Child abuse in Iraqi jails on TV [Archive]

sammi jo

07-11-2004, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Scott
How do you know what the video shows?

I haven't seen it myself. I do not want to view images of children being attacked by burly guards, but if it's been on German television, (see link), then I would guess that lots of people in Germany have seen it.

Some more links:

http://www.swr.de/report/archiv/sendungen/040705/02/frames.html
http://www.swr.de/report/archiv/sendungen/040705/02/04070502.ram
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000987.html
http://www.swr.de/report/presse/04070501.rtf
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6430.htm
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,307200,00.html
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_20927.html
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2004/julio/mar6/28revela.html
http://www.lnreview.co.uk/links/001967.php
http://www.the-signal.com/Archive/ViewStory.asp?StoryID=4911

This stuff is all over the world, but not in our pathetic ass-licking corporate media. Liberal media...give me a goddam break.

:rolleyes:

We are being made to look like complete and total jerks....not just abusers and torturers of prisoners, which is bad enough. Now the world is seeing evidence that our troops are imprisoning and torturing kids, my blood boils, and I get sad beyond words. I dont have any children yet but imagine what parents must think when their sons and daughters are subject to this kind of treatment at the hands of "liberators". In one of the links, Rumsfeld even gave approval to the methods of torture. How long is it going to take America to rebuild our image in the world? If we are now being viewed as a "rogue nation", then lets pass the blame to where it belongs...right at the door of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, D.C.

:mad:

sammi jo

07-11-2004, 11:47 PM

This link describes what the Norwegian authorities saw:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article823183.ece

Yikes.

:(

NaplesX

07-11-2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
I haven't seen it myself. I do not want to view images of children being attacked by burly guards, but if it's been on German television, (see link), then I would guess that lots of people in Germany have seen it.

Some more links:

http://www.swr.de/report/archiv/sendungen/040705/02/frames.html
http://www.swr.de/report/archiv/sendungen/040705/02/04070502.ram
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000987.html
http://www.swr.de/report/presse/04070501.rtf
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6430.htm
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,307200,00.html
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_20927.html
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2004/julio/mar6/28revela.html
http://www.lnreview.co.uk/links/001967.php
http://www.the-signal.com/Archive/ViewStory.asp?StoryID=4911

This stuff is all over the world, but not in our pathetic ass-licking corporate media. Liberal media...give me a goddam break.

:rolleyes:

We are being made to look like complete and total jerks....not just abusers and torturers of prisoners, which is bad enough. Now the world is seeing evidence that our troops are imprisoning and torturing kids, my blood boils, and I get sad beyond words. I dont have any children yet but imagine what parents must think when their sons and daughters are subject to this kind of treatment at the hands of "liberators". In one of the links, Rumsfeld even gave approval to the methods of torture. How long is it going to take America to rebuild our image in the world? If we are now being viewed as a "rogue nation", then lets pass the blame to where it belongs...right at the door of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, D.C.

:mad: Kids? It appears that we are talking about young adults, ages 15 and up. As most people know that a 15 year old can easily pass as someone much older. A 15 year old can also easily pick up a weapon and fight with the "grown-ups". So yeah, I suppose they are kids, technically, but they can be terrorists just like their fathers and uncles.

If they were abused, that was wrong, but if they took part in terrorist activities, they chose their path.

kneelbeforezod

07-12-2004, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Kids? It appears that we are talking about young adults, ages 15 and up. As most people know that a 15 year old can easily pass as someone much older. A 15 year old can also easily pick up a weapon and fight with the "grown-ups". So yeah, I suppose they are kids, technically, but they can be terrorists just like their fathers and uncles.

If they were abused, that was wrong, but if they took part in terrorist activities, they chose their path.

Weak.

addabox

07-12-2004, 02:11 AM

Wrong Robot

07-12-2004, 02:18 AM

what's his signature say, something about him being a Sociopath that doesn't know right from wrong:rolleyes:

sammi jo

07-12-2004, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX

If they were abused, that was wrong, but if they took part in terrorist activities, they chose their path. [/B]

Terrorism? If *your* nation was occupied by a massively powerful foreign invader, I don't think you would take too kindly to being termed a "terrorist".

Hassan i Sabbah

07-12-2004, 03:28 AM

Scott

07-12-2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Terrorism? If *your* nation was occupied by a massively powerful foreign invader, I don't think you would take too kindly to being termed a "terrorist".

Well if they are bombing their own people to stop the formation of a representative government ... what would you call it? Freedom Fighters?

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Weak.

No. You know what's weak? Sammi jo's anti-American, anti-military, anti-corporate, anti-Bush bullshit. That's what's weak. We're about two seconds away from Sammi jo screaming "Baby killers!, Baby Killers!".

Meanhwile, we have a "Vietnam War Hero" running for President that has admitted on video that he committed war crimes.

I HAVE seen THAT video.

Scott

07-12-2004, 03:52 PM

pfflam

07-12-2004, 04:13 PM

Yeah . . . that's right . . . you hate us beating children . . . clearly you are 'Anti-American'!!!

This is the catch phrase du jour among the terminally blind.

Get a whiff of reality here folks . . . its bad enough that we have been beating prisoners, that may, or may not have been, in some way, fighting in Iraq . . .which is BENEATH the US and the America which I love, but we even seem to be beating children.

YOUR not questioning this in any fashion IS ANTI-AMERICAN
If these things are in fact going on, your allowing them to happen without comment is Anti-American,
Your allowing American values to be so degraded and distorted is Anti-American
Your unquestioned acceptance that whatever we are doing, be it possibly torturing people, including children is disgusting and straight forward Anti-American
Who would allow our reputation and our image to be so desecrated is Anti-American

And the excuses I'm reading are those of sociopaths.

The only possible defence for this is that it isn't actually happening . . . other than that, to not even second guess the possibility that it is, is disgusting . . . but not as disgusting as making excuses for it.

Let's hope that they are not real reports and that the fake reporting is merely that of Anti-Americans . . . but let us not become so enamoured of ANYTHING that displeases liberals, or that our forces are doing that we make excuses for degrading and disgusting actions that are not what our country stands for!!!!

kneelbeforezod

07-12-2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
No. You know what's weak? Sammi jo's anti-American, anti-military, anti-corporate, anti-Bush bullshit.
Being so partisan that you would attempt to excuse the abuse of children because "A 15 year old can also easily pick up a weapon and fight with the "grown-ups"" is weak. It's a pathetic, thoughtless, reactionary statement to make. I'd like to think that NaplesX was suitably embarrassed once he/she sobered up.

I have never seen Sammi Jo post anything here to indicate that she hates America or the men and women who serve in America's armed forces. As for protesting the misue and mistreatment of the men and women who serve in America's armed forces or criticizing corporate greed, fraud and irresponsibility...what's bullshit about that?

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Being so partisan that you would attempt to excuse the abuse of children because "A 15 year old can also easily pick up a weapon and fight with the "grown-ups"" is weak. It's a pathetic, thoughtless, reactionary statement to make. I'd like to think that NaplesX was suitably embarrassed once he/she sobered up.

I have never seen Sammi Jo post anything here to indicate that she hates America or the men and women who serve in America's armed forces. As for protesting the misue and mistreatment of the men and women who serve in America's armed forces or criticizing corporate greed, fraud and irresponsibility...what's bullshit about that?

God Almighty! Then you haven't been around long enough. Sammi jo doesn't hate the military memebers THEMSELVES, she hates the Big, Evil "Military-Inustrial Complex". Satan!

A 15 year old CAN and DOES participate in attacks. It was a valid point. But beyond this, sammi jo has presented her usual degree of backing for her claims, which amounts to ZERO.

As for you, pfflam, your implication is that "child abuse" and prisoner abuse are widespread happenings in the military. You have no proof of that.

NaplesX

07-12-2004, 05:47 PM

The real question is this:

Why is AQ and every other terrorist group around the world using kids to fight their battles? The parents of these kids should be ashamed. These people should be ashamed.

It is sheer foolishness to assume that because someone is yet to be considered an adult in our society, that that person couldn't possibly be a threat to your family. As it sits right now, any Arab Muslim male could be threat to you or me. Wake up.

I am so sick of all of you libs trying to sell the notion that it is intrinsically patriotic to cast aspersions. It is no longer about intellectually questioning policy, rather it is all about assuming wrong motive first then analyze later based entirely on partisan politics. What a load. be a mushroom if you wish.

At this point you lefties can only see negative, so that is what you preach. You don't even realize that your glasses are tinted, you've gotten used to it and you like it. Despite that, the rest of us are happy for the Iraqi people, knowing that they have embarked on tough yet worthwhile journey to freedom.

If you think that freedom is easy and sterile, you need to only look back at the battles that this country engaged in. Brother fought brother or father. The number of deaths make Iraq look miniscule. But thank God those battles happened. Thank God that one brother stood up to the other for freedom's sake.

War IS hell, but freedom and liberty are worth fighting and dying for. Wether it be for your family or for people you do not even know.

These "freedom fighters" as you so obviously view them - what are they fighting for, really?

Most of these people are fighting for freedom from freedom and liberty - for an extremist muslim state of affairs that once existed in Afghanistan. Think about that when you cry for terrorists to be treated fairly. When terrorists get their hands on chemical, biological, or nuclear materials, and they will, to target you or someone that you love, and they are, your tinted glass will become a bit more clear.

You people are creating an environment much like vietnam, in that you are spreading so much derision and doubt about doing the right thing that half of America now is unsure about the merits of it's own actions. Almost every interview I have read or seen or heard of an US Soldier, that soldier speaks highly of his/her mission and the good that has been accomplished there. In like manner, every interview with a returned soldier reveals that they have returned to hear falsehoods about what is actually happening in Iraq.

It won't be long, at this pace that soldiers are returning to crowds of protesters calling them "Baby Killers" and "Murderers" and who knows what else. When it happens, remember that I predicted this 6 months ago. Sammy Jo seems to be all to willing to jump on that bandwagon, right now.

We are only a couple of degrees from that right now. Think about it, based on what you see in AO right now:

If you agree that the war was needed and the results were a good thing, you are a bush loving, war mongering, Neocon sociopath. You obviously condone torture of not only terrorists, but also children. I would venture to say that an overwhelming majority of the soldiers in Iraq support the war and their commander in chief. Just going on what is stated here, they are all bush loving, war mongering, Neocon sociopaths. The leap is a small one, just like back in the day.

If bush wins another tight election, lefties will scream foul even louder and we will have Vietnam all over again. Mark these words. Even if Kerry wins you may still see it, as a result of the libs winning.

Pacifism is a band-aid, history has told us this. When will you guys learn.

But hey, that's my Bush loving, war mongering, Neocon sociopath's two cents.

Take it for what it's worth.

Scott

07-12-2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by pfflam
Yeah . . . that's right . . . you hate us beating children . . . clearly you are 'Anti-American'!!!

This is the catch phrase du jour among the terminally blind.

Get a whiff of reality here folks . . . its bad enough that we have been beating prisoners, that may, or may not have been, in some way, fighting in Iraq . . .which is BENEATH the US and the America which I love, but we even seem to be beating children.

Where did you read that? Not in any of the above links I'm sure. You just made it up. Making up slanderous lies about the US? Hummmmm? What could we call that?

Originally posted by pfflam
YOUR not questioning this in any fashion IS ANTI-AMERICAN

Questioning what? Alligations of something we have no information about? Yea I'll question that.

Originally posted by pfflam
If these things are in fact going on, your allowing them to happen without comment is Anti-American,

So now you admit you don't know what's going on?

Originally posted by pfflam
Your allowing American values to be so degraded and distorted is Anti-American
Your unquestioned acceptance that whatever we are doing, be it possibly torturing people, including children is disgusting and straight forward Anti-American
Who would allow our reputation and our image to be so desecrated is Anti-American

So by me not lapping up every little bit of anti-american trip that SJO post I'm "allowing" all of these alleged things that we don't know what are to happen. HOW DARE I!

Originally posted by pfflam
And the excuses I'm reading are those of sociopaths.

How can we make up excuses for things that are unknown?

