented. Punishing the soldiers that do this is great, but it obviously isn't enough. There is something horribly wrong when this keeps happening over and over again.

And you bet your pattootie that it will be reported on as long as it's happening, and that you will get criticised over it.

But you see, "they're doing it too" is not an excuse. They are blamed as well (you wouldn't beleive the amount of press Islamic human rights abuses are getting, as well they should!), but that doesn't take the guilt off of the US.



That some of them were being punished was mentioned in the article. It was also mentioned that most hadn't been, and that the same team of interrogators was sent to Iraq afterwards, where reports of the same sort of abuses have been documented. Punishing the soldiers that do this is great, but it obviously isn't enough. There is something horribly wrong when this keeps happening over and over again.

And you bet your pattootie that it will be reported on as long as it's happening, and that you will get criticised over it.

...and we will doubt/question its accuracy.

there are degrees to thinggs, fass.

for instance, if we were as bad as the terrorists, we'd simply NUKE THE TERRORISTS. If they had a nuke, you can bet that they'd try to use it against us.

Or... we could load a tank with a bunch of huge bombs, remote-control-drive it into downtown Baghdad (or wherever) and detonate it, killing hundreds.

Terrorists do such things... we don't.

What, you don't kill as many people as you could, and you think you should be lauded for that?

We are the good guys because we are trying to protect life, not destroy it.... well, except for the terrorists/insurgents... who must be killed or (if not killed) stopped.

That's the thing. You're not acting like the good guys. The treachury, and the lies, and the human rights abuses, and the villifying of anyone critical to the US is not what "good guys" do.

If this really happened, then it is not good. We should not beat people. If he was not beaten but was simply squirted in the face for 5 seconds, then well, that is not torture. Forcing them to play with Barbie dolls is not a form of torture. Having a naked female rub her privates (or whatever) on them is not torture. Handcuffing them is not torture. Forcing them to watch cheerleader videos is not torture. It is, however, pretty boring... that last, anyway.

And while i wouldn't defend such bahavior:

You need to read the Geneva Conventions (and the whole story I quoted). The pertinent parts were quoted in the story. And I know you think you shouldn't abide by them, but ask yourself this: If the things aren't that bad, why is there international law against them? Why are you being so criticised? Why have some of these people ended up in jail?

If you're a soldier who's spent a year or so in some God-forsaken wasteland in an attempt to guarantee people freedom under a democratically-elected government and the only thing keeping you from going home is this damn insurgency, I would imagine that you'd be pretty damn pissed-off at insurgents you come in contact with.

That's as hollow an excuse as the "I was just following orders" given in Nurenburg.

...and we will doubt/question its accuracy.

It's a report by your own Armed forces. But I guess you're right, the US hasn't been "accurate" with the things it claims lately...

Nice to notice how you didn't even comment on the HRW link, as it shows that the Newsweek story isn't false.

I also quoted the CNN story, as I said. Anyhoo, which part of "That followed remarks earlier in the day from Bush administration officials who called for a full retraction" is it you're having troubles with?

i read the HRW link... and it says that detainees are corraborating the Newsweek story. How can these people be reliable? Of course they'll have a natural hatred for the US for being detained so long. If a reporter from a news agency came up to you, and you had been in a US prison for 4 years, and the reporter asks, "Is it true that you guys are being abused, that the soldiers threw the Koran in a toilet and kicked it?" I wouldn't be surprised if they asked such leading questions. I bet there wouldn't be 1 detainee who would say no.

and on a side note, unless it's a different detainee that they did the same thing to, the one that died while being held up by chains is old news, and we shouldn't be rehashing this.

edit

But you see, "they're doing it too" is not an excuse. They are blamed as well (you wouldn't beleive the amount of press Islamic human rights abuses are getting, as well they should!), but that doesn't take the guilt off of the US.

That wasn't why I did it. I did it because I wanted to prove that it wasn't just the US doing it. Every body will have abuses no matter what. Its human nature regretablly. That is something that people just don't understand.

That some of them were being punished was mentioned in the article. It was also mentioned that most hadn't been, and that the same team of interrogators was sent to Iraq afterwards, where reports of the same sort of abuses have been documented. Punishing the soldiers that do this is great, but it obviously isn't enough. There is something horribly wrong when this keeps happening over and over again.

Human nature my friend. Human nature.

And you bet your pattootie that it will be reported on as long as it's happening, and that you will get criticised over it.

Thanks for not answering my question regarding UN ABuses. Like to answer it now since I posed it to you?

i read the HRW link... and it says that detainees are corraborating the Newsweek story. How can these people be reliable? Of course they'll have a natural hatred for the US for being detained so long. If a reporter from a news agency came up to you, and you had been in a US prison for 4 years, and the reporter asks, "Is it true that you guys are being abused, that the soldiers threw the Koran in a toilet and kicked it?" I bet there wouldn't be 1 detainee who would say no.

The story mentioned other sources corroborating this. The point of the matter is that the Newsweek story wasn't proved false - the source backtracked, but the story has many other sources to support what it claimed, and wasn't the only one to claim (HRW, Amnesty, Red Cross/Red Crescent etcetera). The pressured retraction over the source is not the same as the story being proved false.

And the veracity of the claims by the detainees is made stronger by reports such as the one in the New York Times story, and picture from Abu Ghraib, and the consistency of the claims made by those held in Guantanamo (which we in Sweden have heard a lot of, as a Swedish citizen was held there for two years without any proof presented or charges filed). If they are not credible, then the US isn't credible either.

Oh, and I have to go now. Finals in four days, and I have to get some studying done... :(

I guess the US are just above any international law, they would even free with military force their citizens arrested in den Haag...
So there just is no point in claiming they did something wrong, this is by definition not possible! :p

The story mentioned other sources corroborating this. The point of the matter is that the Newsweek story wasn't proved false - the source backtracked, but the story has many other sources to support what it claimed, and wasn't the only one to claim (HRW, Amnesty, Red Cross/Red Crescent etcetera). Let's look at a list of the "sources"...
Several former detainees have said that U.S. interrogators disrespected the Koran. Three Britons released from Guantánamo have alleged that the Koran was kicked and thrown in the toilet. A former Russian detainee, Aryat Vahitov, has reportedly made the same claim. A former Kuwaiti detainee, Nasser Nijer Naser al-Mutairi, has said that the throwing of a Koran on the floor led to a hunger strike at Guantánamo that ended only after a senior officer expressed regret over the camp's loudspeaker. Human Rights Watch also interviewed detainees who described a protest at a U.S. detention site at Kandahar airbase in Afghanistan in early 2002 that was set off by a guard’s alleged desecration of the Koran.

Erik Saar, a former Army translator at Guantánamo, has described a female interrogator wiping a detainee with what the prisoner was made to believe was menstrual blood.

Ok, the only sources that i could see in the article relating to the Koran abuse were detainees.
And one source who is a former translator for the Army. Why is he a former? perhaps he didn't like the war on Iraq or terrorists. maybe he was asked the same leading questions detainees were and he wanted to feel important and made the story up... who knows? it's all conjecture.

And i believe the main point of the thread was the prisoner who died from abuse, not the Koran story.

The pressured retraction over the source is not the same as the story being proved false.
Point is moot, we won't really know that the story is true or false. With the likes of Jason Blair in U.S. media, who knows if a story is true or not. Papers tend to stick to their guns if they believe the story to be true, in the case of whichever reporters are going to go to jail because they won't answer a subpeona to give up their sources on who leaked the CIA names a while ago.

And the veracity of the claims by the detainees is made stronger by reports such as the one in the New York Times story, and picture from Abu Ghraib, and the consistency of the claims made by those held in Guantanamo (which we in Sweden have heard a lot of, as a Swedish citizen was held there for two years without any proof presented or charges filed). If they are not credible, then the US isn't credible either.
Don't believe everything you read/see. That's a motto people should live by. It doesn't produce independent thought. However, the detainees in Gitmo who see the NYT story and pictures of Abu Graib may give them a furvor that they will want to lie to just make people hate the US. And that same veracity that you speak of will cause people like you to believe the story against the US.

Oh, and I have to go now. Finals in four days, and I have to get some studying done... :(

good luck. i'd like to see your reply to this post sometime in the future.

utter stupidity

If it were an "oil war" as you so eloquently blaspheme, then we're making a TERRIBLE INVESTMENT. lmao. nothing supports this absurd assertion.

.

Hi,caveman It is a war for oil, wake up, and you pay for it. Jezus you're supid since you consider the cost in lives or money. They don't care, wake up.
It is all about the controll of strategical oil and to install a puppet regime (challabi is a ex drugs dealer and criminal, he is on interpolls list and can't normally not even go to most countries ince he risks arrestation. But he is a US buddy and ex cia, off course a "example" :rolleyes: )

When you don't see that, you or refuse it because of your blind admiration and non critical belief in your own regime. Or worse (and the case I guess) you're just not able..

Yeah, BTW I am investing on am and legg phroteses, the market is booming in the US. I 'am bying them according a hint off Rummy who made sure that after his own investements in "that" company, will also make sure that the boddies keep comming. Thanks to those handicaped soldiers, I'll make money. When it gets even worse, I'll get richer. Nice to have your man in DC :D

But again, it is pitty that the GI nazi's aren't hit and only those guys of the guards and reservists that also condem the oil war.


WTF?

English please. All your base belong to us.

Hi,caveman It is a war for oil, wake up, and you pay for it. Jezus you're supid since you consider the cost in lives or money. They don't care, wake up.

Please prove that this is about oil please? So far, no one has been able to prove this.

It is all about the controll of strategical oil and to install a puppet regime (challabi is a ex drugs dealer and criminal, he is on interpolls list and can't normally not even go to most countries ince he risks arrestation. But he is a US buddy and ex cia, off course a "example" :rolleyes: )

In case you haven't noticed BRL, Challabi isn't incharge of the country. Nice try though but you are way way behind the times.

When you don't see that, you or refuse it because of your blind admiration and non critical belief in your own regime. Or worse (and the case I guess) you're just not able..

Unlike you being blind by liberal propaganda. When your blinded by that, you can't see anything else.

al Qaeda terrorists are trained to accuse their captors of abuse.

WTF?

English please. All your base belong to us.

He says he's investing in prosthetic limb manufacturing companies that supply the US military. Also claiming that Donald Rumsfeld is also invested in the same company.

Thus, he rather callously found a way to profit from the misery of others and looks forward to the continuation of the war so he can get profits from our wounded amputee soldiers.

Not a very nice thing to say at all, really.

al Qaeda terrorists are trained to accuse their captors of abuse.
Riiiight. I suppose they're trained to die while being interrogated too, aren't they? And fake torture marks over their bodies.
Let me guess - that was just the Al Qaeda college cheerleading team practising their naked human pyramid formation in Abu Graihb?

Riiiight. I suppose they're trained to die while being interrogated too, aren't they? And fake torture marks over their bodies.
Let me guess - that was just the Al Qaeda college cheerleading team practising their naked human pyramid formation in Abu Graihb?
No, that was the Iraqi Gay Lesbian Association.