Originally posted by pfflam
The only possible defence for this is that it isn't actually happening . . . other than that, to not even second guess the possibility that it is, is disgusting . . . but not as disgusting as making excuses for it.

Defence for what? Alligations of things that we don't have informaiton about?

Originally posted by pfflam
Let's hope that they are not real reports and that the fake reporting is merely that of Anti-Americans

Reports of what? SJO posted nothing. No details of anything. Just that someone might think that it may have been possible for something to maybe have been possible to have happened. I blame Bush!

Originally posted by pfflam
. . . but let us not become so enamoured of ANYTHING that displeases liberals, or that our forces are doing that we make excuses for degrading and disgusting actions that are not what our country stands for!!!!

You can get off the soap box now.

Aquatic

07-12-2004, 06:12 PM

Alright that's about enough of that SDW. I hate America. How do you like that? I have hated it for a long time. Yeah even when Clinton was President. You know what? I live here and I hate America. I hate you. I hate most of America because they are stupid and mean, always looking to get a deal, the cheap way out, at someone else's expense, never willing to volunteer or put in more than there share. Your average American is fat and stupid. Why do even liberals always have to claim to be patriotic? That's weak. I have been thinking a lot about the concept of nationalism lately and I've decided I don't like it. It is unnecessary. Hopefully someday the whole world will be one country. Its headquarters to your and much stupid fat Americans' chagrin will probably not be in America.

NaplesX you sound like you are trying to defend torture of 15 year olds. That's sick. You're a mess man.

Disclaimer: Lots of Americans are good. Lots of people volunteer. I was a Boy Scout and I met a lot of great people that put in way more than their share. And you know what? They don't begin to account for the vast majority of stupid fat Americans that let people like Bush screw up the world. Despite all this some people keep fighting the good fight like McCain, Sanders, Jeffords, or Dean, and that's why I'm still optimistic in the long run.

addabox

07-12-2004, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX ]The real question is this:

Why is AQ and every other terrorist group around the world using kids to fight their battles? The parents of these kids should be ashamed. These people should be ashamed.

A typical head fake. "AQ and every other terrorist org" casually conflates AQ with the people of Iraq.

It is sheer foolishness to assume that because someone is yet to be considered an adult in our society, that that person couldn't possibly be a threat to your family. As it sits right now, any Arab Muslim male could be threat to you or me. Wake up.

The article being cited talks about a 12 year old girl being attacked. We already know that the majority of Iraqis being held are not terrorists or freedom fighters or anything but people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am so sick of all of you libs trying to sell the notion that it is intrinsically patriotic to cast aspersions. It is no longer about intellectually questioning policy, rather it is all about assuming wrong motive first then analyze later based entirely on partisan politics. What a load. be a mushroom if you wish.

You're sick? You would applaud the murder of infants and the torture of 5 year olds if you thought it was being decried by "liberals". You have no moral or ethical center whatsoever, as demonstrated by your posts.

At this point you lefties can only see negative, so that is what you preach. You don't even realize that your glasses are tinted, you've gotten used to it and you like it. Despite that, the rest of us are happy for the Iraqi people, knowing that they have embarked on tough yet worthwhile journey to freedom.

You know nothing of the kind. At this point, it is only wishful thinking to assert that Iraq has embarked on anything. The idea that being horrified by behavior that demeans the stature of my country is mindless negativity is a favorite of yours, I realize, but it still isn't true. As far as I can make out, you would blow a dead horse if it was wrapped in a flag.

If you think that freedom is easy and sterile, you need to only look back at the battles that this country engaged in. Brother fought brother or father. The number of deaths make Iraq look miniscule. But thank God those battles happened. Thank God that one brother stood up to the other for freedom's sake.

I think most of the people here that you have such contempt for are well aware that "freedom" is far more complicated than slogans and moderately good intentions. That's why we're not the ones being foolishly blithe about the prospects of freedom in Iraq.

If you are referencing the civil war, I have no idea what your point is. If not, I have no idea what your point is.

War IS hell, but freedom and liberty are worth fighting and dying for. Wether it be for your family or for people you do not even know.

Nice of you to make this decision for strangers that you know nothing about. "Here's your freedom, it comes wrapped in blood and suffering but you have no right to refuse it. We know best. Particularly those of us safe at home."

These "freedom fighters" as you so obviously view them - what are they fighting for, really?

Most of these people are fighting for freedom from freedom and liberty - for an extremist muslim state of affairs that once existed in Afghanistan. Think about that when you cry for terrorists to be treated fairly. When terrorists get their hands on chemical, biological, or nuclear materials, and they will, to target you or someone that you love, and they are, your tinted glass will become a bit more clear.

You don't have the faintest fucking idea what a given Iraqi is fighting for.
Again, you are assuming that anyone incarcerated by the US is a terrorist, and that they are indistinguishable from al Queda.

This thread is about a report that children as young as 12 are being abused while in American custody. Experience suggests that there is every possibility that these children are simply relatives of people rounded up for questioning. And you start talking about terrorists getting their hands on WOMD. You really can't keep it straight in your head, can you? It's all a big "bad guy" blur, which I suppose is easier than thinking and having sentient reactions.

You people are creating an environment much like vietnam, in that you are spreading so much derision and doubt about doing the right thing that half of America now is unsure about the merits of it's own actions. Almost every interview I have read or seen or heard of an US Soldier, that soldier speaks highly of his/her mission and the good that has been accomplished there. In like manner, every interview with a returned soldier reveals that they have returned to hear falsehoods about what is actually happening in Iraq.

Oh Christ, now the fucked mission in Iraq is "the liberals" fault, just like Vietnam. You haven't read shit about shit, you're just regurgitating the desperate fall back talking points of the baby fucking right.

It won't be long, at this pace that soldiers are returning to crowds of protesters calling them "Baby Killers" and "Murderers" and who knows what else. When it happens, remember that I predicted this 6 months ago. Sammy Jo seems to be all to willing to jump on that bandwagon, right now.

I think you may actually be brain damaged.

We are only a couple of degrees from that right now. Think about it, based on what you see in AO right now:

If you agree that the war was needed and the results were a good thing, you are a bush loving, war mongering, Neocon sociopath. You obviously condone torture of not only terrorists, but also children. I would venture to say that an overwhelming majority of the soldiers in Iraq support the war and their commander in chief. Just going on what is stated here, they are all bush loving, war mongering, Neocon sociopaths. The leap is a small one, just like back in the day.

Given the topic of the thread, I'll let the garbled reasoning and complete contempt for the actual views expressed so far speak for themselves.

If bush wins another tight election, lefties will scream foul even louder and we will have Vietnam all over again. Mark these words. Even if Kerry wins you may still see it, as a result of the libs winning.

OK, I'm sure your brain damaged.

Pacifism is a band-aid, history has told us this. When will you guys learn.

Glue has long term effects on cognition. When will you learn?

But hey, that's my Bush loving, war mongering, Neocon sociopath's two cents.

Take it for what it's worth.

Done.

sammi jo

07-12-2004, 06:28 PM

Hmmm...now it's "anti-American and unpatriotic" to protest abusing kids? I know a number of parents who would ........ (fill in the blank)
You guys want to repeal Megan's Law next?

Looks like have child abuse sympathizers on this board? Oh wait...these kids have Muslim or Arabic names...therefore they must be terrorists. Oh, I forgot, all Muslims are terrorists. Yugga yugga yugga.

Stoo

07-12-2004, 06:52 PM

As it sits right now, any Arab Muslim male could be threat to you or me. Wake up.

And this is different from everyone else that could be a threat to me? I am now supposed to go and cower in sheer ter-rar at the Current Threat of The Month ?

If they were abused, that was wrong, but if they took part in terrorist activities, they chose their path.

Do you acutally believe in due process and innocent until proven guilty? Perhaps the (hypotheitically abused) were just obviously guilty, so the beatings could commence without further ado.

Beige_G3

07-12-2004, 07:15 PM

Nasty if true, but I would like to see a little more information to validate these claims. I think you could probably find an example of almost anything happening in a war zone. There have most likely been murders, rapes and who know what else perpetrated by every occupying army since the beginning of time. When you send a man to a foreign land with a flag and a license to kill, bad stuff will happen. War may be a necessity of our imperfect world, but it is very ugly and should always be a very last resort.

kneelbeforezod

07-12-2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
A 15 year old CAN and DOES participate in attacks. Nobody who is even peripherally aware of what goes on in the world disputes that children can and do become involved in conflict situations. That doesn't excuse their being abused.

Originally posted by NaplesX
As it sits right now, any Arab Muslim male could be threat to you or me. Wake up.Wow, Just when I thought you couldn't say anything stupider or more offensive than your earlier remark trying to justify the torture of children...

I am so sick of all of you libs trying to sell the notion that it is intrinsically patriotic to cast aspersions. It is no longer about intellectually questioning policy, rather it is all about assuming wrong motive first then analyze later based entirely on partisan politics. Translation: "I don't like being made to think, so could all of those who do please keep their questions to themselves?"

NaplesX

07-12-2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Nobody who is even peripherally aware of what goes on in the world disputes that children can and do become involved in conflict situations. That doesn't excuse their being abused.

Wow, Just when I thought you couldn't say anything stupider or more offensive than your earlier remark trying to justify the torture of children...

Translation: "I don't like being made to think, so could all of those who do please keep their questions to themselves?" I really think that you should reread my posts. I did not try to justify anything.

You are right I am the stupid one! I actually thought that being that this is an all print (although digital) communication media, that those that use it would actually read and attempt to comprehend.

My bad.

pfflam

07-12-2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
I really think that you should reread my posts. I did not try to justify anything.

You are right I am the stupid one! I actually thought that being that this is an all print (although digital) communication media, that those that use it would actually read and attempt to comprehend.

My bad. I think you should read your own posts.

I would have never entered this thread since I wanted to wait till I had more information about this issue . . . but the manner in which the trio of neo-cons jumped in and started yelling that its 'anti-American' to care about the abuse of a 12 year old by Americans, is simply absurd . . . .

You need to stop and think about this first: if our armed forces are doing this sort of thing, along with the more than 37 mysterious murders while in custody, and, all the documented cases of abuse, then you need to think about how THAT is Anti-American . . . against America's supposedly high moral standard

and stop making excuses for what could be, if it is true, an awful and sordid state of affairs that paints a horrible image of America and Americans.

NaplesX

07-12-2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by addabox
You're sick? You would applaud the murder of infants and the torture of 5 year olds if you thought it was being decried by "liberals". You have no moral or ethical center whatsoever, as demonstrated by your posts.

As far as I can make out, you would blow a dead horse if it was wrapped in a flag.

You don't have the faintest fucking idea what a given Iraqi is fighting for.

You haven't read shit about shit, you're just regurgitating the desperate fall back talking points of the baby fucking right.

I think you may actually be brain damaged.

OK, I'm sure your brain damaged.

Glue has long term effects on cognition. When will you learn?
Did I touch a nerve?

i must say that was one of the most hate filled posts I have read thus far. Although I haven't been around that long here.

Care to explain why you are directly and personally attacking me? I think if you take a breath an look at my post that I did not direst my comments to anyone in particular, except Sammy Jo, because he/she is overreacting IMO.

Scott

07-12-2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by pfflam
...

trio of neo-cons jumped in and started yelling that its 'anti-American' to care about the abuse of a 12 year old by Americans, is simply absurd . . . .

...

12 year old? Abused how and where and when and .... Does anyone know anything about any of it? Or do we just assume the worst off some unstated allegations?

NaplesX

07-12-2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by pfflam
I think you should read your own posts.

I would have never entered this thread since I wanted to wait till I had more information about this issue . . . but the manner in which the trio of neo-cons jumped in and started yelling that its 'anti-American' to care about the abuse of a 12 year old by Americans, is simply absurd . . . .

You need to stop and think about this first: if our armed forces are doing this sort of thing, along with the more than 37 mysterious murders while in custody, and, all the documented cases of abuse, then you need to think about how THAT is Anti-American . . . against America's supposedly high moral standard

and stop making excuses for what could be, if it is true, an awful and sordid state of affairs that paints a horrible image of America and Americans. Look back, I challange you to find a point in time that I said abuse is OK by me. Go on!

I have a 12 year old girl! If someone touched her I would be fit to be tied. However, I am a responsible father and I teach her to respect every human life and that her every action and choice has consequences or rewards, dependent mostly on on those choices. Think about that for a few seconds before you jump all over me. My daughter is her own person at twelve, I have pathetically little control over what she does when she is not in my sight. The only influence I might have is the years of training and good example that I have tried to give her. Think about that for a few.

The responsibility for the girl that you bring up is in the hands of her parents, unless you are saying that some soldiers had some spare time and an extra cell and wanted to have some fun. And if that is the case (read carefully) they should be SHOT.

Once again, I challenge you to go back and find where I have said that any abuse is OK.

Hint: You will have to dig through the many statements I have made condemning such behavior.

kneelbeforezod

07-12-2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again, I challenge you to go back and find where I have said that any abuse is OK.
Originally posted by NaplesX
If they were abused, that was wrong, but if they took part in terrorist activities, they chose their path.

Gon

07-12-2004, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
You people are creating an environment much like vietnam, in that you are spreading so much derision and doubt about doing the right thing that half of America now is unsure about the merits of it's own actions. Almost every interview I have read or seen or heard of an US Soldier, that soldier speaks highly of his/her mission and the good that has been accomplished there. In like manner, every interview with a returned soldier reveals that they have returned to hear falsehoods about what is actually happening in Iraq.See, people have this habit of first acting and then rationalizing their actions. The more serious the action, the more they need to believe in that there is no alternative. Thus, on the average soldiers have a huge bias. This bias is compounded in a professional army, like the US has, because every service member has joined up voluntarily and would (in his own eyes) be a fool if he didn't believe in whatever the army is doing after he himself has made the choice. If you look at Israel, for instance, you will see a great amount of army personnel are vocal in the peace movement.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your post, but do you think the Vietnam War was necessary and should have continued beyond the 5-6 million dead where it was stopped? Exactly what was the objective that should have been accomplished there?

NaplesX

07-12-2004, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
You missed the part where I said it was wrong and the two "ifs" that are in that quote.

Try again.

kneelbeforezod

07-12-2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
You missed the part where I said it was wrong and the two "ifs" that are in that quote.

Try again. Either stand by your statement or rescind it...don't try to weasel out of it by claiming that you have been misunderstood. You say that these children 'chose their path.' I don't see how this can be construed as anything other than an attempt to place the blame for the abuses that they may have experienced with anyone but the perpetrators.

NaplesX

07-12-2004, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Either stand by your statement or rescind it...don't try to weasel out of it by claiming that you have been misunderstood. You say that these children 'chose their path.' I don't see how this can be construed as anything other than an attempt to place the blame for the abuses that they may have experienced with anyone but the perpetrators. Is english a second language for you? If it is then you have a valid excuse for not understanding a clearly stated and carefully written sentence.

I stand by the statements that I made. Read it again if you can't quite get it. There were two statements inside that one sentence.

NaplesX

07-12-2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Gon
See, people have this habit of first acting and then rationalizing their actions. The more serious the action, the more they need to believe in that there is no alternative. Thus, on the average soldiers have a huge bias. This bias is compounded in a professional army, like the US has, because every service member has joined up voluntarily and would (in his own eyes) be a fool if he didn't believe in whatever the army is doing after he himself has made the choice. If you look at Israel, for instance, you will see a great amount of army personnel are vocal in the peace movement.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your post, but do you think the Vietnam War was necessary and should have continued beyond the 5-6 million dead where it was stopped? Exactly what was the objective that should have been accomplished there? Great points, really.

We all should question our actions. This can only improve the future.

The problem with the situation right now is that people have taken it beyond just saying "Is this war doing any good?" to "See, bad things are happening, Bush is a liar.".

This is very dangerous in the middle of a war. It has gone far beyond criticizing a president's policies. Many here are blaming every bad thing that has happened for 3 years on the Commander-in-chief of this current war. I don't know how anyone can spin that as being a good thing. I would say that it may tend to give the enemy some ammo for the propaganda war. It at least makes it easier for them when a chunk of the populace is giving the enemy material to work with.

I let my kids sit down and watch "Tears of the Sun", something that I don't do too often. I don't want to expose them to needless violence. But there were some powerful messages in the movie and I knew it would bring out some questions from my kids. They did not disappoint me. There is a scene where the marines go in and totally wipe out a squad of goons in the act massacring a village. The scene is gruesome and there is a whole lot of killing. I had to stop the movie at this point and discuss it with my kids. It was a very interesting conversation to say the least. But I think it relates to the current war in a number of ways.

Anyway... There is no doubt in my mind that soldiers that have seen "action" sue for peace at every opportunity.

As far as Vietnam goes, many in the know feel that the US was winning that war and would have won if politics was left out of the running of that war.

It just seems that we should have learned from that. Let the military do it's job and WIN the WAR! Change policy after it is done. It is just much more cost effective, in any number of ways.

giant

07-12-2004, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as Vietnam goes, many in the know feel that the US was winning that war and would have won if politics was left out of the running of that war.
:lol:

War with no politics. Classic. :lol:

Hell, vietnam and no politics :lol: :lol:

And through all that, your post doesn't even seem to have a coherent point.

Oh, and "win" a war against an insurgency :lol:

What do you expect, the whole country to just come out of the jungle (or desert) and say, "OK, we give up?" :lol:

War is politics. Military force is just one small, though very visible and dramatic, element.

Gon

07-13-2004, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as Vietnam goes, many in the know feel that the US was winning that war and would have won if politics was left out of the running of that war.

It just seems that we should have learned from that. Let the military do it's job and WIN the WAR! Change policy after it is done. It is just much more cost effective, in any number of ways.See, that's just what I tried to ask you. What would have constituted a "win" in Vietnam? What do you mean by "win"?

As for the latter, is anyone claiming that the troops are to blame for starting the war? Are there many people in US saying that military funding should be cut to make them lose the fight? Are there many people claiming that the US military will have significant losses and fare poorly in actual fighting? I just don't see that happening. I see the world's most powerful military that is able to cause plenty of death and destruction with very little losses of its own - this is self-evident and arguments to the contrary just do not carry any weight. I see people question the politicians' motives, the reasons for the war. I see people who think the military should be a defense force, used only to repel a threat of violence, not to advance economic interests of a small number of corporations by violence.

The way most peace activists and military men think, I guess, is that the best way to support soldiers fighting an unnecessary war is to pull them out before more of them suffer. There are very few who *gain* from wars. I would be extremely wary of those few.

pfflam

07-13-2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Great points, really.

We all should question our actions. This can only improve the future.

The problem with the situation right now is that people have taken it beyond just saying "Is this war doing any good?" to "See, bad things are happening, Bush is a liar.".

This is very dangerous in the middle of a war. It has gone far beyond criticizing a president's policies. Many here are blaming every bad thing that has happened for 3 years on the Commander-in-chief of this current war. I don't know how anyone can spin that as being a good thing. I would say that it may tend to give the enemy some ammo for the propaganda war. It at least makes it easier for them when a chunk of the populace is giving the enemy material to work with.

I let my kids sit down and watch "Tears of the Sun", something that I don't do too often. I don't want to expose them to needless violence. But there were some powerful messages in the movie and I knew it would bring out some questions from my kids. They did not disappoint me. There is a scene where the marines go in and totally wipe out a squad of goons in the act massacring a village. The scene is gruesome and there is a whole lot of killing. I had to stop the movie at this point and discuss it with my kids. It was a very interesting conversation to say the least. But I think it relates to the current war in a number of ways.

Anyway... There is no doubt in my mind that soldiers that have seen "action" sue for peace at every opportunity.

As far as Vietnam goes, many in the know feel that the US was winning that war and would have won if politics was left out of the running of that war.

It just seems that we should have learned from that. Let the military do it's job and WIN the WAR! Change policy after it is done. It is just much more cost effective, in any number of ways. You make these huge statements about what we think . . . but apparently you never actually look at the specifics of what each of us has to say.

Then

you simply dismiss the whole kit and kabootle and decide that any criticism is close to treason 'in a time of war'.

Give me a break . . I have said numerous times that Bush was doing good things when he was . . . . but unfortunately, the majority of those 'good things' were after the very major 'Bad thing' and were all attempts to make the resulting bad things not happen . . .

And this idiotic line about Vietnam!!!! I have nutcase relatives that think that . . and, in all seriousness, they whisper "we shulda used nukes" . . . just stop and make that connection!! . . . they believe the 'politics lost the war' bullshit, while really wanting to have used nukes against the NVietnamese :wow:
If that doesn't tell you something about the kind of reasoning that believes that 'politics' lie then I don't know what else to say . . .:no:

giant

07-13-2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by pfflam
I have nutcase relatives that think that . . and, in all seriousness, they whisper "we shulda used nukes" . . . just stop and make that connection!! . . . they believe the 'politics lost the war' bullshit, while really wanting to have used nukes against the NVietnamese
But don't both naples and your relatives have it totally wrong?!

The argument, as I am familiar with it, was that counter-insurgency tactics had just matured and had they been continued, we would have gained control of the country.

Not only is that argument total BS, but all three of the arguments also demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict from top to bottom.

The One to Rescue

07-13-2004, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
As it sits right now, any Arab Muslim male could be threat to you or me. Wake up.

OMG!!!! I really hope you're gonna get banned for saying such racist crap! So basically, every Arab Muslim is a terrorist and is taught to hijack planes, that's it...?

Well then, since the Columbine shooting a few years ago was perpetrated by Protestant Americans, then, every Protestant American is a threat for me.
Oh well, and what about the IRA? Of course, that must mean that every single European Catholic is a terrorist too!!

See, waking up!

pfflam

07-13-2004, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by The One to Rescue
OMG!!!! I really hope you're gonna get banned for saying such racist crap! So basically, every Arab Muslim is a terrorist and is taught to hijack planes, that's it...?

Well then, since the Columbine shooting a few years ago was perpetrated by Protestant Americans, then, every Protestant American is a threat for me.
Oh well, and what about the IRA? Of course, that must mean that every single European Catholic is a terrorist too!!

See, waking up! Really . . I can't believe this guy.

And he wears it on his sig like he's proud of it . . . . but I think he doesn't really understand what it means.

The One to Rescue

07-13-2004, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by pfflam
Really . . I can't believe this guy.

And he wears it on his sig like he's proud of it . . . . but I think he doesn't really understand what it means.

Think I understood...
Not sure you did though : what I said was that if every Arab Muslim is a potential threat, then virtually everyone is a potential threat!
But maybe you can give me further explanation on what you said...

pfflam

07-13-2004, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by The One to Rescue
Think I understood...
Not sure you did though : what I said was that if every Arab Muslim is a potential threat, then virtually everyone is a potential threat!
But maybe you can give me further explanation on what you said... I was agreeing with you . . . I was referring to NaplesX . . the person who you were responding to.

NaplesX

07-13-2004, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by The One to Rescue
Think I understood...
Not sure you did though : what I said was that if every Arab Muslim is a potential threat, then virtually everyone is a potential threat!
But maybe you can give me further explanation on what you said... Are you directing the question to me? You replied to him but you seem to ask the question of me?

kneelbeforezod

07-13-2004, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
I stand by the statements that I made. Read it again if you can't quite get it. There were two statements inside that one sentence. And it's the second statement I have a problem with. The one where you indicate that you feel any abuse the children in question may have experienced was brought upon themselves.

It's particularly nasty in light of your later statement about having a child of your own of a similar age.

The One to Rescue

07-13-2004, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by pfflam
I was agreeing with you . . . I was referring to NaplesX . . the person who you were responding to.

Oops, major screw up!!! That's what happen when someone whose English is not perfect gets a little angry and tries to read messages too fast and misinterprets them!
Sorry pfflam!

FormerLurker

07-13-2004, 01:19 AM

In Other News, it's fairly obvious there's no mods online tonight.

addabox

07-13-2004, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Did I touch a nerve?

i must say that was one of the most hate filled posts I have read thus far. Although I haven't been around that long here.