No, that was the Iraqi Gay Lesbian Association.

:D Now this is a classic. Good One Whispering Legs. :D

Let's look at a list of the "sources"...
Several former detainees have said that U.S. interrogators disrespected the Koran. Three Britons released from Guantánamo have alleged that the Koran was kicked and thrown in the toilet. A former Russian detainee, Aryat Vahitov, has reportedly made the same claim. A former Kuwaiti detainee, Nasser Nijer Naser al-Mutairi, has said that the throwing of a Koran on the floor led to a hunger strike at Guantánamo that ended only after a senior officer expressed regret over the camp's loudspeaker. Human Rights Watch also interviewed detainees who described a protest at a U.S. detention site at Kandahar airbase in Afghanistan in early 2002 that was set off by a guard’s alleged desecration of the Koran.
Ok, the only sources that i could see in the article relating to the Koran abuse were detainees.

Don't believe everything you read/see. That's a motto people should live by. It doesn't produce independent thought. However, the detainees in Gitmo who see the NYT story and pictures of Abu Graib may give them a furvor that they will want to lie to just make people hate the US. And that same veracity that you speak of will cause people like you to believe the story against the US.

So that immediately makes it a lie, does it? That prisoners from all corners of the world, that speak different languages and might not have had any contact with each other while in prison all made the same claim. Prisoners who have been released because the US military agrees that they had nothing to do with al Qaeda - in other words, INNOCENT people - all make the same claim.
Yet in your opinion, because they were prisoners, this makes them liars.
Exactly why would they make this up?
You say that it's to help al Qaeda's cause.
Yet the US military has found, after 3 years of interrogation, that they have nothing to do with al Qaeda. Nothing. If they did, they'd still be there.
Since they don't have any terrorist ties, what is the reason why they want people to hate the US?

And when has the New York Times been required reading of Muslims from all round the world. I wasn't even aware that they published a Russian edition, Kuwait edition, Algerian edition....
Incidently, the NYT was reporting what these people said, not the other way round. Exactly why would the US military let the prisoners in Gitmo read the NYT? You're not making much sense there. You clutching at straws trying to claim that the only reason all those released prisoners have made the same claim is because they've read it in the NYT.

Yet the US military has found, after 3 years of interrogation, that they have nothing to do with al Qaeda. Nothing. If they did, they'd still be there.
Since they don't have any terrorist ties, what is the reason why they want people to hate the US?


You'll notice that some have been released. Precisely because it was determined that they had nothing to do with al-Q.

The vast majority, however, are still there. Hmm. They must have something to do with al-Q.

You'll notice that some have been released. Precisely because it was determined that they had nothing to do with al-Q.

The vast majority, however, are still there. Hmm. They must have something to do with al-Q.
Yes I did notice, and I did mention it in my post.
The ones who have made the claims are the ones who have been released, are the ones who have nothing to do with al Qaeda.
Which begs the question - if they have nothing to do with al Qaeda, why would they make claims that would help al Qaeda? Unless of course they're just telling the truth as to what happened...

Yes I did notice, and I did mention it in my post.
The ones who have made the claims are the ones who have been released, are the ones who have nothing to do with al Qaeda.
Which begs the question - if they have nothing to do with al Qaeda, why would they make claims that would help al Qaeda? Unless of course they're just telling the truth as to what happened...

Or that they were pissed off for being picked up in the first place. Did that thought ever occur to you too?

Or that they were pissed off for being picked up in the first place. Did that thought ever occur to you too?
Riiiightt...
All of them were pissed off and so all of them conspired to tell the exact same story once released:
Even though there wasn't any reason for them to do so
Even though it was going to help them naught
Even so they were from all around the world
Even though they all spoke different languages so couldn't communicate with each other
Even though they probably didn't have had any contact with each other while in prison in order to come up with this story
Even though a former interpretor also made the same claim

Tell me, have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Either all of the above would have to be true, OR it did happen. Which is more plausible?

Straws, my dear fellow, you're clutching at straws.

Riiiightt...
All of them were pissed off and so all of them conspired to tell the exact same story once released:
Even though there wasn't any reason for them to do so
Even though it was going to help them naught
Even so they were from all around the world
Even though they all spoke different languages so couldn't communicate with each other
Even though they probably didn't have had any contact with each other while in prison in order to come up with this story
Even though a former interpretor also made the same claim
Tell me, have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Either all of the above would have to be true, OR it did happen. Which is more plausible?
Straws, my dear fellow, you're clutching at straws.

Someone gets pissed off enough, yea they very well could say something that isn't true. It IS NOT out of the realm of possibility that they conspired to concoct this story. Not saying that that is true mind you but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

As for Occam's Razor, no I haven't heard of it and nor do I care. We'll never truely know what happen so why are we bickering about something that we no nothing about but only what the media is reporting?

Riiiightt...
All of them were pissed off and so all of them conspired to tell the exact same story once released:
Even though there wasn't any reason for them to do so
Even though it was going to help them naught
Even so they were from all around the world
Even though they all spoke different languages so couldn't communicate with each other
Even though they probably didn't have had any contact with each other while in prison in order to come up with this story
Even though a former interpretor also made the same claim

Tell me, have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Either all of the above would have to be true, OR it did happen. Which is more plausible?

Straws, my dear fellow, you're clutching at straws.

Ockam's Razor: plurality should not be assumed without necessity. How is that relevant?

Sorry, I do agree with you, I just have a thing about people appealing to Ockam's razor when its entirely irrelevant.

. It IS NOT out of the realm of possibility that they conspired to concoct this story.

Well if its not outside the realms of possiblility that they concoted this, then you have to also admit thats its not outside the realms of possibility (actually probably more statistically probable) that they were telling the truth?

It seems that your not really open to the possibility that the Prison Guards are lying, you appear to be making a blanket defence for the alleged abusers.

Well if its not outside the realms of possiblility that they concoted this, then you have to also admit thats its not outside the realms of possibility (actually probably more statistically probable) that they were telling the truth?

It seems that your not really open to the possibility that the Prison Guards are lying, you appear to be making a blanket defence for the alleged abusers.

I love when unwarrented assumptions are made about me. Has it occured to anyone that I might be playing devils advocate here?

So that immediately makes it a lie, does it?
No, i didn't say it made it a lie, i just stated that you shouldn't always believe what you see/read.
That prisoners from all corners of the world, that speak different languages and might not have had any contact with each other while in prison all made the same claim.
They may come from all around the world, but they were picked up in the same place. How do you know they don't speak the same language? Have you ever been in a prison? It's not that hard for prisoners to have contact with one another to share a story of trying to get back at the US once they get out. I admit this is conjecture, but what you are doing is the same.
Prisoners who have been released because the US military agrees that they had nothing to do with al Qaeda - in other words, INNOCENT people - all make the same claim.
Some of the prisoners they released were prisoners who were on the side of al Qaeda, but the US gov't decided that they no longer posed a military threat/use of information, so they released them. Think that could be a possibility?

Yet in your opinion, because they were prisoners, this makes them liars.
I like it when people put words in my mouth. I didn't say they were liars, for all i know they could be telling the truth, i just say to suspect what they say because they may have a grudge against the US.

Exactly why would they make this up?
Because they have a grudge against the US? Because they felt they were held wrongly against their will for so long? Because they are actually in collusion with al Qaeda? Who knows why people do things, i certainly don't claim to. We can only speculate.

You say that it's to help al Qaeda's cause.
Yet the US military has found, after 3 years of interrogation, that they have nothing to do with al Qaeda. Nothing. If they did, they'd still be there.
Since they don't have any terrorist ties, what is the reason why they want people to hate the US?
sources? See above for reasons on hating the US. Specifically being held against their will.

And when has the New York Times been required reading of Muslims from all round the world. I wasn't even aware that they published a Russian edition, Kuwait edition, Algerian edition....
You do realise that english is the most widely spoken in the world? And that most foreign countries outside the US have a proficient english as a second language?

Incidently, the NYT was reporting what these people said, not the other way round. Exactly why would the US military let the prisoners in Gitmo read the NYT? You're not making much sense there. You clutching at straws trying to claim that the only reason all those released prisoners have made the same claim is because they've read it in the NYT.
If this was in response to me, i didn't say they got it off the NYT, there are other news sources in the world besides NYT who would glady skew facts to slander the US. Why would US let prisoners read news stories? The same reason why they let prisoners of the States read news stories and watch tv.


Riiiightt...
All of them were pissed off and so all of them conspired to tell the exact same story once released:
Riiiightt... like we thought they would never ram planes into our buildings.


Even though there wasn't any reason for them to do so
See above about being held against one's will.

Even though it was going to help them naught
would you do something that would only make you feel better, and not get you any monetary or material gain?

Even so they were from all around the world
again, they were captured in the same place.

Even though they all spoke different languages so couldn't communicate with each other
again, english is the most predominate language in the world and most foreign countries have enough of a grasp of english they could communicate.

Even though they probably didn't have had any contact with each other while in prison in order to come up with this story
Prisoners can communicate in prisons. it's a fact of life.

Even though a former interpretor also made the same claim
The interpretor didn't claim the abuses against the Koran, it was the menstrual blood he said (and i'm assuming you were quoting me on the suspected Koran abuse not the overall abuses)

Tell me, have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
no.

Either all of the above would have to be true, OR it did happen. Which is more plausible?
and why is it so out of the realm of possibility for you? because you believe that the simpliest story is the truth? They had over 4 years to come up with a plan to slander the US gov't. That's a long time.

Straws, my dear fellow, you're clutching at straws.
i like straws... they make it easier to drink a coke.

edit
Besides, the main reason for this thread is to start a flamewar. The original post was about a prisoner who died while being interegated(sp).
1. That happened, if not earlier this year, then last year. It's old news.
2. Fass obviously has hate tendencies towards the US, if that was the first time he read the story about the prisoner dying, i can see why he posted, but, IMO, that propaganda train left the station a while ago and he's bringing up an old topic to flame the US hatred he has.

Besides, the main reason for this thread is to start a flamewar. The original post was about a prisoner who died while being interegated(sp).
1. That happened, if not earlier this year, then last year. It's old news.
2. Fass obviously has hate tendencies towards the US, if that was the first time he read the story about the prisoner dying, i can see why he posted, but, IMO, that propaganda train left the station a while ago and he's bringing up an old topic to flame the US hatred he has.
Sorry, but it's not old news. The story came out yesterday.
Also, not all people who you disagree with hate the US. While I can't speak for Fass, I, for one, don't hate the US, I live there, and I care very much about such topics as this. I don't want my country torturing others to death. I doubt Fass is posting this just out of hate for the US, as I would think he would have actually flamebaited a bit then.

Don't peg ad hominem attacks on everybody you disagree with.

In a war or wartime situation bad things happen. Abuse happens and evil happens. We can use a brush to paint everyone on one side or another as either good or evil. Unfortunatly it is never that simple.
US troops are no exception. To believe they are all evil or that the US cause of destroying terorrism is wrong because some sickos in a prison do things like this is no more correct and honest to than denying it happened or brushing it off lightly.
When this abuse is discovered you punish the people responsible. You put them in jail or you execute them when their guilt is proven. You do not demonize an entire organization or nation based upon these acts.

In a war or wartime situation bad things happen. Abuse happens and evil happens. We can use a brush to paint everyone on one side or another as either good or evil. Unfortunatly it is never that simple.
US troops are no exception. To believe they are all evil or that the US cause of destroying terorrism is wrong because some sickos in a prison do things like this is no more correct and honest to than denying it happened or brushing it off lightly.
When this abuse is discovered you punish the people responsible. You put them in jail or you execute them when their guilt is proven. You do not demonize an entire organization or nation based upon these acts.

Just saw the post title about abuse, and knew that the discussion would get to this, with an apologist for the torture justifying everything. Just wanted to stop in and laugh and say that I called it.

Just saw the post title about abuse, and knew that the discussion would get to this, with an apologist for the torture justifying everything. Just wanted to stop in and laugh and say that I called it.

Umm, I can understand your point but what that had to do with my post, which made no excuses or apologies for the abusers, I do not know. Did I not clearly say imprison or execute them? How does that excuse their behavior?

Umm, I can understand your point but what that had to do with my post, which made no excuses or apologies for the abusers, I do not know. Did I not clearly say imprison or execute them? How does that excuse their behavior?

Well my criticism would more be on your determination to absolve higher level authorities of blame when there seems to be significant evidence that these policies are purposely being enforced by the U.S. government, and these instances SHOULD represent how we treat prisoners. We still receive reports today about prisoner abuse at Graihb. The Koran stories (and there are several besides the Newsweek one), the one of the prisoner being shackeled to the ceiling of his cell and dying, that of the U.S. sending prisoners to Uzbekistan knowing full well what will happen, the Amnesty International report on Graihb abuses, and the incident where prisoners were hidden from Amnesty investigators. There are the ghost prisoners held with no charges, who are being tortured and dying as well. There has been a consistent pattern and flow of these reports, and the behavior of the government is telling, that McClellan, for example, would tell Newsweek to apologize for its story saying it caused riots and deaths (a debunked claim), but other substantiated reports of the exact same thing have been coming out for years, and the Gov. has done no apologizing of its own on that front.

The U.S. does have to be accountable for what it does wrong on the war on terror, and these instances of torture ARE to be used as arguments against the legitimacy of the war.

So if the US has to be accountable for its behavior, should the rest of the world be accountable for their own behavior?

So if the US has to be accountable for its behavior, should the rest of the world be accountable for their own behavior?The US Gov should be accountable for the murder and torture commited by their ocupation armies...

just like hitler and his cabinet should been accountable...

The US Gov should be accountable for the murder and torture commited by their ocupation armies

Why am I not surprised that this came up?

Should the rest of the world be accountable for their actions too?

Why am I not surprised that this came up?

Should the rest of the world be accountable for their actions too?every single Gov should be accountable fot the murder and torture that their occupation armies do.

....AND their installed puppet govs do.

to give you an example..all the torture and murder comited by the Afhgan president instaled by the USSR...

...the USSR should be held accountable.

every single Gov should be accountable fot the murder and torture that their occupation armies do.

....AND their installed puppet govs do.

to give you an example..all the torture and murder comited by the Afhgan president instaled by the USSR...

...the USSR should be held accountable.

Then the UN should be held accountable for all of its atrocities that were committed under its flag then. That isn't happening.

Then the UN should be held accountable for all of its atrocities that were committed under its flag then. That isn't happening.the UN does not have an Army...

sovereign Govs send Armies with their own generals...and whenever murder or torture happen...

1# given full exposure...with names and all the details should be made public...if you country sends troops...you should not be able claim "national security" to cover up the murder or torture comited by national soldiers.

2# the soldiers and General be jailed or executed depending on the Country laws...

3# full damages compensation should be paid by the UN.

But they are sent by orders of the UN. Therefore, the UN is just as guilty. Therefore, Koffi Anan should be punished for all the crimes that UN Peacekeepers commit.

If Newsweek wasn't in the wrong then why did they retract the story fully?
Did you bother to investigate what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to say about it? Does the name "Valerie Plame" mean anything?
Hmmm?

But they are sent by orders of the UN. Therefore, the UN is just as guilty. Therefore, Koffi Anan should be punished for all the crimes that UN Peacekeepers commit.the UN cant force anyone to kill other men...

only a Gov can force a man to go to a far way land and kill other men...

the UN cant force anyone to kill other men...

only a Gov can force a man to go to a far way land and kill other men...

The UN lays out the ground rules for the mission. Therefore, any violations done by troops under the flag or by civilians under the flag, should be punished. However, they are not being punished.

At least the US is punishing those responsible.

The UN lays out the ground rules for the mission.but it does not force anyone to do it...

Please prove that this is about oil please? So far, no one has been able to prove this.



In case you haven't noticed BRL, Challabi isn't incharge of the country. Nice try though but you are way way behind the times.



Unlike you being blind by liberal propaganda. When your blinded by that, you can't see anything else.
As for oil, just exactly what else are we supposed to go on? Several new polls have pointed out that the MINORITY OF THE POLLED US CITIZENS AGREE WITH BEING THERE AT ALL, not majority. For every "mission accomplished" something else pops into place and these people still don't have soverignty. They've already had their elections, explain what else IN REAL TERMS what exactly people keep dying there for AND WHY IS IT OUR BUSINESS? (Also, note how petitions have successfully kept Iraq from paying anyone back for this venture)
He's the Deputy Prime Minister. He's in the top 5. Maybe you should notice a little better.
Don't talk about propaganda unless you substitute knowledge for bullsh*t rhetoric. You're as guilty as that and thus equally blinded. Do you feel good now being doomed? Whose mind did you think you'd change with that bullsh*t, anyway?

but it does not force anyone to do it...

Right. Because they know that they'll never get away with forcing the people that supposedly work for them to do what is proper.

No wonder people are now trying to revamp the UN, including Koffi Anan.

As for oil, just exactly what else are we supposed to go on? Several new polls have pointed out that the MINORITY OF THE POLLED US CITIZENS AGREE WITH BEING THERE AT ALL, not majority. For every "mission accomplished" something else pops into place and these people still don't have soverignty. They've already had their elections, explain what else IN REAL TERMS what exactly people keep dying there for AND WHY IS IT OUR BUSINESS? (Also, note how petitions have successfully kept Iraq from paying anyone back for this venture)
He's the Deputy Prime Minister. He's in the top 5. Maybe you should notice a little better.
Don't talk about propaganda unless you substitute knowledge for bullsh*t rhetoric. You're as guilty as that and thus equally blinded. Do you feel good now being doomed? Whose mind did you think you'd change with that bullsh*t, anyway?

No one's! I know for a fact that it wasn't about oil! There are to many facts against this line of BS. I argued this line to much anyway both in my political science classes and here. Its been beaten to death and no one's minds were changed. I'm done arguing it because it isn't worth pointing out why its a ludicrous statement to make.

of course it's not an official US report. It was probably inked by some liberal blogger a la Dan Rather's air-tight Bush records. those were official too! lmao.
Clever feller ya are. Go ahead and post ANYWHERE where the content of the memo was disproven. Anyone. I'll counter, go ahead and mail me. I'll punch it up for ya sometime or if this thread's on in a day, i'll post it. I already did homework, you're still somewhere listening to the likes of Rush "Gettacystouttamyasssoidon'thavetogoto'Nam" Limbaugh. Good for you!
It was the format of having been reprinted through an MS font that was the issue. There were no statements from the administration that proved or conclusively dismissed the veracity of content.

At least the US is punishing those responsible.
Funny. I don't see how making someone the Attorney General is punishment.

Funny. I don't see how making someone the Attorney General is punishment.

Funny! I didn't know the Attorney General did anything wrong that deserved to be punished. Care to point to something that I missed?

Right. Because they know that they'll never get away with forcing the people...there you do...If the UN never forces anyone...
so its the Govs that should be held accountable for Murder and Torture...along with the soldiers and Generals...

there you do...If they dont force anyone...so its the Govs that should be held accountable for Murder and Torture.

Not the governments. ALot of times they don't know what is going on. The people that do the crimes though, need to be punished.

I'm all for it.

It wouldn't matter if the interrogators had asked them nicely with pretty please on top - the people who oppose the mere fact that anyone was detained no matter what they did and that anyone was questioned, no matter what form the questioning took, will oppose and decry ANY treatment and ANY detention and ANY questioning.

I happen not to believe most of the abuse stories as being official policy - I tend to believe they are isolated incidents not related to policy.

Modern interrogation techniques involve the use of drugs. You don't have to beat anyone, or scare them, or make them uncomfortable. Everyone - and I mean everyone - will talk. And the results are far more accurate than anything that involves the use of pain or abuse.

If methamphetamine and versed are used in combination, the person being questioned will freely talk, will see the questioner as their friend, feel at ease in the situation no matter how agitated they were to begin with, and will have no memory of ever being questioned or having given any answers at all.

They will come around later, thinking they've had a drug-induced nap, but won't remember any details after the injection.

Yes, there's probably the interrogator here and there with a foot up his own ass who wants to play like he's in the movies. But considering how effective the drugs are (you can question the person again and again and compare their answers, and they have no way to lie or cover up since they can't remember what they said the last time), why you would believe that physical abuse is the standard practice is beyond me.

Not one of you could resist the meth/versed combination. Not one.



Jah, mein herr, you are so very right. Next we will join you in goosesteepping around ze compound und trampling those ninnies who question anything your great stinking foetid military leadership asks.


You can then throw us bones, on which to chew, and we can listen to the great oratory skillls of Herr Bush! Please do not kick me oh great one. I agree with you, please spare me your hamhanded polticial logic and please especially don't kick me with your jackbooted fooot, which instead I will kiss. I question nothing anyone tells me. Even though our fathers and grandfathers gave their lives that such a perversion of truth and logic ever be repeated. Your uniform means your are correct, please don't beat me!.

Funny! I didn't know the Attorney General did anything wrong that deserved to be punished. Care to point to something that I missed?
Gonzales? Memos declaring Gevena Convention "quaint" and authorizing torture?

Unless I got his position wrong, in which case I stand corrected.

Gonzales? Memos declaring Gevena Convention "quaint" and authorizing torture?

Unless I got his position wrong, in which case I stand corrected.

Yep you do have his position wrong.

The Geneva Convention protects the following types of people:

Soldiers of a recognised Government's Army (definately not al Qaeda)
Non-combatants (again, not al Qaeda)
Legitimate resisters to occupation (which al Qaeda certainly is not, it is an international terrorist gang)

Since al Qaeda can't fall into one of the groups protected by the Geneva Convention, the Convention doesn't apply.

Oh, and another thing, for the Convention to be applicable, recripocity is needed, i.e. 2 nations are at war, the Convention applies of BOTH signed it.