Care to explain why you are directly and personally attacking me? I think if you take a breath an look at my post that I did not direst my comments to anyone in particular, except Sammy Jo, because he/she is overreacting IMO.

I am directly and personally attacking you because you profess a philosophy that is so without simple human compassion, imagination or logic that I react in much the same way that I would if I came across a man beating his dog. Angrily, on behalf of what is decent.

I choose not to hide behind such formulations as "all you conservatives", so that I can pretend that I speak to no one in particular.

You have repeatedly argued strenuously in favor of murdering civilians, torturing inmates, waging indiscriminate and wildly disproportionate war, and now, abusing incarcerated children.

In every case you have justified your reflexive brutality by talking about "terrorism", "al Qaeda", "freedom", and "patriotism".

You live in a fantasy world where the very act of abusing a person makes them a "terrorist", and therefore not entitled to basic human rights. In your mind, everyone who finds themselves in an Iraqi prison is perforce an enemy of America who deserves whatever they have coming, despite having your attention repeatedly directed to the fact that military commanders in Iraq admit that most of these people are either common criminals or simply people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You either deliberately, or as the result of some cognitive disorder, refuse to make a distinction between the Iraqi people and "global terrorism/al Qaeda/the gun to America's head" and proceed from there to treat every objection to the abuse of the Iraqi people as an endorsement of the destruction of America.

When called upon it, you profess your innocence and mild heart, until the next time you start spewing your repellent madness.

You say my previous post was "hate filled". I say that explicit expressions of barbarism deserve to be rebuked without reservation.

FormerLurker

07-13-2004, 01:47 AM

addabox:
Pretty stong stuff, even for AO, but I can't say I disagree with anything you are saying.

kozchris

07-13-2004, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article249696.ece

Now there's video of US troops abusing children in Iraqi jails has been aired on German Television. How low can we get, courtesy of the Bush doctrine?

Sammy please tell me what your definition of the Bush doctrine is?
Thanks

Powerdoc

07-13-2004, 02:10 AM

This thread is temporary closed. Me or others mods will analyse it content seriously and take the necessary actions.

Powerdoc

07-13-2004, 05:27 AM

1) Naples X : I will not tolerate this racist comment :

. As it sits right now, any Arab Muslim male could be threat to you or me. Wake up.

2) Aquatic : I will not tolerate that silly comments either :
I hate America. How do you like that? I have hated it for a long time. Yeah even when Clinton was President. You know what? I live here and I hate America. I hate you. I hate most of America because they are stupid and mean, always looking to get a deal, the cheap way out, at someone else's expense, never willing to volunteer or put in more than there share. Your average American is fat and stupid

3) For others. You are not supposed to turn into avengers. If you have something to do, PM a mod, like one of the member did. Things are sufficiently heated on political threads, adding fuel on the fire is not needed.

This thread is re-open. Let's expect that people calmed down this night.

NaplesX

07-13-2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by addabox
I am directly and personally attacking you because you profess a philosophy that is so without simple human compassion, imagination or logic that I react in much the same way that I would if I came across a man beating his dog. Angrily, on behalf of what is decent.

I choose not to hide behind such formulations as "all you conservatives", so that I can pretend that I speak to no one in particular.

You have repeatedly argued strenuously in favor of murdering civilians, torturing inmates, waging indiscriminate and wildly disproportionate war, and now, abusing incarcerated children.

In every case you have justified your reflexive brutality by talking about "terrorism", "al Qaeda", "freedom", and "patriotism".

You live in a fantasy world where the very act of abusing a person makes them a "terrorist", and therefore not entitled to basic human rights. In your mind, everyone who finds themselves in an Iraqi prison is perforce an enemy of America who deserves whatever they have coming, despite having your attention repeatedly directed to the fact that military commanders in Iraq admit that most of these people are either common criminals or simply people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You either deliberately, or as the result of some cognitive disorder, refuse to make a distinction between the Iraqi people and "global terrorism/al Qaeda/the gun to America's head" and proceed from there to treat every objection to the abuse of the Iraqi people as an endorsement of the destruction of America.

When called upon it, you profess your innocence and mild heart, until the next time you start spewing your repellent madness.

You say my previous post was "hate filled". I say that explicit expressions of barbarism deserve to be rebuked without reservation. ABUSING CHILDREN IS BAD, VARY BAD.

Although I think your "righteous indignation" is a bit "hollywood", I am sure that you think you are justified in being so over the top.

I have never argued "strenuously" for any of the things you mention. That, sir is a lie. I hope that you would not traffic in lies, it puts any credibility you have in jeopordy. I have, however argued against the ever-popular knee-jerking that goes on here, as abundantly demonstrated in this thread.

A think most people can easily see that I do not hide anything here. I came into these forums as who I am - something that cannot be said of some here. What exactly would you say I am hiding from?

As far as the "formulations" you accuse me of hiding behind, what would you call the dreaded "Bush doctrine" that is repeatedly mentioned here? Among others.

ABUSING CHILDREN IS BAD, VARY BAD.

I have never and would never:

Beat a dog, rape anyone, abuse incarcerated children, or even ever think about doing such things, but if you must direct your hate at me, it's OK. I won't take it personally. However if your odium has reached such a level with me, I can't imagine the outrage toward people that have actually committed these types of crimes:

"raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side" all thing that presumptive nominee and Senator Kerry admitted to being complacent about, he talked about "awareness of officers at all levels of command.", which he was a part. You must be very upset with him, no?

Your english comprehension is obviously not your strong suit, so I will not hold that against you either. I have not put forth the bile that you are attributing to me. You simply have made things up and drawn conclusion based on your own made up facts.

Demonize, marginalize, and if that fails, call names. Predictable.

Oh yeah did I mention, ABUSING CHILDREN IS BAD, VARY BAD.

BTW, after all of this anger and outrage and platitudes, do we even know if these reports are anything more than cosmic vapor?

NaplesX

07-13-2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
1) Naples X : I will not tolerate this racist comment :

2) Aquatic : I will not tolerate that silly comments either :

3) For others. You are not supposed to turn into avengers. If you have something to do, PM a mod, like one of the member did. Things are sufficiently heated on political threads, adding fuel on the fire is not needed.

This thread is re-open. Let's expect that people calmed down this night. My comment was not racist. Right now, the biggest threat to US and it's allies, military and economic, is radical Islamic terrorists. This group is made up of primarily Arab Muslim males. This is not a racist observation. To ignore that is folly IMO.

I should have said "potential" threat, because that is what I meant.

Powerdoc

07-13-2004, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
My comment was not racist. Right now, the biggest threat to US and it's allies, military and economic, is radical Islamic terrorists. This group is made up of primarily Arab Muslim males. This is not a racist observation. To ignore that is folly IMO.

I should have said "potential" threat, because that is what I meant.

Happy to see that you are not racist. But your comment was. If you said any radical islamist is a potential threat, I would have agree, but when you bring the suspicion upon a whole human group based upon skin and religion, it's a racist comment. And more it's not totally accurate, some good white people converted to radical islam, where members of Al Quaeda.
Next time, be more precise with your wording.

giant

07-13-2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
My comment was not racist ... This group is made up of primarily Arab Muslim males. This is not a racist observation.
What ethnicity is Richard Reid?

What ethnicity is Jose Padilla?

What ethnicity are likely most of the people in guantanamo?

Not to mention that the vast majority of muslims are not arab.

NaplesX

07-13-2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by giant
What ethnicity is Richard Reid?

What ethnicity is Jose Padilla?

What ethnicity are likely most of the people in guantanamo?

Not to mention that the vast majority of muslims are not arab. I specifically used the word "primarily". It does not indicate totality, but it does indicate that there are other smaller parts of that whole. You are smarter than that aren't you?

giant

07-13-2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
I specifically used the word "primarily". It does not indicate totality, but it does indicate that there are other smaller parts of that whole. You are smarter than that aren't you?
Well, muslims worldwide are not "primarily" arab, US muslims are not "primarily" arab, terrorist attacks against the US have not "primarily" been perpetrated by arabs and arab males are not "primarily" terrorists.

So how does your racist comment have any validity?

NaplesX

07-13-2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by giant
Well, muslims worldwide are not "primarily" arab, US muslims are not "primarily" arab, terrorist attacks against the US have not "primarily" been perpetrated by arabs and arab males are not "primarily" terrorists.

So how does your racist comment have any validity? Well I did not claim any of those things, so I am not sure how I can defend something I did NOT say.

My comment was an observation. Let's break it down.

A current serious threat is Islamic Terrorists, right? These people are muslim, right? The majority of those terrorists are male, right? A large chunk of those males are of Arabic (ME) descent, right?

Thus Arab Muslim male.

let's say you were in a room with a group of 5 people. You knew one was a terrorists.

person one - a white male Amish man. About 45 or so.

person two - a hispanic female about 30 something.

person three - a black male Jehovah's Witness age 25 or so.

person four - a dark skinned man with a ME accent in his early 20's wearing a a heavy jacket reading from the Koran.

person five - an oriental man in a business suit.

if the terrorist is not you, then who would you hedge your bets against? Who will you keep your eye on most?

I know that many of you will jump on me for this, saying it is racist. It is not, because, you can tall a lot about a person just at first glance. This is based on experiences that each of us have. It is a survival mechanism. Many times those judgments are proven wrong after further observations or info.

It is much harder to discern someone's intentions, simply from visual cues. What is the look of a radical islamic terrorist? Could be anyone. But there are facts "on the ground" as they say, that might help you discern who to be wary of.

Those are the facts.

But you will notice that I did not say that muslims were evil or inferior in anyway or subhuman. That would be racist. The overwhelming majority of muslims interpret their religion in a way that peacefully coexists with the rest of the world. Muslims are like you and me. Terrorists are not.

It is wise to know who your enemy is and how to identify them, no? Correct me if I am wrong, terrorist are the enemy.

giant

07-13-2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
if the terrorist is not you, then who would you hedge your bets against? Who will you keep your eye on most?
I'm not a racist and I am aware of the facts (see below), so race wouldn't be a factor in that decision.

As already pointed out:
Originally posted by giant
What ethnicity is Richard Reid?

What ethnicity is Jose Padilla?

What ethnicity are likely most of the people in guantanamo?

In terms of terrorism against the us in recent years, we have the recent non-arab american found with chemical weapons, we have the OKC bombing done by white men, and we have WTC 93 by someone who is likely pakistani.

Let Bush's trans secretary run down a couple more examples of terrorists:

In 1986, a 32-year-old Irish woman, pregnant at the time, was about to board an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv when El Al security agents discovered an explosive device hidden in the false bottom of her bag. The woman’s boyfriend – the father of her unborn child – had hidden the bomb.

In 1987, a 70-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman – neither of whom were Middle Eastern – posed as father and daughter and brought a bomb aboard a Korean Air flight from Baghdad to Thailand. En route to Bangkok, the bomb exploded, killing all on board.

In 1999, men dressed as businessmen (and one dressed as a Catholic priest) turned out to be terrorist hijackers, who forced an Avianca flight to divert to an airstrip in Colombia, where some passengers were held as hostages for more than a year-and-half.

Time permits me to cite only these few examples; there are many more.

So, how do we stop the terrorist – say one recruited from Chechnya – who is disguised as a priest if we are wasting our time on an unworkable profile of thousands of travelers who look a certain way?

There is no universal racial, age or gender profile for terrorism -- and we cannot pretend that there is.
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/042002sp.htm

As far as al-qaeda is concerned, there is probably no real info on its ethnic makeup. However, we know that muslims from all over europe and asia (from afghanistan all the way to indonesia) are some of the strongest participants and that individuals from all over the world and of all ethnicities have gone to training camps.

Pinning any terrorist threat, including terrorism supposedly in the name of islam, on "arab males" is racist and ignorant.

The One to Rescue

07-13-2004, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
let's say you were in a room with a group of 5 people. You knew one was a terrorists.

person one - a white male Amish man. About 45 or so.

person two - a hispanic female about 30 something.

person three - a black male Jehovah's Witness age 25 or so.

person four - a dark skinned man with a ME accent in his early 20's wearing a a heavy jacket reading from the Koran.

person five - an oriental man in a business suit.

if the terrorist is not you, then who would you hedge your bets against? Who will you keep your eye on most?

I'd kill the 5 people, so that I'm sure I don't make a mistake in betting!
Ok... that was silly, sorry!

No seriously, we are humans, not animals! Survival mechanisms might be (barely) ok in war time, but in every other case, that's pure paranoia!

pfflam

07-13-2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well I did not claim any of those things, so I am not sure how I can defend something I did NOT say.

My comment was an observation. Let's break it down.

A current serious threat is Islamic Terrorists, right? These people are muslim, right? The majority of those terrorists are male, right? A large chunk of those males are of Arabic (ME) descent, right?

Thus Arab Muslim male.

let's say you were in a room with a group of 5 people. You knew one was a terrorists.

person one - a white male Amish man. About 45 or so.

person two - a hispanic female about 30 something.

person three - a black male Jehovah's Witness age 25 or so.

person four - a dark skinned man with a ME accent in his early 20's wearing a a heavy jacket reading from the Koran.

person five - an oriental man in a business suit.

if the terrorist is not you, then who would you hedge your bets against? Who will you keep your eye on most?

I know that many of you will jump on me for this, saying it is racist. It is not, because, you can tall a lot about a person just at first glance. This is based on experiences that each of us have. It is a survival mechanism. Many times those judgments are proven wrong after further observations or info.

It is much harder to discern someone's intentions, simply from visual cues. What is the look of a radical islamic terrorist? Could be anyone. But there are facts "on the ground" as they say, that might help you discern who to be wary of.

Those are the facts.

But you will notice that I did not say that muslims were evil or inferior in anyway or subhuman. That would be racist. The overwhelming majority of muslims interpret their religion in a way that peacefully coexists with the rest of the world. Muslims are like you and me. Terrorists are not.

It is wise to know who your enemy is and how to identify them, no? Correct me if I am wrong, terrorist are the enemy. you've said enough.

Nothing worse than listening to the convoluted justifications and denials that usually accompany the self-deception of an unquestioned racism.

Hassan i Sabbah

07-14-2004, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
As it sits right now, any Arab Muslim male could be threat to you or me. Wake up.

Oh look. He said this.

This includes the guy in the Halal Tennessee Fried Chicken and Ribs shop on Church Street then. And my friend Nabil the television actor, presumably.

NaplesX

07-14-2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Oh look. He said this.

This includes the guy in the Halal Tennessee Fried Chicken and Ribs shop on Church Street then. And my friend Nabil the television actor, presumably. http://www.cp.org/premium/ONLINE/member/elxn_en/040621/p062105A.html

This article points out that AQ is picking young boys and getting them started early-Ibrahim bin Abdullah al-Dreiham started his documented killing at 19.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4393385,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1177325,00.html
http://www.likud.nl/extr257.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2071561.stm
http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=58900
http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=74500
http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=54200
http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=52500
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=10831
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0401/p07s01-wome.html

There is no magic age that you are restricted from being a terrorist, apparently. So I am not sure why anyone would want to put on age based blinders to the problem.

Terrorist were thought to be nice people by their neighbors:

“He was just a big teddy bear … honourable and very polite … a well-liked and respected pupil”: those are some of the depictions of Asif Hanif, a Briton of Pakistan origins who blew himself up in a Tel Aviv pub, killing three.

“He was smart, clever and kind, a really nice boy.” That’s Zacarias Moussaoui, sometimes known as 9/11’s “twentieth hijacker,” as described by his older brother.

“He was the nicest guy. He didn’t mess with anybody,” said Iyman Faris’s former employer right after Faris, an Ohio trucker of Pakistani origins, had pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists and conspiracy to provide support. Faris’s stepson spoke endearingly of his stepfather’s “very good sense of humor.”

“Just a normal, good-natured young man who dreamed of a family of his own, whose young adult years in [Florida] were filled with driving children to school, buying groceries and taking college courses.” That’s the Miami Herald paraphrasing his family talking about Adnan Gulshair El’Shukri-jumah, a Florida-raised Saudi suspected of being an Al-Qaeda member who helped with 9/11, and someone the FBI considers “a very, very, very serious threat.”

“She was an educated person, concerned with educating people about Islam.” She here is Aafia Siddiqui as portrayed by her imam, a Pakistani woman sought for questioning about ties to Al-Qaeda.

“Friendly and charming … a kind person,” someone beloved by villagers for offering free health checks and cheap medicine; that’s how a religious leader described Waemahadi Wae-dao, a medical doctor arrested on charges of planning to bomb embassies and tourist spots in Thailand.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/2411

On the FBI's most wanted terrorist page: http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm , 4 out of the 22 are not from ME countries.

Some lists of Arab terrorist groups:

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Arab-Terror-Groups.asp
http://avpv.tripod.com/terror-groups.html
http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=TGroups&file=index

Draw your own conclusions, I still stick by mine.

kneelbeforezod

07-14-2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
There is no magic age that you are restricted from being a terrorist, apparently. So I am not sure why anyone would want to put on age based blinders to the problem.
For fuck's sake. What is being said (by several people) in this thread is NOT "these kids were only 15, they couldn't be involved in the conflict". What IS being said is: Terrorist, guerilla, insurgent, freedom fighter, soldier (or whatever term your point of view requires you to use to refer to the people who are fighting the US troops in Iraq)...nothing excuses the abuse and torture of children. Nothing. You eventually even said this yourself.

So where does this "age based blinders" shit come from?

giant

07-14-2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Draw your own conclusions, I still stick by mine.
Originally posted by giant
Originally posted by NaplesX
if the terrorist is not you, then who would you hedge your bets against? Who will you keep your eye on most?
I'm not a racist and I am aware of the facts (see below), so race wouldn't be a factor in that decision.

As already pointed out:
Originally posted by giant
What ethnicity is Richard Reid?

What ethnicity is Jose Padilla?

What ethnicity are likely most of the people in guantanamo?

In terms of terrorism against the us in recent years, we have the recent non-arab american found with chemical weapons, we have the OKC bombing done by white men, and we have WTC 93 by someone who is likely pakistani.

Let Bush's trans secretary run down a couple more examples of terrorists:

In 1986, a 32-year-old Irish woman, pregnant at the time, was about to board an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv when El Al security agents discovered an explosive device hidden in the false bottom of her bag. The woman’s boyfriend – the father of her unborn child – had hidden the bomb.

In 1987, a 70-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman – neither of whom were Middle Eastern – posed as father and daughter and brought a bomb aboard a Korean Air flight from Baghdad to Thailand. En route to Bangkok, the bomb exploded, killing all on board.

In 1999, men dressed as businessmen (and one dressed as a Catholic priest) turned out to be terrorist hijackers, who forced an Avianca flight to divert to an airstrip in Colombia, where some passengers were held as hostages for more than a year-and-half.

Time permits me to cite only these few examples; there are many more.

So, how do we stop the terrorist – say one recruited from Chechnya – who is disguised as a priest if we are wasting our time on an unworkable profile of thousands of travelers who look a certain way?

There is no universal racial, age or gender profile for terrorism -- and we cannot pretend that there is.

... Some advocates of racial profiling have also focused their attention on what they consider unnecessary searches of people who appear to be innocent -- elderly women, pregnant women, people traveling with children, priests, or even politicians.

Why subject a gray-haired grandmother to extra security screening? Because terrorists do not always look like today’s prevailing stereotype. And, because one does not have to look like a stereotypical terrorist to be used by terrorists.
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/042002sp.htm

As far as al-qaeda is concerned, there is probably no real info on its ethnic makeup. However, we know that muslims from all over europe and asia (from afghanistan all the way to indonesia) are some of the strongest participants and that individuals from all over the world and of all ethnicities have gone to training camps.

Pinning any terrorist threat, including terrorism supposedly in the name of islam, on "arab males" is racist and ignorant.
Maybe if you let us know which words here you are having trouble with we can let you know what they mean.

NaplesX

07-14-2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
For fuck's sake. What is being said (by several people) in this thread is NOT "these kids were only 15, they couldn't be involved in the conflict". What IS being said is: Terrorist, guerilla, insurgent, freedom fighter, soldier (or whatever term your point of view requires you to use to refer to the people who are fighting the US troops in Iraq)...nothing excuses the abuse and torture of children. Nothing. You eventually even said this yourself.

So where does this "age based blinders" shit come from? Agreed. Abuse is not a tactic that any of us prescribe to.

The problem, is that any use of force is considered abuse. And we are not even talking about proven abuse, just alleged abuse, without any definitions as to what the abuse is.

SJO's original post dripped with anger over some reports that really had no substance. Could it happen, sure. Did it? Who knows right now, And the use of "kids" is just another attempt to make the US and its military seem barbaric. Apparently some jumped on that bandwagon.

Once again, if true it is bad, but we don't know any details and I for one don't bite.

Murder is murder and terrorism is terrorism independent of the age of the perp. Of course we are all speculating upon speculation and rumor. These so called kids may not even exist.

Artman @_@

07-14-2004, 03:55 PM

Torture has so many faces...

Shock & Awe (http://www.marchforjustice.com/Fallujah22.swf)

It's no boy's life in no man's land (http://electroniciraq.net/news/1573.shtml)

America's criminal occupation (http://electroniciraq.net/news/1572.shtml)

Not hanging around and not willing to deal with the neo-con idiots here or the PC-centric moderators. Thought I'd pass this along and hope this will finally ban me, remove my post (as they did with my last one) and lock this worthless thread.

Goodbye asshats, you know who you are.

Beige_G3

07-14-2004, 03:56 PM

Are there any other links to the original story that started this thread? Have any other media reported it?

pfflam

07-14-2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.cp.org/premium/ONLINE/member/elxn_en/040621/p062105A.html

This article points out that AQ is picking young boys and getting them started early-Ibrahim bin Abdullah al-Dreiham started his documented killing at 19.
You can join the military at 18.

giant

07-14-2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Beige_G3
Are there any other links to the original story that started this thread? Have any other media reported it?
Abuses of this nature have been reported for some time:
Rumsfeld said that he had not actually looked at any of the Abu Ghraib photographs until some of them appeared in press accounts, and hadn’t reviewed the Army’s copies until the day before. When he did, they were “hard to believe,” he said. “There are other photos that depict . . . acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman.” Later, he said, “It’s going to get still more terrible, I’m afraid.” Rumsfeld added, “I failed to recognize how important it was.”

NBC News later quoted U.S. military officials as saying that the unreleased photographs showed American soldiers “severely beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death, having sex with a female Iraqi prisoner, and ‘acting inappropriately with a dead body.’ The officials said there also was a videotape, apparently shot by U.S. personnel, showing Iraqi guards raping young boys.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2

pfflam

07-14-2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Beige_G3
Are there any other links to the original story that started this thread? Have any other media reported it? Good question . . . hopefully it was all wrong to begin with.

But as far as all the "he was such a nice guy" quotes from NapleX . . .

hell, that sounds like a newspaper report after your basic serial killer was arrested . . . it tells us NOTHING . . .

and of course we know that many of the 'insurgents' as well as 'terrorists' are young . . . but that IN NO WAY excuses teh tirture of a 12 year old . . . if it happens . . or torture in general

Allowing torture is a moral slippery slope; as soon as you allow it the boundaries as to when it is applicable get blurry . . next thing you know Democrats will be consdered 'enemy of the state', like Stern being the'enemy of Texas' ;-) -

sammi jo

07-14-2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
[

SJO's original post dripped with anger over some reports that really had no substance. Could it happen, sure. Did it? Who knows right now, And the use of "kids" is just another attempt to make the US and its military seem barbaric. Apparently some jumped on that bandwagon.

NaplesX: Look at the article: This stuff was seen on mainstream German television. You cannot condemn something on the grounds that it hasn't appeared on the US corporate media, most of which is sympathetic to the Bush Administration's position anyway. At some point this stuff will come out, although it may take awhile. And yes, my post was dripping with anger. The torture and abuse of children in my bleeding-heart-liberal opinion is so far out of order it defies all reason. Perhaps the Pentagon and BushCorp in their selective "war on the terrorists that they disapprove of feels differently. Their attitude towards all this kind of stuff reminds me of that of the Vatican towards pedophilia in the Roman Catholic priesthood.

edit: spelling errors!