Since the US already has military and civil law against torture independent of the Geneva Convention, laws which have a broader definition of torture than international law (international law requires intent to gather information, US law does not), a piece of advice on the Geneva Convention doesn't say anything about torture one way or the other.

Newsweek had nothing to prove the story, just a rumour, and a non-denial from an uninformed source, they trherefore shouldn't have printed it in the first place.

Sorry but yes they did fully retract it because they did get the story wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/16/newsweek.quran/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-16-newsweek-usat_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/click/rss/0.91/-/2/hi/americas/4553639.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051600443.html

As you can see, yep they did retract the story. Thanks for playing.

BTW: The government didn't pressure them at all. Nice try!
You really should read further down on links that you try to use to support your argument:

But the magazine did not completely disavow the story until Monday's statement from Whitaker. That followed remarks earlier in the day from Bush administration officials who called for a full retraction.

And further down same article:

U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher chided the magazine before Monday's retraction, saying "one would expect more than the kind of correction we've seen so far."

Perhaps this is why you are reluctant to post proof?

And you complain because one known terrorist had water squirted on him? and then died because he was chained to a roof? I think you need to get your perspectives in order.
Perhaps you didn't read the whole story?

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time"

Known terrorist?

Yep you do have his position wrong.
So Gonzales got appointed to what post again? I was pretty damn sure it was the Attorney General.

The Geneva Convention protects the following types of people:

Soldiers of a recognised Government's Army (definately not al Qaeda)
Non-combatants (again, not al Qaeda)
Legitimate resisters to occupation (which al Qaeda certainly is not, it is an international terrorist gang)

Since al Qaeda can't fall into one of the groups protected by the Geneva Convention, the Convention doesn't apply.

Oh, and another thing, for the Convention to be applicable, recripocity is needed, i.e. 2 nations are at war, the Convention applies of BOTH signed it.

Since the US already has military and civil law against torture independent of the Geneva Convention, laws which have a broader definition of torture than international law (international law requires intent to gather information, US law does not), a piece of advice on the Geneva Convention doesn't say anything about torture one way or the other.

Newsweek had nothing to prove the story, just a rumour, and a non-denial from an uninformed source, they trherefore shouldn't have printed it in the first place.
Since they have not been given a trial to show that they are members of Al-Qaeda, they are officially classified as either enemy combatants or noncombatants. Sorry kid, you lose.

They dont care about these events-Amercians are the enemy to them.
When you produce these stories-first they'll ask for proof, then dismiss it as your source wont be credible-by THEIR standards.
They are pleased to hear of Americans suffering and losing. Dont let them tell you any different. They arent concerned with human rights. They are nothing more than anti-Americans pretending to be concerned about human rights.
That is your story and you are sticking to it? WTF do you know? I don't like seeing abuses on either side.

Am I against the Iraq War? Absolutely.
Am I against innocent people dying or getting seriously injured? Absolutely.
Am I against the US soldiers sent into the Iraqi hell hole? Absolutely not.
Am I against the US administration for sending US soldiers into Iraq? Absolutely.

You shouldn't confuse all people who are against the War in Iraq as being anti-American. Don't make rash generalizations.

Although there are anti-Americans on these threads, there are also Americans on these threads who have stated that Iraq should have been nuked. Both of these extreme positions are wrong in my books.

Well my criticism would more be on your determination to absolve higher level authorities of blame when there seems to be significant evidence that these policies are purposely being enforced by the U.S. government, and these instances SHOULD represent how we treat prisoners. We still receive reports today about prisoner abuse at Graihb. The Koran stories (and there are several besides the Newsweek one), the one of the prisoner being shackeled to the ceiling of his cell and dying, that of the U.S. sending prisoners to Uzbekistan knowing full well what will happen, the Amnesty International report on Graihb abuses, and the incident where prisoners were hidden from Amnesty investigators. There are the ghost prisoners held with no charges, who are being tortured and dying as well. There has been a consistent pattern and flow of these reports, and the behavior of the government is telling, that McClellan, for example, would tell Newsweek to apologize for its story saying it caused riots and deaths (a debunked claim), but other substantiated reports of the exact same thing have been coming out for years, and the Gov. has done no apologizing of its own on that front.

The U.S. does have to be accountable for what it does wrong on the war on terror, and these instances of torture ARE to be used as arguments against the legitimacy of the war.

If it can be specifically proven that a leader gave an order to do such a thing then damn right punish them. But the US should not be held responsible for this. The entire US is not doing these actions, a few individuals are and they do not by a long stretch represent the US as a whole. Find the guilty parties and punish them, do not demonize an entire nation by the actions of a few.

If it can be specifically proven that a leader gave an order to do such a thing then damn right punish them. But the US should not be held responsible for this. The entire US is not doing these actions, a few individuals are and they do not by a long stretch represent the US as a whole. Find the guilty parties and punish them, do not demonize an entire nation by the actions of a few.

Ok, well here are some things we very well can blame the government for:
1. Not following Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo
2. Sending prisoners to Uzbekistan (nothing you've said gets the U.S. off the hook for that)
3. The memo from the Justice Department that attempts to legally justify torture, and encourages it, saying "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." So the Justice Department is in on this as well. Not just a soldier or two.
4. Our Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has drafted and circulated several memos trying to justify torture and stretch the limits of what is legally acceptable. for example (http://truthout.org/docs_04/122204B.shtml)
5. We are detaining people WITHOUT NAMING THEM OR HOLDING THEM ON ANY CHARGES. That guy who was shackled to the ceiling of his cell, and ended up dying, had no formal charges against him.

Dude, there are plenty of institutionalized and government endorsed practices which we know damn well push us to the edge, and without enforcement, oversight, or questions, we know perfectly well that we create and encourage the environment where torture and war atrocities are made possible. For these thing the government, until it takes action to undo them, must be held responsible.

If it can be specifically proven that a leader gave an order to do such a thing then damn right punish them.
And also on this note, you have to have the concern when things like these happen to put pressure on the government to come forward with names and answers, because without our concern or our envolvement, the names will remain unnamed and nothing will be specifically proven.

So if you sit back making excuses for the government at every turn, while doing nothing to promote critical investigation of our government, it means little that you support giving people the sentences they deserve once they are proven guilty.

Ok, well here are some things we very well can blame the government for:
1. Not following Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo
2. Sending prisoners to Uzbekistan (nothing you've said gets the U.S. off the hook for that)
3. The memo from the Justice Department that attempts to legally justify torture, and encourages it, saying "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." So the Justice Department is in on this as well. Not just a soldier or two.
4. Our Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has drafted and circulated several memos trying to justify torture and stretch the limits of what is legally acceptable. for example (http://truthout.org/docs_04/122204B.shtml)
5. We are detaining people WITHOUT NAMING THEM OR HOLDING THEM ON ANY CHARGES. That guy who was shackled to the ceiling of his cell, and ended up dying, had no formal charges against him.

Dude, there are plenty of institutionalized and government endorsed practices which we know damn well push us to the edge, and without enforcement, oversight, or questions, we know perfectly well that we create and encourage the environment where torture and war atrocities are made possible. For these thing the government, until it takes action to undo them, must be held responsible.

Again, INDIVIDUALS must be held responsible, not the NATION. That is what I said. The arguement you are making doesn't have much to do with what I am saying. I am not arguing whether bad things have happened and whether justice must be done.
We? So you and I have detained the person and hung him from the ceiling? You and I have tortured and killed? Sorry, no we have not. I did not in anyway force or tell these people to do that. I didn't endorse it or agree with it.

Again, INDIVIDUALS must be held responsible, not the NATION. That is what I said. The arguement you are making doesn't have much to do with what I am saying. I am not arguing whether bad things have happened and whether justice must be done.
We? So you and I have detained the person and hung him from the ceiling? You and I have tortured and killed? Sorry, no we have not. I did not in anyway force or tell these people to do that. I didn't endorse it or agree with it.

I was saying that they are institutionalized and accepted policies of major bodies of our government, not minor occurences of just one or two soldiers. Thus, they DO represent those large bodies as a whole and those large bodies deserve to take some of the blame. My argument DOES apply, and I think you just didn't make the connection.

So INDIVIDUALS in the Department of Defense must be held accountable, but not the Department of Defense? I'd like to know what nation the Department of Defense represents then, perhaps Canada? I don't see how that is not U.S. You have to have enough common sense to understand that when we get as high as the Department of Defense and our own Attorney General, maybe it's time to say that these people are a part of "America", and if the title America is to be used for anything it all, it can be proper that people refer to "America" when they mean its highest officials, it's acceptable practice.

If they can't be said to be a part of "America", than I'd like to know what kind of decision you think represents America. Would you argue that the Iraq War is not something that "America" supported, but just 51% of it's people did?

I meant "we" as in America, which acts on behalf of Americans, and there is NO way you couldn't know that. And if you are going to go so far out of your way to use the wrong definition of "we" on purpose to tell me I've got my perspective wrong you really have no place wasting my time with these arguments.

I was saying that they are institutionalized and accepted policies of major bodies of our government, not minor occurences of just one or two soldiers. Thus, they DO represent those large bodies as a whole and those large bodies deserve to take some of the blame. My argument DOES apply, and I think you just didn't make the connection.

So INDIVIDUALS in the Department of Defense must be held accountable, but not the Department of Defense? I'd like to know what nation the Department of Defense represents then, perhaps Canada? I don't see how that is not U.S. You have to have enough common sense to understand that when we get as high as the Department of Defense and our own Attorney General, maybe it's time to say that these people are a part of "America", and if the title America is to be used for anything it all, it can be proper that people refer to "America" when they mean its highest officials, it's acceptable practice.

If they can't be said to be a part of "America", than I'd like to know what kind of decision you think represents America. Would you argue that the Iraq War is not something that "America" supported, but just 51% of it's people did?

I meant "we" as in America, which acts on behalf of Americans, and there is NO way you couldn't know that. And if you are going to go so far out of your way to use the wrong definition of "we" on purpose to tell me I've got my perspective wrong you really have no place wasting my time with these arguments.

Fine with me, kind of a boring subject anyway. I do not believe I in anyway contributed to these things happening and I will not hold the US responsible for it. You go right ahead though if it makes you feel better or more self righteous. ;)

So Gonzales got appointed to what post again? I was pretty damn sure it was the Attorney General.

This does nothing for your case.

Fine with me, kind of a boring subject anyway. I do not believe I in anyway contributed to these things happening and I will not hold the US responsible for it. You go right ahead though if it makes you feel better or more self righteous. ;)

WTF? Now you give priority to calling me self righteous and all that BS, but won't take the time to elaborate on what it is that you call "America" ???

WTF? Now you give priority to calling me self righteous and all that BS, but won't take the time to elaborate on what it is that you call "America" ???

Ah don't pay that no mind. I get my back up quick and shoot my mouth off and regret it later. I'm generally a polite person, you caught one of my rare small flare ups.
Truth is I just am not interested enough to really argue that much about it and I got a bit annoyed you thought I was deliberately being dishonest in my arguements by using a different context of we. If I used "we" in an incorrect manner it was in no way deliberate.

With the number of allegations, and the amount of witnesses and evidence, there can be little doubt that these instances or torture and human rights abuses were systematic and ordered from above, not the "isolated instances of a few bad eggs in the lower ranks" that the publicity machine tried to sell us.

Ockam's Razor: plurality should not be assumed without necessity. How is that relevant?

Sorry, I do agree with you, I just have a thing about people appealing to Ockam's razor when its entirely irrelevant.
I always thought of Occam's razor as "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". In other words, the simpliest explanation is the most likely explanation.

I think Occam's razor was suited very well what Corneliu was suggesting. For his explanation to be true needed extremely convoluted reasoning and rationalisation - several ex-prisoners, found to have nothing to do with al Qaeda, somehow conspired together while in prison without the US military noticing to tell the same lie when released, even though at that time they had no idea that they would ever be released and managed to convey this to each other even though they couldn't speak the same language. There was no apparent reason for telling this lie, as they have no ties to al Qaeda and thus no reason to help it's cause.

Or they told the truth.

Which needs more 'entities' to explain the result?


I do agree with you that it's used far too often and applied wrongly far too often.

(btw it's spelt Occam, not Ockam. Then again for years I used to call it Okrams for some reason. I also say chimney as chimbley, but that's more to do with it sounding better).

With the number of allegations, and the amount of witnesses and evidence, there can be little doubt that these instances or torture and human rights abuses were systematic and ordered from above, not the "isolated instances of a few bad eggs in the lower ranks" that the publicity machine tried to sell us.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they were systematic, nor ordered from above. I think it was properly implied that there was a large lee-way in what was considered 'acceptable' and a blind eye was turned to the initial abuses.
In these conditions, it could so easily and so quickly go completely out of control.
You should read up on the "Sanford Prison Experiment' to see just how quickly social order can deteriorate within a prison setting. It's quite frightening just how close we are to losing it.

Though considering this has been happening world-wide and has continued to occur and the Pentagon has apparently done little or nothing to prevent it. THAT needs to be investigated. Because that indicates, to me at least, compliance and a disinterest in stopping the abuses. The people higher up who decided to ignore these problems need to be found and charged.

The UN lays out the ground rules for the mission. Therefore, any violations done by troops under the flag or by civilians under the flag, should be punished. However, they are not being punished.

At least the US is punishing those responsible.
However, it appears that the US is not punishing ALL those that are responsible?

Meanwhile, the UN, hampered by the US, has been diligently setting up the International Criminal Court (http://www.worldfederalistscanada.org/icceffective.html) to deal with such abuses and crimes:

ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf)

As of 12 May 2005, 99 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Conspicuously absent from this group....The United States of America. I wonder why??

The States Parties to the Rome Statute (http://www.icc-cpi.int/asp/statesparties.html)

So, as you are wont to say....."thanks for playing".

However, it appears that the US is not punishing ALL those that are responsible?

Hey give us a break. We only have enough forces for one conflict at a time. :D

Meanwhile, the UN, hampered by the US, has been diligently setting up the International Criminal Court (http://www.worldfederalistscanada.org/icceffective.html) to deal with such abuses and crimes:

ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf)

As of 12 May 2005, 99 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Conspicuously absent from this group....The United States of America. I wonder why??

The States Parties to the Rome Statute (http://www.icc-cpi.int/asp/statesparties.html)

So, as you are wont to say....."thanks for playing".

Probably because we prosecute our own people and war criminals maybe? We don't have to be a party to every treaty you know. Sorry but we are still a soveriegn nation and as such, we can exercise our rights to not be part of treaties. If you don't like that, to bad.

BTW CH, You haven't replied to my comment in the Political Science thread.

We don't have to be a party to every treaty you know. Sorry but we are still a soveriegn nation and as such, we can exercise our rights to not be part of treaties. If you don't like that, to bad.
lets follow up your logic

North Korea and Iran are sovereign nations...

They can be part of the treaties they wish...If Bush don't like that, too bad.

Sorry, but it's not old news. The story came out yesterday.
Also, not all people who you disagree with hate the US. While I can't speak for Fass, I, for one, don't hate the US, I live there, and I care very much about such topics as this. I don't want my country torturing others to death. I doubt Fass is posting this just out of hate for the US, as I would think he would have actually flamebaited a bit then.

Don't peg ad hominem attacks on everybody you disagree with.

"The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002" - NY Times


old news. They just added a new twist to it.

i'm not going to change anyone's opinion here, and they're not gonna change mine. so i'll give you this picture.

http://www.applefritter.com/images/arguing-5194_640x480.jpg

Jesus Fucking Christ.

It will never end.

Personally I can no longer believe this is some isolated or unordered abuse. The military has gone down another rung on my scale of respect we should have for the military, for me it's now a 3/10. Hun, freaking Huns.

Let it be known that this crap is NOT being done in my name. Don't even pretend - this is sadism, not by any stretch of the imagination a defense of MY rights.

All I can do is apolgoize on behalf of the 49% who didn't vote for this.

I usually have to disclose that I voted for Kerry on any foreign chatrooms x_x

I must disagree about the huns remark, I think it to be more of a financial draft and following orders under threat of being thrown in the brig. I made a remark about them being not far from huns [namely attack dogs], and got a few angry PMs. I then did some research, and two of my great-great-great grandparents were in the civil war on the side of the confederates. Though none of the fought [one was a medic, the other was a chaplin], they had to endure the horrors of war first-hand all the same. It then occured to me: it is very hard to be of sound judgement in such a situation when one could die at any given time.

I doubt, though, that they would do such things if not ordered to, but we cannot know what they would do for sure. But based on such abuses, I would assume that there is a very good chance they would.

:rolleyes: People will be people.

Before I speak my piece, I am against the war in Iraq, and condemn these actions.

Having said that, I understand why it happens.

For example, sleep deprivation (and I'm not talking about the kind used in interrogations, I'm talking about soldiers getting about an hour of sleep a day) has an interesting effect on the brain. Studies conducted on live fire drills with special forces (the best of the BEST, mentally conditioned and all that) showed a complete innability to distinguish between hostile and innocent targets after 40 hours with no sleep. Every target on the range was in tatters. Right and wrong becomes a triviality.

Many soldiers dehumanize "the enemy" because if they didnt they would crack; some do. How else could you handle witnessing or inflicting such destruction?

Combine either of these two factors with boredom, stress and absolute power over the prisoner, and what do you think will happen?

Anyway, please, dont go off on rants about how American troops are so brutal and are the big bad wolf come to steal children in the night. Some crack. Most dont. Accept this fact, or walk a mile in their boots first.

Incedently, does anyone remember Vietnam, and how the vets were spat on by little misguided twits? We should have learned from that mistake then; they had gone through enough. This is yet another unpopular war (for good reason); if you feel strongly about it, write your elected representatives. Don't blame the soldiers as a body, they just work there.

lets follow up your logic

North Korea and Iran are sovereign nations...

They can be part of the treaties they wish...If Bush don't like that, too bad.

Correct. So what is this proving? Nothing.

Hey give us a break. We only have enough forces for one conflict at a time. :D
No, what you really mean is that your forces are causing conflicts all the time. :eek:

Probably because we prosecute our own people and war criminals maybe? We don't have to be a party to every treaty you know. Sorry but we are still a soveriegn nation and as such, we can exercise our rights to not be part of treaties. If you don't like that, to bad.
Apparently you do a poor job of prosecuting your own war criminals, and that the US wants to remain above the law, by enforcing US laws whenever, and wherever possible in dealing with terrorists, and those suspected of terrorism.

Apparently, US treatment of detainees is less than appropriate.

BTW CH, You haven't replied to my comment in the Political Science thread.
Well that makes us even then?

You still haven't proven (nor are you likely to) your contention that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi.

The UN lays out the ground rules for the mission. Therefore, any violations done by troops under the flag or by civilians under the flag, should be punished. However, they are not being punished.

At least the US is punishing those responsible.
As an add on:

"The United Nations joined the condemnation of the alleged abuse as "utterly unacceptable" on Sunday and called for the American military to allow an investigation by Afghan human rights officials."

I am sure that the US authorities will be all over this one..... right? NOT!!

No, what you really mean is that your forces are causing conflicts all the time. :eek:

We can't help it if we're finally hunting down the assholes that decided to mess with us.

Apparently you do a poor job of prosecuting your own war criminals, and that the US wants to remain above the law, by enforcing US laws whenever, and wherever possible in dealing with terrorists, and those suspected of terrorism.

*yawns* prove it!

Apparently, US treatment of detainees is less than appropriate.

If they're not protected by the conventions, screw them. They're lucky we didn't execute them on the spot.

Well that makes us even then?

What? No shock that my gf is a liberal?

You still haven't proven (nor are you likely to) your contention that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi.

Killing civilians=Mostly foreigners

Killing police and military personel=iraqis

However, here's something that is very interesting. The Sunnis are finally getting off of their butts and is beginning to join the political process.

As an add on:

"The United Nations joined the condemnation of the alleged abuse as "utterly unacceptable" on Sunday and called for the American military to allow an investigation by Afghan human rights officials."

I am sure that the US authorities will be all over this one..... right? NOT!!

Well when they start doing something about their own abuses and scandles, then we'll talk.

No, what you really mean is that your forces are causing conflicts all the time. :eek:

:rolleyes: Please, learn to distinguish between a grunt who gets sent overseas and Dubaya. Remember, I live in Canada and American foreign policy pisses me off too.

The marine on the street has to deal with carbombs, sniperfire and driveby shootemups. Give him some credit, because I really doubt he wants to be there any more than you want him to be.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2003/trall031004.gif

'nuff said.

lets follow up your logic

North Korea and Iran are sovereign nations...

They can be part of the treaties they wish...If Bush don't like that, too bad.Correct. So what is this proving? Nothing.
I means that when Bush whines about sovereign Countries researching for Weapons...he is pissing upwards...and gravity will bring all his piss on himself.

its nice to see that after 50 years of abuse, genocide, war and oppresion, the iraqi people get what they deserve :rolleyes: peace, freedom and democracy
peace and freedom in Iraq hahahahahahaah. you make me laugh

If the New York Times is publishing an "official" US Report, I wonder whether or not it's actually a US report... given how liberal-biased the Times is.
most of these anti-US stories come from people who are liberal, and US liberals espouse many of the central tenets of socialism... call it guilt by association.
source on either of these?

peace and freedom in Iraq hahahahahahaah. you make me laugh

Why is it funny since that is precisely what is going to happen. Now that the Sunnis are getting off of their butts and are now going to participate in the political process, its going to help.

somehow i doubt that having a select few Sunnis being allowed in the government based on U.S. affirmative action is going to help stop the insurgency

somehow i doubt that having a select few Sunnis being allowed in the government based on U.S. affirmative action is going to help stop the insurgency

Care to show me where its only a select few please?