NaplesX

07-14-2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by pfflam
You can join the military at 18. yeah, and...?

I had to retype my whole post because I accidentally closed the browser window. Anyway I had a link to a story that AQ and other orgs are kidnapping kids as slaves and soldiers. So I wouldn't go so far as to equate the US military volunteers with the AQ volunteers. Of course you would then have to equate the cause and such, I suppose.

As to your newest post, I was supporting my view that was challenged and called racist.

Try to keep up.

kneelbeforezod

07-14-2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Beige_G3
Are there any other links to the original story that started this thread? Have any other media reported it? The majority of links reference either the Report Mainz (the German TV news show) footage or the Der Spiegel article.

UNICEF and the IRC have verified that over 100 children are being held. UNICEF is scheduled to issue a report shortly, but has yet to be granted access to the facility at Um Qasr.

Sergeant Samuel Provance, the US military intel analyst who was interviewed on Report Mainz, first discussed the abuse of children at US run detention facilities in an interview back in May (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0520-07.htm).

A military intelligence analyst who recently completed duty at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq said Wednesday that the 16-year-old son of a detainee there was abused by U.S. soldiers in order to break his father's resistance to interrogators.

The analyst said the teenager was stripped naked, thrown in the back of an open truck, driven around in the cold night air, splattered with mud and then presented to his father at Abu Ghraib, the prison at the center of the ongoing scandal over abuse of Iraqi detainees.

Upon seeing his frail and frightened son, the prisoner broke down and cried and told interrogators he would tell them whatever they wanted, the analyst said.

[...]

Provance, 30, said he was not present for the mistreatment of the detainee's son, which he said occurred in December or possibly January. But he said an interrogator described the incident to him shortly afterward. When contacted by the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday, that soldier declined to comment.

Provance said he escorted the boy from the interrogation cell block to the prison's general population immediately after the encounter between the teenager and his father.

[...]

Provance already has been deemed a credible witness by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who included the army sergeant in a list of witnesses whose statements he relied on to make his findings of prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib.

addabox

07-15-2004, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
yeah, and...?

I had to retype my whole post because I accidentally closed the browser window. Anyway I had a link to a story that AQ and other orgs are kidnapping kids as slaves and soldiers. So I wouldn't go so far as to equate the US military volunteers with the AQ volunteers. Of course you would then have to equate the cause and such, I suppose.

As to your newest post, I was supporting my view that was challenged and called racist.

Try to keep up.

Why do you keep referencing AQ? Is it this hard for you to keep your "Arabs" straight? Oh yeah, your not a mother-fucking racist piece of shit because you keep on deliberately equating the people of Iraq with AQ even though it's been refuted over and over and over and over. "It's bad to hurt children but a terrorist is a terrorist and you can't be too careful."

Never mind who's actually in the jails of Iraq. You don't care. You don't want to know. Because the truth of the situation would interfere with clever little line of reasoning.

So you think it's OK to hurt children. You can't have it both ways. Either it is never OK, or it is. You immediately speculate on reasons why it is, sometimes, then act wounded and outraged when we take you at your word. Which is what you always do. You say something repulsive and insane and then deny it, parsing little bits of things as if the argument hung on them.

You think it's OK to hurt children because sometimes children are really terrorists and that's one of their tricks. That's what you said, you miserable little coward.

The thread is about abuse of children as young as 12 in Iraqi prisons. You want to talk about AQ and freedom and the fate of America, because those terms make it easier to pretend that almost anything is justified.

Nice big sweeping notions that obscure the blood and suffering of people you know nothing about and care nothing about, except insofar as they serve as a donkey to pile you jingoistic sloganeering on.

Have you got children? Can you even begin to imagine their brains and blood on your shirt? Can you imagine the smug bastard a world away that brushes his hands and says "war is hell, but necessary"?

Can you imagine crying out to God but God has turned his back becasue he knows you approve when it's somebody elses children?

A person who claims to be reasonable and compassionate but can rationalize death and torture as "a necessary evil", and who can't even be bothered to try very hard to sort out the entirely innocent from the circumstantially involved from the actually guilty is neither reasonable or compassionate.

That person is quite simply evil. Because that's what evil is. A kind of moral stupidity and laziness that revels in its own justifications and prizes "winning" over truth, or kindness, or imagination.

Evil is willing to trade the lives of strangers for slogans. Evil is happy to explain why atrocities, are (sadly) sort of inevitable when the stakes are high. Evil looks pass the screaming of the bereaved to the air- conditioned office complexes of tomorrow and calls it a fair trade. Evil has no use for the stories of victims, because horror is a weakness and surely a tool of the enemy.

Christ, I fell dirty just reading your posts. I'm done with this.

pfflam

07-15-2004, 01:50 AM

wow

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by addabox
Why do you keep referencing AQ? Is it this hard for you to keep your "Arabs" straight? Oh yeah, your not a mother-fucking racist piece of shit because you keep on deliberately equating the people of Iraq with AQ even though it's been refuted over and over and over and over. "It's bad to hurt children but a terrorist is a terrorist and you can't be too careful."

Never mind who's actually in the jails of Iraq. You don't care. You don't want to know. Because the truth of the situation would interfere with clever little line of reasoning.

So you think it's OK to hurt children. You can't have it both ways. Either it is never OK, or it is. You immediately speculate on reasons why it is, sometimes, then act wounded and outraged when we take you at your word. Which is what you always do. You say something repulsive and insane and then deny it, parsing little bits of things as if the argument hung on them.

You think it's OK to hurt children because sometimes children are really terrorists and that's one of their tricks. That's what you said, you miserable little coward.

The thread is about abuse of children as young as 12 in Iraqi prisons. You want to talk about AQ and freedom and the fate of America, because those terms make it easier to pretend that almost anything is justified.

Nice big sweeping notions that obscure the blood and suffering of people you know nothing about and care nothing about, except insofar as they serve as a donkey to pile you jingoistic sloganeering on.

Have you got children? Can you even begin to imagine their brains and blood on your shirt? Can you imagine the smug bastard a world away that brushes his hands and says "war is hell, but necessary"?

Can you imagine crying out to God but God has turned his back becasue he knows you approve when it's somebody elses children?

A person who claims to be reasonable and compassionate but can rationalize death and torture as "a necessary evil", and who can't even be bothered to try very hard to sort out the entirely innocent from the circumstantially involved from the actually guilty is neither reasonable or compassionate.

That person is quite simply evil. Because that's what evil is. A kind of moral stupidity and laziness that revels in its own justifications and prizes "winning" over truth, or kindness, or imagination.

Evil is willing to trade the lives of strangers for slogans. Evil is happy to explain why atrocities, are (sadly) sort of inevitable when the stakes are high. Evil looks pass the screaming of the bereaved to the air- conditioned office complexes of tomorrow and calls it a fair trade. Evil has no use for the stories of victims, because horror is a weakness and surely a tool of the enemy.

Christ, I fell dirty just reading your posts. I'm done with this. First, i would like to second the "wow" statement that pflam made.

Second. once again you have proven that reading comprehension was not taught in your school.

I am speaking of terrorist, because that is what we are fighting all over the world now, including in Iraq. Honest, hard working people of Iraq are not making bombs and taking up arms against the US forces. We are talking about terrorists. The US is not even interested in 99% of the previous Iraqi army. They are focusing on the worst of the worst there. I know that you want to think that the military is just picking up people (children included) off the street simply because they are Arab, so they can have fun at their expense. This is simply a false notion. There are people all over Iraq that have guns that are not fighting anyone and are left alone. The biggest threat for the US soldiers now is EID's and those making them (terrorists) not the Iraqi people.

Let's be blunt.I think it's OK to hurt and kill terrorists whenever possible. The problem that you have is that innocents get caught in the crossfire, and you don't like it. This has been and always will be the case. Get used to it. It will happen as long as the terrorists exist and hide behind and among innocents.

The other thing that you may not realize or accept is that you, me and every other human that loves liberty and freedom is now at war that was declared long before 9/11 but was driven home on that day.

You can whine and cry and get all upset that a 12 year old girl might have, maybe been mistreated. Meanwhile as we speak terrorists (did you happen to see how many Pal-islamic groups there were?) are plotting to KILL you and the people that YOU and I love. Oh yeah, they won't stop until they are dead.

So mister "panties in a bunch", what would you do to stop the ever growing Islamo-fascist movement that is afoot? I don't think that you have anything better to offer. And that is the real issue here, isn't it?

If a 12 year old girl has info that could save many lives, your families lives say, and she has been brainwashed with radical notions, what would you do to get that information?

It seem that maybe it is you that don't value the lives of the soldiers or care about their families. Huh?

Catch-22 isn't it?

Edit: Oh yeah, time IS of the essence so gently reintroducing her into society and buying her flowers and taking long walks on the beach probably won't cut it. Just a thought.

kneelbeforezod

07-15-2004, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's be blunt.I think it's OK to hurt and kill terrorists whenever possible.How about abusing the child of someone who may or may not have information relating to what may or may not be terrorist activites in order to get them to talk. D'you think that's okay?

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
How about abusing the child of someone who may or may not have information relating to what may or may not be terrorist activites in order to get them to talk. D'you think that's okay? Ask the families of the dead soldiers in Iraq or the 9/11 victims families.

How do you think the cold war was won?

PSST. I'l give you a hint, it wasn't with fancy chocolates and a bouquet of roses.

giant

07-15-2004, 10:32 AM

kneelbeforezod

07-15-2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Ask the families of the dead soldiers in Iraq or the 9/11 victims families. Ask them what, ask them if they condone child abuse as an interrogation tool? I doubt many of them do. Those that have a shred of decency certainly don't.

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Ask them what, ask them if they condone child abuse as an interrogation tool? I doubt many of them do. Those that have a shred of decency certainly don't. Despite what you guys want to think, I am not for any of the things that you assert.

However we are at WAR. Things are not "business as usual". Rough decisions need to be made. I think anyone that IS compassionate and decent would favor the LIVES of 3000+ (1 for that matter) people over the temporary discomfort of one person if it could save those lives. It sucks having to make those kinds of calls but as the situation is, they do.

Good people all around the world have sacrificed far mar for one person. Those people are thought of as heros. Death is far more permanent than the discomfort of be driven naked in the mud or even being beaten.

Perhaps you don't think that those lives are worth it, I am not sure what you are arguing. I guest the tool of coercive force is to be shelved in favor of ...what? Tea and crumpets?

We are talking about death of fellow citizens and innocents versus roughing up a potential terrorist. You seem to be telling me that they equate. In that light, it is not a difficult decision to make IMO. Lives are at stake and time is not in abundance.

Oh yeah, we are not just talking about US lives here, these insurgents, terrorists and thugs are killing innocent Iraqi's and not by accident either. Do you value those lives?

Hassan i Sabbah

07-15-2004, 11:23 AM

If we're being forced by terrorism to behave with aggression to the most vulnerable individuals and to act without compassion 'just to be safe' then the terrorists have won. We have lost.

We're acting like barbarians? We've lost.

kneelbeforezod

07-15-2004, 11:33 AM

Naples:

When you refer to our being "at WAR," are you referring to the counterinsurgency warfare currently going on in Iraq or the war on terror?

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Naples:

When you refer to our being "at WAR," are you referring to the counterinsurgency warfare currently going on in Iraq or the war on terror? Both

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
If we're being forced by terrorism to behave with aggression to the most vulnerable individuals and to act without compassion 'just to be safe' then the terrorists have won. We have lost.

We're acting like barbarians? We've lost. The US and it's allies are not acting aggressively and without compassion to anyone and especially toward helpless people. That is a misrepresentation bordering on a lie. The US and it's allies are taking the battle to the terrorists to save lives of the innocent and the helpless.

You can't shrink from the battle "cause someone may get hurt". Someone always gets hurt. Some times those who shouldn't. In this case the battle will come to the US and it's allies, in fact it already has. These are relentless people and those who fight them have to be relentless also.