Care to show me where its only a select few please?
??? as in the U.S. specifically designed the government to have a certain number of the top ministers and government officials be Sunnis. These people don't necessarily get in on their own merit, they are allowed in because of the fact that they are Sunnis.

??? as in the U.S. specifically designed the government to have a certain number of the top ministers and government officials be Sunnis. These people don't necessarily get in on their own merit, they are allowed in because of the fact that they are Sunnis.

Sunnis are now joining the political scene. I'm not talking about the ones that were alreadyhelping. More of them are joining and said they will cooperate with the new government and form a constitution and participate in elections.

Sunnis are now joining the political scene. I'm not talking about the ones that were alreadyhelping. More of them are joining and said they will cooperate with the new government and form a constitution and participate in elections.
source?

source?

CNN
MSNBC
Washington Post
Fox News

And I'm sure it'll be in the 2 local papers here as well when they arrive tomorrow morning.

Why is it funny since that is precisely what is going to happen. Now that the Sunnis are getting off of their butts and are now going to participate in the political process, its going to help.

Hmmm...

There will not be peace and democracy in iraq for two reasons.

1. None of them (the Iraqis) want us there. They will continue to rebel until we leave
2. As soon as we leave, there will be another ruthless dictator who does some sort of shit. Because, apparently Iraq doesn't want democracy (they are doing a most excellent job of preventing it).

I do not see Iraq becoming a democracy (at least not a STABLE democracy. An unstable "democracy", maybe). The fact that everyone blindly beleives that we are capable of doing this is naive at best. Most democracies, including that of the US, have come from the majority of the population inside the country not only wanting democracy, but brave enough to do something. We cannot tell the Iraqi's that they are stupid and need democracy, so unless they magically change their minds soon, we are going to be stuck with this for quite awhile

CNN
MSNBC
Washington Post
Fox News

And I'm sure it'll be in the 2 local papers here as well when they arrive tomorrow morning.
1. dont use fox news
2. give me an article

1. dont use fox news
2. give me an article

Give me a few minutes and I'll use a link from ALL major news sources. DOn't dictate to me what sources to use.

http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W4RH04D1934CB6EB9EF7F3C9D414E0
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/21/iraq.main/index.html

These are just 2 links I've found right now. I'll search for more.

1. None of them (the Iraqis) want us there. They will continue to rebel until we leave
you do realize that most of the insurgency is foreign fighters? and that saying that "None" of the Iraqi's want us there is a bit of a stretch, i'm sure there's at least a small percentage who do want us there.
2. As soon as we leave, there will be another ruthless dictator who does some sort of shit. Because, apparently Iraq doesn't want democracy (they are doing a most excellent job of preventing it)
speculation as far as a new dictatorship.... i personally don't think that the US would allow another dictatorship to take place over saddam. I wouldn't say that Iraq isn't preventing democracy... you have to realize, democracy is a LOOOOOONG process. look at Russia, they've only been democratic for 20+ years and they still have problems. Don't think democracy can grow overnight. A good example of Iraqi's wanting democracy is in the numbers that went out to vote.

I do not see Iraq becoming a democracy (at least not a STABLE democracy. An unstable "democracy", maybe). The fact that everyone blindly beleives that we are capable of doing this is naive at best. Most democracies, including that of the US, have come from the majority of the population inside the country not only wanting democracy, but brave enough to do something. We cannot tell the Iraqi's that they are stupid and need democracy, so unless they magically change their minds soon, we are going to be stuck with this for quite awhile
more conjecture, but you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not blind to the fact that it will be very hard for iraq to be truly democratic and as peaceful as most "modern" countries, but i believe it can be done, call me an optimist. However, it's now time to move on and get over the blame of the US attacking Iraq w/o the world behind it. It's time to move on and stabilize(sp) the country as best as we (the coalition, which includes the now Iraqi gov't, not just US) can.

And, on a side note... do you think the coalition would still be there if the insurgency quit doing what it was doing? I don't think so.

There was no prisoner abuse before 9-11.

But 9-11 happened anyway. If you read Osama's writing, they did 9-11 solely because US forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War - and had maintained a presence there afterwards.

No other cause is mentioned by Osama. None.

Insurgents in Iraq are not fighting solely because of prisoner abuse. And nothing short of restoring the Sunnis to power in Iraq so they can lord it over the Kurds and Shiites will satisfy them.

As far as prisoner abuse goes, it's regrettable, but I do not see it as official policy - merely the acts of people who got out of hand.

I say this because there ARE peculiarly effective interrogation techniques that involve the use of deception and drugs that NO ONE can resist - and the person being interrogated will have no memory at all of ever being questioned.

Note that while there are some who have been released from captivity, they profess their innocence. It probably took some time to verify their stories - and then they were released.

The vast majority at Guantanamo, however, remain there. I find it highly unlikely that those who remain there are innocent or somehow not involved in al-Qaeda.

:rolleyes: Please, learn to distinguish between a grunt who gets sent overseas and Dubaya. Remember, I live in Canada and American foreign policy pisses me off too.

The marine on the street has to deal with carbombs, sniperfire and driveby shootemups. Give him some credit, because I really doubt he wants to be there any more than you want him to be.
I fully understand the plight of the poor grunt who gets sent over to Iraq/Afghanistan to do their jobs. I do blame the administration for the ones that have been unnecessarily sent into Iraq.

However, I do believe that those that are involved in the torture of prisoners, who, IMHO are acting on orders from superiors, are sick puppies in the first place. There are also sick troops who will shoot Iraqis for sport.

Having said all that, I do believe that the majority would rather be elsewhere than in Iraq.

Hey give us a break. We only have enough forces for one conflict at a time. :D



Probably because we prosecute our own people and war criminals maybe? We don't have to be a party to every treaty you know. Sorry but we are still a soveriegn nation and as such, we can exercise our rights to not be part of treaties. If you don't like that, to bad.

BTW CH, You haven't replied to my comment in the Political Science thread.
BTW, Corneliu, looks like you haven't responded to my thread either. How 'bout some proof?
"I know for a fact ..."

There was no prisoner abuse before 9-11.

But 9-11 happened anyway. If you read Osama's writing, they did 9-11 solely because US forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War - and had maintained a presence there afterwards.

No other cause is mentioned by Osama. None.
You read *his writing* when?
You, of course, can replicate said writing for the people here just so NO ONE will get confused about what was ACTUALLY said and what was MEANT?
Maybe in a prior post? Maybe another thread?
....

BTW, Corneliu, looks like you haven't responded to my thread either. How 'bout some proof?
"I know for a fact ..."
Maybe he is actually waiting for the printing presses to ...........

Maybe he is actually waiting for the printing presses to ...........
Heh, to disregard the Downing Street Memo?
*pulls back one of many curtains*

...
The secret Downing Street memo


SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING From: Matthew RycroftDate: 23 July 2002S 195 /02cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair CampbellIRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULYCopy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq. This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were:(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.


The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT

...
So how are you doing these days, CanuckHeaven?

So how are you doing these days, CanuckHeaven?
I am doing well, thanks for asking. Hope all is well with you too.

Keep up the good work Straughn......exposing the truth, and shaking the honesty out of the diehard apologists!!

I am doing well, thanks for asking. Hope all is well with you too.

Keep up the good work Straughn......exposing the truth, and shaking the honesty out of the diehard apologists!!
Everything seems better to me in the summer, so .... yeehaw!
*bows*
Keep up the good fight mon capitan.

of course it's not an official US report. It was probably inked by some liberal blogger a la Dan Rather's air-tight Bush records. those were official too! lmao.
During those six months Bush got permission from his National Guard superiors to attend non-flying drills in Montgomery. Also during that time he was officially grounded after he failed to take an annual physical examination required to maintain flying status. But the records show Bush received no pay or credits between April 16 and late October.
The Boston Globe reported Feb. 12 that Bush’s suspension from flight duty while he was in Alabama “should have prompted an investigation by his commander” in Houston under Air Force regulations in effect at the time. The Globe also said “It is unclear whether Bush's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, ordered any inquiry, as required.” Killian is deceased.
That tends to support Bush's statement that he did perform duty in Alabama, though it falls short of conclusive proof.
On Feb. 13, the White House released hundreds of additional pages from Bush’s military records. Nothing in those files, however, provided any further documentation of Bush’s presence at Donnelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama beyond the single dental examination record.
The Dallas Morning News reported Feb. 12 an allegation that Bush documents were discarded in 1997. The News said a retired Guard Lieutenant Colonel, Bill Burkett, said that in 1997 he overheard then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, tell the chief of the National Guard to get the Bush file and make certain "there's not anything there that will embarrass the governor." The newspaper quoted Burkett as saying that a few days later he saw Mr. Bush's file and documents from it discarded in a trash can, and that he recognized the documents as retirement point summaries and pay forms.
The trash-can allegation is puzzling because the type of documents alleged to be discarded are the same type of documents that the White House produced Feb. 10 after receiving copies from and Air Force Reserve storage facility in Denver, and which the White House now cites as proof of Bush’s service.
The New York Times also quoted Burkett Feb. 12 as saying he overheard Bush aides requesting a review of Bush’s personnel files in 1997, but the Times did not report any allegation from Burkett that documents had been discarded. Both the Times and Dallas Morning News reported denials from various Guard officials and Bush aides that any documents had been destroyed.
On Feb. 13, moreover, the Boston Globe reported that Burkett’s account is contradicted by a key witness, a friend of Burkett who was present at the time and place Burkett claims to have seen documents discarded.

The Globe reported:

But a key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false.

George O. Conn, a former chief warrant officer with the Guard and a friend of Burkett's, is the person whom Burkett says led him to the room where the Bush records were being vetted. But Conn says he never saw anyone combing through the Bush file or discarding records.

"I have no recall of that," Conn said. "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada."

/\The above is curteousy of provided link at factcheck.org/\
Thanks! You've been SWELL.
Ciao!

BTW, Corneliu, looks like you haven't responded to my thread either. How 'bout some proof?
"I know for a fact ..."

Know for a fact what? Besides I'm in no mood to debate.

I fully understand the plight of the poor grunt who gets sent over to Iraq/Afghanistan to do their jobs. I do blame the administration for the ones that have been unnecessarily sent into Iraq.

However, I do believe that those that are involved in the torture of prisoners, who, IMHO are acting on orders from superiors, are sick puppies in the first place. There are also sick troops who will shoot Iraqis for sport.

Having said all that, I do believe that the majority would rather be elsewhere than in Iraq.
Uh, no. There are no soldiers shooting Iraqis for sport, because if there were we would know about it. There are imbedded journalists EVERYWHERE, and before you get all "the press is controlled", it isn't, or we never would have heard about any of these abuses, or that incident where a wounded insurgent was shot (IMO, it was the right thing to do; he could have tripped a grenade, and then everyone would be going "why didnt the soldiers shoot him"). The troops are simply more responsible than you think they are.

Btw, what "torture" are you talking about? Sleep deprivation? Attempts at seduction? Thats how you get information. Whether you think they are cruel or not, there are things a captured insurgent can let the US in on - who recruited him, where he came from and how he got in-country, assuming he was foreign.

There are no orders coming from superior officers telling the guards to make little pyramids out of nude men. If this were true, there would be no pictures, would there.

Uh, no. There are no soldiers shooting Iraqis for sport, because if there were we would know about it. There are imbedded journalists EVERYWHERE, and before you get all "the press is controlled", it isn't, or we never would have heard about any of these abuses, or that incident where a wounded insurgent was shot (IMO, it was the right thing to do; he could have tripped a grenade, and then everyone would be going "why didnt the soldiers shoot him"). The troops are simply more responsible than you think they are.

Btw, what "torture" are you talking about? Sleep deprivation? Attempts at seduction? Thats how you get information. Whether you think they are cruel or not, there are things a captured insurgent can let the US in on - who recruited him, where he came from and how he got in-country, assuming he was foreign.

There are no orders coming from superior officers telling the guards to make little pyramids out of nude men. If this were true, there would be no pictures, would there.

Thank you for exposing what is actually true and not what some people on here perceive to be a truth when it ain't. keep up the good work.

We can't help it if we're finally hunting down the assholes that decided to mess with us.
Iraq had no plans to mess with the US, so what is your excuse there?

*yawns* prove it!
Here is a good example just in from Afghanistan (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116862579409_33?hub=topstories):

U.S. President George Bush on Monday ruled out Afghan President Hamid Karzai's request to hand over command of U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

"Of course, our troops will respond to U.S. commanders," Bush said, with Karzai standing at his side at the White House in Washington where they are meeting Monday.

At the same time, Bush said the relationship between the two nations is "to cooperate and consult" on military operations.

Let this be a warning to Iraq as well? In other words, we will give you limited "democracy", when you want to control your own affairs and stop prisoner abuse.

It gets worse:

"It's important for the Afghan people to understand that we have a strategic vision about our relationship with Afghanistan," Bush said.

He said the United States and Afghanistan had signed a "strategic partnership" that establishes "regular high-level exchanges on ... economic issues of mutual interest."

"We will consult with Afghanistan if it perceives its territorial integrity, independence or security is at risk," Bush said.

All hail Bushmocracy!!

If they're not protected by the conventions, screw them. They're lucky we didn't execute them on the spot.
Guilty until proven innocent? That is un American?

What? No shock that my gf is a liberal?
And you told her that you are one too?

Killing civilians=Mostly foreigners

Killing police and military personel=iraqis

Here is some recent news (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-21-insurgents-cash_x.htm?csp=34) that will make you happy:

Iraq's new security forces are heavily infiltrated by insurgents, and the guerrilla groups have access to almost unlimited money to pay for deadly attacks, according to a U.S. defense official who provided new details on the evolution of the rebels.

More proof:

Insurgents are domestic, Sunni and nationalist (http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=874)

By the time this weekend's elections pass, US-led forces will have been fighting against Iraqi insurgents for almost two years.

In that time, the American assessment of exactly whom they are fighting has remained remarkably consistent: a band of about 8,000 guerrillas, primarily Sunni remnants of the old Ba'athist regime who have found common cause with foreign terrorists, several hundred of whom are actively fighting inside Iraq.

Further down the article:

Some Iraqi officials have gone as far as to dispute even the estimates made by US officials of the number of insurgents. Maj Gen Muhammed Abdallah al-Shahwani, the head of Iraq's new intelligence service, recently told a London-based Arabic newspaper that he believed the insurgents totalled 20,000 to 30,000 and were aided by about 200,000 sympathetic Sunnis in central Iraq.

However, here's something that is very interesting. The Sunnis are finally getting off of their butts and is beginning to join the political process.
The Sunnis will become more involved as time goes on and realize that one of the biggest goals of the Shiite majority, is to eliminate US troops on Iraq soil.

Uh, no. There are no soldiers shooting Iraqis for sport, because if there were we would know about it. There are imbedded journalists EVERYWHERE, and before you get all "the press is controlled", it isn't, or we never would have heard about any of these abuses, or that incident where a wounded insurgent was shot (IMO, it was the right thing to do; he could have tripped a grenade, and then everyone would be going "why didnt the soldiers shoot him"). The troops are simply more responsible than you think they are.

Btw, what "torture" are you talking about? Sleep deprivation? Attempts at seduction? Thats how you get information. Whether you think they are cruel or not, there are things a captured insurgent can let the US in on - who recruited him, where he came from and how he got in-country, assuming he was foreign.

There are no orders coming from superior officers telling the guards to make little pyramids out of nude men. If this were true, there would be no pictures, would there.
In regards to shooting Iraqis for sport, I saw a CNN video clip of exactly that.

In regards to torture methods, the ones you mention pale in comparison to what happened at Abu Ghraib and the most recently exposed cases in Afghanistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4566159.stm), where an innocent man died (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4570941.stm).

Torture methods were discussed on the highest of levels (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5022681/site/newsweek/) according to the leaked documents by Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5197853/site/newsweek).

Since you say you are Canadian, you do remember what happened (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/) to Maher Arar?

The hands are not as clean as you think they are.

In regards to shooting Iraqis for sport, I saw a CNN video clip of exactly that.

In regards to torture methods, the ones you mention pale in comparison to what happened at Abu Ghraib and the most recently exposed cases in Afghanistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4566159.stm), where an innocent man died (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4570941.stm).
It was torture, sure. But it was not interrogation. They are prime examples of how far the human mind can be pushed before it leaves its moral boundries behind. If they were interrogating them, it was at their own discretion; this is self evident. The pentagon knows documents like these leak; They have nothing to gain by torturing prisoners except a black eye from the media. Every crime needs a motive; there is no motive for government involvement here. Also we can be reasonably sure this is the case because the methods of torture are so crude.

Torture methods were discussed on the highest of levels (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5022681/site/newsweek/) according to the leaked documents by Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5197853/site/newsweek).

Since you say you are Canadian, you do remember what happened (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/) to Maher Arar?

The hands are not as clean as you think they are.

http://www.commando.org/somalia.php

Heres a much better look into the Somali affair, if you have the time to read it; its quite long. Maybe you'll also gain some insight into why these things happen.

In regards to shooting Iraqis for sport, I saw a CNN video clip of exactly that.
:D Sorry man but I think I'd have heard of something like that; The only clips I've seen that are even CLOSE to that are the one I mentioned earlier with the wounded insurgent, and one where a cameraman was shot from about 100m because the troops thought his camera was an RPG.

Please post a link to this clip or a credible news source backing you up.

I am not an apologist for the few who did this, and I do not support the war (in fact I have attended 3 protests to date, how about you?) but I simply will not support the slander of an armed forces that has fought and joked and died in trenches, in fields and on beaches with Canadian soldiers so many times before. Should we have critizised the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole for the actions of those few men at Maher Arar? As a result, the Airborne was dissolved, but not soley because of what happened. That is a different story altogether.

You read *his writing* when?
You, of course, can replicate said writing for the people here just so NO ONE will get confused about what was ACTUALLY said and what was MEANT?
Maybe in a prior post? Maybe another thread?
....

Osama has posted his material on the web - in Arabic. It has been translated into English, and has been reposted on the Federation of American Scientists website as well as Global Security's website.

Perhaps you should read it.

Perhaps you should also consult an original Arabic text from the time of the First Crusades. You'll find that Osama is plagiarizing most of his text from Zangi.

But then you don't read Arabic, do you?

You can't possibly hope to understand what's going on if you don't bother to read what they consider to be the important stuff. Start with the Koran, then work your way out. It's essential that you do this - there is a heterodoxy within Islam that most people tend to ignore - but it is a rich heterodoxy that explains quite a bit about what's going on.

BTW, I get private lessons in Arabic as well as translation services from the man who wrote this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592280250/qid=1116939802/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-3679463-4638440?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

He's currently writing a book on the worldwide Salafist movement - which goes beyond al-Qaeda - but then you probably wouldn't be interested.

Malcolm Nance, Real World Rescue (RWR) Director of Special Operations, has 20 years of experience in high-risk travel throughout Europe, the Middle East and Africa as a member of the US military intelligence community. As an anti- and counter-terrorism specialist and former survival instructor for the Department of Defense, he has trained thousands of individuals on surviving critical incidents overseas.

You might also want to read the al-Qaeda documents yourself, in English translation, in two books by Ben Venzke. But that might alter your non-Republican view of the world.

Oh yes, Shame on the American troops for humiliating the same people who'd attatch electric wires to the troops' balls, the same people who'd skin a human being alive if the situation were reversed. Shame on them. :rolleyes:

And you told her that you are one too?

Here's the kicker. I told her I was a republican. Figure that one out.

The Sunnis will become more involved as time goes on and realize that one of the biggest goals of the Shiite majority, is to eliminate US troops on Iraq soil.

The only way that is going to happen is when the security situation changes for the better.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7937016/site/newsweek/

i hope this may put the Koran abuse thing to rest. But then, again, it's coming from the media, so you hafta take it with a grain of salt.

Know for a fact what? Besides I'm in no mood to debate.
"Come, come, Mr. Lee ... don't play 'dumb' with me." - Naked Lunch
:rolleyes:
If you aren't here to debate then are you here to agree?
:confused:

No one's! I know for a fact that it wasn't about oil! There are to many facts against this line of BS. I argued this line to much anyway both in my political science classes and here. Its been beaten to death and no one's minds were changed. I'm done arguing it because it isn't worth pointing out why its a ludicrous statement to make.
This is a reminder what i asked about. *tap, tap*

"Come, come, Mr. Lee ... don't play 'dumb' with me." - Naked Lunch
:rolleyes:
If you aren't here to debate then are you here to agree?
:confused:

Nice fallacy. However, I'm in no mood to debate. My life outside of NS has gotten very confusing within 36 hours.

This is a reminder what i asked about. *tap, tap*

I know for a fact its not about oil. Here's why since you obviously don't know!

1. Gas prices are sky high. This alone beats the notion of that line.
2. We aren't seeing a decrease in prices in things that require oil to be made. They have increased.

Please prove that this is about oil please? So far, no one has been able to prove this.



In case you haven't noticed BRL, Challabi isn't incharge of the country. Nice try though but you are way way behind the times.



Unlike you being blind by liberal propaganda. When your blinded by that, you can't see anything else.
Just because it seemed like a good time .....

Chalabi's rebound displays power void

Former leader was forced out, then regained U.S. support; new government finds it needs his skills.