Another thing, the people that are fighting the terrorists are not cowards hiding behind masks and in holes hoping not to have to confront the enemy. These people are willing to put their lives on the line, "in your face" if you will, "come and get some". "we're right here" courage. That's what right does when confronted with wrong. I know it's hard for you to see these things.

I have noticed that many of you seem to want to equate the mission of the terrorists with the mission of the WOT and the mission in Iraq, and the intentions of the US and it's allies and the intentions of the terrorists and thugs. That is sad. When you do that you blur the line between right and wrong. Is that what you want?

kneelbeforezod

07-15-2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Both Okay, and for bonus points can you tell us which of these "wars" is the odd one out?

kneelbeforezod

07-15-2004, 12:54 PM

Ah fuck it. I'll do it...

Counterinsurgency war in Iraq is a war

"War on terror" is not a war.

The war on terror more a war than the "war on drugs," which is no more a war than the first thing you think of when you hear "hot-dog" is a domesticized mammal of the family Canidae that has been subject to an increase of thermal energy.

The war in Iraq has provided an avenue through which US-hating terrorists from all over the world can come and kill American soldiers, but it's not doing a damn thing to prevent or stop or halt terrorism. In fact, if anything, its creating new Osama Bin Ladens (or worse, footsoldiers willing to murder and die for the likes of Bin Laden) for every mother, father, sister, brother, daughter and son that is killed, maimed or brutalized. It's fueling the terror.

Harald

07-15-2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
The US and it's allies are not acting aggressively and without compassion to anyone and especially toward helpless people.

The US and its allies have murdered innocent people in jail, tortured innocent people in jail and those people include children.

The fact that you are able to state what you stated in the light of the facts I state above makes you look like someone who has no understanding of either aggression or compassion. It makes you look heartless.

And by the way, offering justification for torture and murder of innocent people makes you contemptible, and as bad as those who side with the terrorists.

Look at my sig.

pfflam

07-15-2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
First, i would like to second the "wow" statement that pflam made.
Clearly you do not know why I said 'WOw' . . . I did so because addabox's post is not only very pithy, it clearly states, better than I could have, what is so sickening about your equivocations regarding the torture of other people, and your vast generalizations.

My exclamation was one of appreciation for his clarity and directness, and his ability to make me feel the issue in a relevant way . . . saying something in such a way that after I read it I had to stop posting and log off nearly in tears . . .

whereas when I read your post my tears are those of anger and frustration at your complete lack of realistic understanding, lack of maturity, lack of moral insight and general lack of a reason for posting here . . .

so I am going to repost addabox's post here so you can reread it, read it slowly and think about what he said:Why do you keep referencing AQ? Is it this hard for you to keep your "Arabs" straight? Oh yeah, your not a mother-fucking racist piece of shit because you keep on deliberately equating the people of Iraq with AQ even though it's been refuted over and over and over and over. "It's bad to hurt children but a terrorist is a terrorist and you can't be too careful."

Never mind who's actually in the jails of Iraq. You don't care. You don't want to know. Because the truth of the situation would interfere with clever little line of reasoning.

So you think it's OK to hurt children. You can't have it both ways. Either it is never OK, or it is. You immediately speculate on reasons why it is, sometimes, then act wounded and outraged when we take you at your word. Which is what you always do. You say something repulsive and insane and then deny it, parsing little bits of things as if the argument hung on them.

You think it's OK to hurt children because sometimes children are really terrorists and that's one of their tricks. That's what you said, you miserable little coward.

The thread is about abuse of children as young as 12 in Iraqi prisons. You want to talk about AQ and freedom and the fate of America, because those terms make it easier to pretend that almost anything is justified.

Nice big sweeping notions that obscure the blood and suffering of people you know nothing about and care nothing about, except insofar as they serve as a donkey to pile you jingoistic sloganeering on.

Have you got children? Can you even begin to imagine their brains and blood on your shirt? Can you imagine the smug bastard a world away that brushes his hands and says "war is hell, but necessary"?

Can you imagine crying out to God but God has turned his back because he knows you approve when it's somebody else's children?

A person who claims to be reasonable and compassionate but can rationalize death and torture as "a necessary evil", and who can't even be bothered to try very hard to sort out the entirely innocent from the circumstantially involved from the actually guilty is neither reasonable or compassionate.

That person is quite simply evil. Because that's what evil is. A kind of moral stupidity and laziness that revels in its own justifications and prizes "winning" over truth, or kindness, or imagination.

Evil is willing to trade the lives of strangers for slogans. Evil is happy to explain why atrocities, are (sadly) sort of inevitable when the stakes are high. Evil looks pass the screaming of the bereaved to the air- conditioned office complexes of tomorrow and calls it a fair trade. Evil has no use for the stories of victims, because horror is a weakness and surely a tool of the enemy.

Christ, I fell dirty just reading your posts. I'm done with this.

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by pfflam
Clearly you do not know why I said 'WOw' . . . I did so because addabox's post is not only very pithy, it clearly states, better than I could have, what is so sickening about your equivocations regarding the torture of other people, and your vast generalizations.

My exclamation was one of appreciation for his clarity and directness, and his ability to make me feel the issue in a relevant way . . . saying something in such a way that after I read it I had to stop posting and log off nearly in tears . . .

whereas when I read your post my tears are those of anger and frustration at your complete lack of realistic understanding, lack of maturity, lack of moral insight and general lack of a reason for posting here . . .

so I am going to repost addabox's post here so you can reread it, read it slowly and think about what he said: The only problem is that he is replying to someone else's statements and not my own.

I am not equivocating anything, in fact, I am saying that these are special times with special issues. It is a moral dilemma, no doubt, but not to hard to get past with some clear thinking rather than relying solely on emotion.

The 12 year old girl story (if true) is hard to swallow, I'll give you that. But this whole thing is just an extension of the Abu Graib thing. And some (ehem) are using this maybe, could have, might have been piece of news, to pile on.

I refuse to cry for terrorists that want us and our families dead. If you can't see the current and growing threat of radical islam, that is only because you choose not to see it. It doesn't mean that I have to ignore it also.

Your anger is misdirected to be sure. You may want to hold SH responsible for how he got his people involved in this thing. You may want to express some anger at the many different terrorist groups that use the most despicable and inhuman acts to terrorize the world. You may want to express a little anger in the direction of France, Germany, and Russia for supporting SH, behind closed doors, while pretending to subscribe to UN guidelines. You may want to direct your anger toward the UN, that was doing the same thing, to themselves and all of it's member nations. Just a thought.

You are angry at me because I say torture, abuse, mistreatment of terrorists is a viable method of getting vital information that could save lives. (please do not misquote me and assert that I condone this on innocent people, I don't) I realize that sometimes innocents get caught up in wars, but tell me how to stop that - go on. You can't.

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Harald
The US and its allies have murdered innocent people in jail, tortured innocent people in jail and those people include children.

The fact that you are able to state what you stated in the light of the facts I state above makes you look like someone who has no understanding of either aggression or compassion. It makes you look heartless.

And by the way, offering justification for torture and murder of innocent people makes you contemptible, and as bad as those who side with the terrorists.

Look at my sig. The US did not do these things on purpose. Individuals within the coalition may have committed some crimes but they were not sanctioned by the US or it's allies. You know that.

The US gave Iraq a heads up many times before the war. How many months went by during the buildup. SH had plenty of time to see that the US was serious and to comply. I think that was a big mistake, and we are seeing the results right now. But it was humane and gave people a chance to at least prepare and leave. If you can't see that, I'm sorry.

Once again innocent people should not get pulled in to wars and such, but they do. How do you stop that?

Once again I do not condone torture of innocent people! However you are assuming that age is connected to innocence. Not necessarily true. And how do you know that any given person is innocent. That is my point.

kneelbeforezod

07-15-2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again I do not condone torture of innocent people! How about guilty people? How about people that might be guilty of something?

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
How about guilty people? How about people that might be guilty of something? No, terrorists (combatants/insurgents), when info is needed to save lives.

How many ways do I have to say it?

pfflam

07-15-2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
The only problem is that he is replying to someone else's statements and not my own.

I am not equivocating anything, in fact, I am saying that these are special times with special issues. It is a moral dilemma, no doubt, but not to hard to get past with some clear thinking rather than relying solely on emotion.

The 12 year old girl story (if true) is hard to swallow, I'll give you that. But this whole thing is just an extension of the Abu Graib thing. And some (ehem) are using this maybe, could have, might have been piece of news, to pile on.

I refuse to cry for terrorists that want us and our families dead. If you can't see the current and growing threat of radical islam, that is only because you choose not to see it. It doesn't mean that I have to ignore it also.

Your anger is misdirected to be sure. You may want to hold SH responsible for how he got his people involved in this thing. You may want to express some anger at the many different terrorist groups that use the most despicable and inhuman acts to terrorize the world. You may want to express a little anger in the direction of France, Germany, and Russia for supporting SH, behind closed doors, while pretending to subscribe to UN guidelines. You may want to direct your anger toward the UN, that was doing the same thing, to themselves and all of it's member nations. Just a thought.

You are angry at me because I say torture, abuse, mistreatment of terrorists is a viable method of getting vital information that could save lives. (please do not misquote me and assert that I condone this on innocent people, I don't) I realize that sometimes innocents get caught up in wars, but tell me how to stop that - go on. You can't. EVERY single time you do the same damn thing!!!

"Its terrible
BUT
blah blah blah . . . "

You need to stop and consider what you are doing . . . you are making excuses for barbarousness. We are supposed to be a civilized nation and if we lower ourselves to the tactics of the worst tyrants then we can not make that claim anymore.

and you continue to do this . . . "I don't condone . . . but I condone"
You pat yorself on the back for 'recognizing' the fact that torture is not 'a good thing' . . . but in fact you haven't shown that you CAN even see what is at stake here . . .
You don't even recognize what torture is, and when you start a long list of excuses with "I am not condoning, but..etc etc" then you are lying to yourself!!

And in the context of the abuse of a 12 year old child, your pathetic moral illness merely shows itself

. . . how many people are out there making excuses for this kind of stuff?
How many people are thinking that outrage at torture is merely being 'used' for politics?

And you then try to derail the whole thing by pretending that we are not outraged at terroristic murders!!
That is dispicable logic . . . it isn't even logic! it is merely idiotic rhetoric that has no truth beyond some sort of partisan emotionalism.

And BTW France, Germany and Russia?
. . and Halliburton . . . ever seen the list of companies that were doing 'business' in Iraq?
and, don't confuse corporations with countries . . . that only holds for the US, though, hopefully, only for part of the US government.

kneelbeforezod

07-15-2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
No, terrorists (combatants/insurgents), when info is needed to save lives.How about people who are definitely innocent, but who are related to somebody that may have information but won't talk?

Like the 16 year old mentioned above...

And conversely...

Is it okay for terrorists (combatants/insurgents) to torture US military personnell if it might provide them with info that will save the lives of other terrorists (combatants/insurgents)?

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
How about people who are definitely innocent, but who are related to somebody that may have information but won't talk?

Like the 16 year old mentioned above...

And conversely...

Is it okay for terrorists (combatants/insurgents) to torture US military personnell if it might provide them with info that will save the lives of other terrorists (combatants/insurgents)? Come now.

If you are innocent, then what are the chances that you have info about planned murders or the whereabouts of known terrorists? That would make you an accomplice, no?

The terrorists (combatants/insurgents) we are talking about are in the wrong. OK, they are wrong to be doing what they are. And they are nat using torture anymore, they are just holding you face down and steadily sawing your head off. Even the worst torture tactics that the US may employ pale at what they would/will do.

Edit: Did we all forget about the Falujah contractor incident. How many of the people that took part in that were innocents, in your opinion? Those people weren't even militants. Where is the outrage over that? I think I recall many saying that they were asking for it.

Sigh.

pfflam

07-15-2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Edit: Did we all forget about the Falujah contractor incident. How many of the people that took part in that were innocents, in your opinion? Those people weren't even militants. Where is the outrage over that? I think I recall many saying that they were asking for it.

Sigh. Then you recall your head up your arse!!!!

sammi jo

07-15-2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
The US did not do these things on purpose.