By Timothy M. Phelps / Newsday

Ahmad Chalabi, the former exile leader who has veered between hero and villain both in the United States and Iraq, is back in power.
Last year Chalabi, long the sweetheart of Bush administration neoconservatives, was charged with counterfeiting in Iraq, was wanted for embezzlement in Jordan and was accused by U.S. intelligence officials of spying for Iran.
His archrival, Ayad Allawi, became interim prime minister last May. Paul Bremer, then effectively the U.S. governor of Iraq, sent armed Americans to back an ignominious Iraqi police raid of Chalabi's home and offices that same month. Chalabi had to flee the country.
Now, Allawi and Bremer are gone. Chalabi is a deputy prime minister. And, as a man once convicted of financial corruption, he now has tremendous power over Iraq's finances, in part because his nephew is finance minister and an ally, Ibram Bahr al-Uloum, is minister of oil.
All charges against Chalabi in Iraq have been dropped. He is negotiating a settlement of the 1992 embezzlement conviction in Jordan by paying millions of dollars in restitution to defrauded bank account holders, eschewing what he said last week in a statement are offers of a royal pardon.
He also seems to have regained acceptance at the highest levels of the U.S. government. In recent days, both Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have reached out to Chalabi by telephone for help in quieting the rising violence in Iraq, according to Richard Perle, a former top Pentagon adviser who is close to Cheney and Chalabi.
Chalabi's resurrection has confounded his critics and cheered his admirers. But even his critics admire his intelligence and political agility.
"He's twice as smart as most people and works very, very hard and knows how to manipulate people," said David Mack, formerly the No. 2 Middle East official in the State Department. "He is very good. Ahmad is not to be underestimated."
Chalabi's latest rise to power was accomplished despite having almost no political base and, according to the polls, being at times the least popular of Iraqi leaders. How did he do it?
Some say the seeds of his regrowth were sown in January 2004 when, still in the good graces of the United States, he surprised Iraq observers by coming out against a U.S. plan for quick elections that was opposed by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Chalabi, a secular Shia, seemed an odd partner for Iraq's senior Shia cleric at a time when the role of religion in Iraq was the central debate. But late last year, Chalabi and a number of his supporters appeared on a Sistani-backed list of candidates for parliament, alongside some of the most religiously conservative Shias in Iraq. Because Iraqis voted only once -- for a slate of candidates rather than individuals --Chalabi was elected despite his unpopularity.
Amatzia Baram, an Israeli expert on Iraq, says one reason he has succeeded so far is that Iraq's political neophytes cannot operate without him, particularly as they prepare to draft a new constitution. "He is the only one amongst all the politicians in Iraq who really knows the ins and outs of backroom horse-trading and negotiations," Baram said. "He is so adept at this kind of negotiating power positions. I think they really need him."
Another reason for his success may be that he is very close to Iran, where most of Iraq's new Shia leaders lived in exile. "Just before the war he went to Tehran, and they really gave him the red-carpet treatment as a future leader of Iraq," Baram said.
Also cited by some experts is Chalabi's zealous desire to rid the government of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. But that has become a problem for the United States, which is concerned about further alienating moderate Sunnis and driving them into the insurgency's arms.
Perle said Chalabi's problems with the United States are the result of a campaign of vilification and misinformation waged against him by the CIA, which he said had a longstanding grudge over a failed CIA coup that Chalabi had warned it about. Now the tide is changing, Perle said.

I know for a fact its not about oil. Here's why since you obviously don't know!

1. Gas prices are sky high. This alone beats the notion of that line.
2. We aren't seeing a decrease in prices in things that require oil to be made. They have increased.
Has it ever occurred to you you might be completely misinterpreting one cause for another circumstance?

Nice fallacy. However, I'm in no mood to debate. My life outside of NS has gotten very confusing within 36 hours.
So you're bringing your IRL woes to a playground? For shame. ;)
Maybe IRL is more confusing than this place ... i hope you understand the difference.

Has it ever occurred to you you might be completely misinterpreting one cause for another circumstance?

despite the fact that we haven't built any refineries in the last 20 years thanks to greenieweenis nope.

I know for a fact its not about oil. Here's why since you obviously don't know!

1. Gas prices are sky high. This alone beats the notion of that line.
2. We aren't seeing a decrease in prices in things that require oil to be made. They have increased.
Just because the CONSUMER is left with a bill DOES NOT MEAN THE COMPANY ISN'T REAPING A BETTER PROFIT.
Maybe you'd care to post a *FACT* about what that discrepancy is.
Besides, the redcoats have it worse than the yanks. Quitchabellyachin!~

Just because the CONSUMER is left with a bill DOES NOT MEAN THE COMPANY ISN'T REAPING A BETTER PROFIT.
Maybe you'd care to post a *FACT* about what that discrepancy is.
Besides, the redcoats have it worse than the yanks. Quitchabellyachin!~

Can't compare the 2 because the redcoats pay more in taxes :p

despite the fact that we haven't built any refineries in the last 20 years thanks to greenieweenis nope.
I find it quite irksome about that and believe it or not i mostly agree with you - except that "greenieweenies" aren't quite as powerful as you might think. Perhaps you'd care to post an example of a "powerful" one - one with enough $$$$ (note: "money makes the world go round, world go round, world go round" {Cabaret}) or enough actual political clout with the kind of income that "greenieweenies" obviously can rake in ... really, though, i'm doing a project and your help is appreciated.

Can't compare the 2 because the redcoats pay more in taxes :p
Price is a price on a market .. 'specially if it's that kind of product.
What about the corporate profit intake here? You do of course understand that's where the money comes in, and with said pursuit, there isn't a sh*tload of $ to make off this deal? Really?

Just so you know i'm on a public compie here so i'm likely to be a dancin' phantom. I do want to hear a few examples of powerful "greenieweenies" that prevented the refineries from happening. If i don't reply, think me a coward if you like but IRL is a harsh mistress. TG it if you have something.

BTW, I get private lessons in Arabic as well as translation services from the man who wrote this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592280250/qid=1116939802/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-3679463-4638440?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

He's currently writing a book on the worldwide Salafist movement - which goes beyond al-Qaeda - but then you probably wouldn't be interested.

Malcolm Nance, Real World Rescue (RWR) Director of Special Operations, has 20 years of experience in high-risk travel throughout Europe, the Middle East and Africa as a member of the US military intelligence community. As an anti- and counter-terrorism specialist and former survival instructor for the Department of Defense, he has trained thousands of individuals on surviving critical incidents overseas.

You might also want to read the al-Qaeda documents yourself, in English translation, in two books by Ben Venzke. But that might alter your non-Republican view of the world.
Well i appreciate that you somewhat indulged me. I'd asked if you read them and i'd asked you to replicate them, so i guess this is what'll have to do.
You shouldn't assume my political affiliation just because i point out the pricks. I've voted Republican moderate more than anything else.

Apologists for American mistreatment of prisoners might note that most prisoners aren't even suspected of terrorist or insugent activities. Most broke curfew, were caught looting or were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It was torture, sure. But it was not interrogation. They are prime examples of how far the human mind can be pushed before it leaves its moral boundries behind. If they were interrogating them, it was at their own discretion; this is self evident. The pentagon knows documents like these leak; They have nothing to gain by torturing prisoners except a black eye from the media. Every crime needs a motive; there is no motive for government involvement here. Also we can be reasonably sure this is the case because the methods of torture are so crude.
Perhaps you may be convinced of that....I am not, hence the distaste for the sad news about torture.

http://www.commando.org/somalia.php

Heres a much better look into the Somali affair, if you have the time to read it; its quite long. Maybe you'll also gain some insight into why these things happen.
You are right, it is a long read and I did read some of it. Of course the life of a soldier is not a bed of roses, but those are the risks one takes when signing on the dotted line.

:D Sorry man but I think I'd have heard of something like that; The only clips I've seen that are even CLOSE to that are the one I mentioned earlier with the wounded insurgent, and one where a cameraman was shot from about 100m because the troops thought his camera was an RPG.

Please post a link to this clip or a credible news source backing you up.

Here ya go. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)

I am not an apologist for the few who did this, and I do not support the war (in fact I have attended 3 protests to date, how about you?) but I simply will not support the slander of an armed forces that has fought and joked and died in trenches, in fields and on beaches with Canadian soldiers so many times before.
My input has been to post here against the War ion Iraq. The majority of my posts have been about Iraq.

Should we have critizised the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole for the actions of those few men at Maher Arar?
Huh? Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen who was deported by the US under the US Patriot Act from the US to another country, where he was brutally tortured. Canada wasn't informed until long after the deportation.

You are right, it is a long read and I did read some of it. Of course the life of a soldier is not a bed of roses, but those are the risks one takes when signing on the dotted line.
How far did you read? Did you get to the point where he became delerious and went "hunting" with his sidearm?

Yes, the mental/stress risks are there and yes, they accepted them. That doesnt make them any less real and it doesnt make them dismissable as the reason behind acts like these.

You have never been in combat. You cannot critizise.
Here ya go. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)
This is going to make me unpopular...

That wasn't an Iraqi, he was an insurgent, and hostile. Yes he was wounded.

Such is the nature of combat. Do you think it was different in all the "popular wars" like WWII? Or do you believe we should slander those veterans as well?

He was an enemy target and he was vulnerable. They took the shot. And yes, combat is a serious adrenaline rush. The same rush can break an ordinary person, but a soldier has been trained for it, accepts it, and when a group of them are in a dangerous situation, they feed off it. If they didn't, you could expect alot more cold cargo on the bird home.

Huh? Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen who was deported by the US under the US Patriot Act from the US to another country, where he was brutally tortured. Canada wasn't informed until long after the deportation.
My mistake, and my apologies. I am *loosely* familiar with the case, but the name didn't click; I assumed you were talking about the base in which a somali citizen was killed. Again, my apologies.

Please prove that this is about oil please? So far, no one has been able to prove this.

.

Still blinded by the extremist propaganda? Wake up kid, it is your world to, but I understand that you feel happy in a third and 4th Reich. Yes, they speak English in the Reich, not German, that was only the example.

Still blinded by the extremist propaganda? Wake up kid, it is your world to, but I understand that you feel happy in a third and 4th Reich. Yes, they speak English in the Reich, not German, that was only the example.
Whoa...
Asking for proof that the war was about oil makes one a Nazi how, exactly?

Still blinded by the extremist propaganda? Wake up kid, it is your world to, but I understand that you feel happy in a third and 4th Reich. Yes, they speak English in the Reich, not German, that was only the example.

I'm fully awake. However, I'm still waiting on the proof that this whole thing is for oil. No one has been able to prove it. Do you have the proof that its for oil?

BTW: I don't listen to anyone's propaganda. Why don't you wake up eh? As for the Reich, that was destroyed with the German Surrender to the Allies in 1945. You really need to check your history more. Did Germany get a 4th dictator and renamed it the 4th Reich? News to me!

Gonzales? Memos declaring Gevena Convention "quaint" and authorizing torture?

Unless I got his position wrong, in which case I stand corrected.
Yes, you're wrong. People gotta stop mischaracterizing this memo. Here it is http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

All Gonzalez does is tell President Bush that he was legally correct in not granting Geneva Convention rules onto Al Qaeda and the Taliban prisoners.

You've taken that "quaint" comment out of context. Here's the full line:
"[the war on terror] renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commisary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments."
You'll find it near the top of the second page. Is anyone going to argue that captured terrorists have the right to have these privileges?

I'm fully awake. However, I'm still waiting on the proof that this whole thing is for oil. No one has been able to prove it. Do you have the proof that its for oil?

Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0317-23.htm)

Is there any doubts?