What do you mean? If not on purpose, then was it accidental? In what branch of the military do orders get carried out by accident?

Individuals within the coalition may have committed some crimes but they were not sanctioned by the US or it's allies. You know that.

Not necessarily true. It all depends on what the definition of "torture" is. And if it's considered OK at Gitmo, then it's probably OK in Baghdad also.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001950778_torture08.html

addabox

07-15-2004, 05:29 PM

Latest issue of Newsweek with fun facts about the prisoners made famous by the abuse piectures. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5412316/site/newsweek/)

Turns out most of them were common criminals. The "Statue of Liberty" guy? Satar Jabar, carjacker. The guy on Private Lynndie's leash? Wassa Muhammed Athab, carjacker. The guy cowering form the dog? Haqi Ismail Abdul-Hamid, charged with simple assault.

Which is why "it's either us or them, remember 9/11, this is war, etc." is such appalling, morally bankrupt bullshit.

The whole point of the rule of law is due process. Innocent until proven guilty. Treated humanely while incarcerated, given a timely hearing.

Of course, it's much simpler if you just assume being detained equals being guilty, and not just guilty of any crime, but heinous crimes against the state. Just ask the KGB. Saves all that time sorting out who's who and who did what.

Right Naples? Remember how, when this story first broke, you were of the opinion that anybody in that jail was in all probability a bad guy? And from that you moved to the idea that torture (when you weren't discounting the evidence of your eyes and dismissing it as hazing) was a small price to pay to protect our troops and stop the next "terrorist attack"?

And now you say pretty much the same thing about the abuse of children, having in no way been shamed or chastised by having events demonstrate the exact ugliness at the heart of your logic.

So it's not so much that you are arguing that the "WOT" obliges us to be harsh with terrorists, although you would like to pretend that that is your reasoning.

You are in fact arguing that the "WOT" obliges us to be harsh, or more than harsh, with everybody.

Or at least every "Arab". Right? Because any "Muslim" male could be a terrorist, and any terrorist is fair game for torture and abuse, so any Muslim is fair game for torture and abuse. Young, old, guilty, innocent, it really doesn't matter. Because you never know. Because the very fate of the United States of America hangs in the balance. Because war is hell.

Did they shoot an Iraqi boy on his way to buy food for his family in the head? 9/11. Did they put a missile into the home of a schoolteacher?Terrorists. Did they arrest and torture a petty thief? 9/11. Did they burst into the home of a middle class Iraqi family at two in the morning and force the man to lie face down on the floor while his wife and child wept and screamed, not knowing what was going on? Terrorists. 9/11. Terrorists. 9/11. Terrorists. 9/11.

Abuse of the innocent for a war with no reason. That would be your memorial to the American dead of 9/11. What a patriot you are.

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
What do you mean? If not on purpose, then was it accidental? In what branch of the military do orders get carried out by accident?

Not necessarily true. It all depends on what the definition of "torture" is. And if it's considered OK at Gitmo, then it's probably OK in Baghdad also.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001950778_torture08.html Collateral casualties would be accidental by nature, rather unintended.

One thing that makes the US army unique is that soldiers are given scopes of authority and a certain amount of leeway to accomplish certain tasks, especially in a combat situations. This small amount of self rule can also lead to some bad things as Abu Graib illustrated. The overwhelming majority of soldiers and commanders are upright. Come on.

As far as saying certain guidelines are the same In Gitmo and in Iraq. Uniformed soldiers are under the umbrella of the GC but not terrorists. Some of the insurgents in Iraq have blurred that line (at least some would like it blurred) by teaming with foreign terrorists. Let's at least talk straight.

kneelbeforezod

07-15-2004, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Come now.

If you are innocent, then what are the chances that you have info about planned murders or the whereabouts of known terrorists? That would make you an accomplice, no?Well, in the case of the 16 year old who was abused in order to make his father talk during interrogation I fail to see what the boy did to warrant the treatment he recieved.

And there is always the problem of people who are not involved in any of the fighting, who know nothing about the fighting beyond the fact that it is going on all around them, but who are detained for questioning by mistake. (You'll concede that this can happen, no?) Is it acceptable for them to be mistreated or abused when they don't provide any useful intel during interrogation?

"Is it safe?"
"I don't know what you mean."
"Is it safe?"
"Yes, it's safe, it's very safe, it's so safe you wouldn't believe it."
"Is it safe?"
"No. It's not safe, it's...very dangerous, be careful."

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by addabox
Latest issue of Newsweek with fun facts about the prisoners made famous by the abuse piectures. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5412316/site/newsweek/)

Turns out most of them were common criminals. The "Statue of Liberty" guy? Satar Jabar, carjacker. The guy on Private Lynndie's leash? Wassa Muhammed Athab, carjacker. The guy cowering form the dog? Haqi Ismail Abdul-Hamid, charged with simple assault.

Which is why "it's either us or them, remember 9/11, this is war, etc." is such appalling, morally bankrupt bullshit.

The whole point of the rule of law is due process. Innocent until proven guilty. Treated humanely while incarcerated, given a timely hearing.

Of course, it's much simpler if you just assume being detained equals being guilty, and not just guilty of any crime, but heinous crimes against the state. Just ask the KGB. Saves all that time sorting out who's who and who did what.

Right Naples? Remember how, when this story first broke, you were of the opinion that anybody in that jail was in all probability a bad guy? And from that you moved to the idea that torture (when you weren't discounting the evidence of your eyes and dismissing it as hazing) was a small price to pay to protect our troops and stop the next "terrorist attack"?

And now you say pretty much the same thing about the abuse of children, having in no way been shamed or chastised by having events demonstrate the exact ugliness at the heart of your logic.

So it's not so much that you are arguing that the "WOT" obliges us to be harsh with terrorists, although you would like to pretend that that is your reasoning.

You are in fact arguing that the "WOT" obliges us to be harsh, or more than harsh, with everybody.

Or at least every "Arab". Right? Because any "Muslim" male could be a terrorist, and any terrorist is fair game for torture and abuse, so any Muslim is fair game for torture and abuse. Young, old, guilty, innocent, it really doesn't matter. Because you never know. Because the very fate of the United States of America hangs in the balance. Because war is hell.

Did they shoot an Iraqi boy on his way to buy food for his family in the head? 9/11. Did they put a missile into the home of a schoolteacher?Terrorists. Did they arrest and torture a petty thief? 9/11. Did they burst into the home of a middle class Iraqi family at two in the morning and force the man to lie face down on the floor while his wife and child wept and screamed, not knowing what was going on? Terrorists. 9/11. Terrorists. 9/11. Terrorists. 9/11.

Abuse of the innocent for a war with no reason. That would be your memorial to the American dead of 9/11. What a patriot you are. In a war or combat situation the opposite is true, everyone is considered hostile until proven innocent.

One example would be how swat clear a building. They detain everyone and usher them off site, interrogate and then proceed. Even if you are innocent of anything, you get cuffed and stuffed with the rest of 'em.

Let's analyze the scenario you seem to be suggesting:

Satar Jabar, carjacker was walking down the road, a be-boppin' right along when out of the blue a Hummer stops and he is beaten to the ground by 5 soldiers lookin' for some fun. They take him and his carjacker freinds back to the prison and with the help of some intel guys proceed to humiliate him for no apparent reason. Take some pictures and shazam Abu Graib.

Do you really think that they were detained for mere carjacking? I don't know the facts any more than you do, but I doubt that was all they were involved in. Hey, if you want to believe otherwise, fine.

Oh yeah, please at least attempt to be honest and quit putting words in my mouth.

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Well, in the case of the 16 year old who was abused in order to make his father talk during interrogation I fail to see what the boy did to warrant the treatment he recieved.

And there is always the problem of people who are not involved in any of the fighting, who know nothing about the fighting beyond the fact that it is going on all around them, but who are detained for questioning by mistake. (You'll concede that this can happen, no?) Is it acceptable for them to be mistreated or abused when they don't provide any useful intel during interrogation?

"Is it safe?"
"I don't know what you mean."
"Is it safe?"
"Yes, it's safe, it's very safe, it's so safe you wouldn't believe it."
"Is it safe?"
"No. It's not safe, it's...very dangerous, be careful."
Look, how many ways can i say it? It happens, noone condones it. But it happens. These are humans we are talking about. People make mistakes.

You get pulled over by the police, they think you're a terrorist about to pull off an attack. If you do nothing but cooperate, why would they mistreat you?

I would like to know how many people are detained and then released after questioning, just in this country every year. That would be a huge number, I bet.

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
[B]Well, in the case of the 16 year old who was abused in order to make his father talk during interrogation I fail to see what the boy did to warrant the treatment he recieved. What if the facts come out that his mistreatment save potentially hundreds of lives?

Do you think they were merely trying to get his secret family baklava recipe?

Was his son a complete innocent or was he also involved?

Harald

07-15-2004, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
What if the facts come out that his mistreatment save potentially hundreds of lives?

OK, so you acknowledge that mistreatment (which is a crime) is justifiable to you if lives are saved.

What other crimes would be justifiable?

Presumably the murders would be justifiable; but how about expropriation of assets, say, or assasination of government ministers that were in the way of US interests? I'm NOT saying these have happened; I'm just asking:

If mistreatment is justifiable, where does a crime become unjustifiable?

Would it be OK for (say) Bush to declare an election null and void because he considered Kerry's policies likely to lead to dead Americans?

NOT saying this is likely. But it would be a crime.

At what point, NaplesX, would a crime become unjustifiable?

FormerLurker

07-15-2004, 06:28 PM

In a war or combat situation the opposite is true, everyone is considered hostile until proven innocent.
Hey Naples - do you have one of those t-shirts that says:

Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out
?
If not, you need one, it would be a perfect fit for you. If so, I'm sure you wear it with pride.

Sicko.

giant

07-15-2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.fireantav.com/ai/naplesX.png
Originally posted by addabox
Why do you keep referencing AQ? Is it this hard for you to keep your "Arabs" straight? Oh yeah, your not a mother-fucking racist piece of shit because you keep on deliberately equating the people of Iraq with AQ even though it's been refuted over and over and over and over. "It's bad to hurt children but a terrorist is a terrorist and you can't be too careful."

Never mind who's actually in the jails of Iraq. You don't care. You don't want to know. Because the truth of the situation would interfere with clever little line of reasoning.

So you think it's OK to hurt children. You can't have it both ways. Either it is never OK, or it is. You immediately speculate on reasons why it is, sometimes, then act wounded and outraged when we take you at your word. Which is what you always do. You say something repulsive and insane and then deny it, parsing little bits of things as if the argument hung on them.

You think it's OK to hurt children because sometimes children are really terrorists and that's one of their tricks. That's what you said, you miserable little coward.

The thread is about abuse of children as young as 12 in Iraqi prisons. You want to talk about AQ and freedom and the fate of America, because those terms make it easier to pretend that almost anything is justified.

Nice big sweeping notions that obscure the blood and suffering of people you know nothing about and care nothing about, except insofar as they serve as a donkey to pile you jingoistic sloganeering on.

Have you got children? Can you even begin to imagine their brains and blood on your shirt? Can you imagine the smug bastard a world away that brushes his hands and says "war is hell, but necessary"?

Can you imagine crying out to God but God has turned his back becasue he knows you approve when it's somebody elses children?

A person who claims to be reasonable and compassionate but can rationalize death and torture as "a necessary evil", and who can't even be bothered to try very hard to sort out the entirely innocent from the circumstantially involved from the actually guilty is neither reasonable or compassionate.

That person is quite simply evil. Because that's what evil is. A kind of moral stupidity and laziness that revels in its own justifications and prizes "winning" over truth, or kindness, or imagination.

Evil is willing to trade the lives of strangers for slogans. Evil is happy to explain why atrocities, are (sadly) sort of inevitable when the stakes are high. Evil looks pass the screaming of the bereaved to the air- conditioned office complexes of tomorrow and calls it a fair trade. Evil has no use for the stories of victims, because horror is a weakness and surely a tool of the enemy.

Christ, I fell dirty just reading your posts. I'm done with this.
http://www.fireantav.com/ai/naplesX2.png

http://www.fireantav.com/ai/naplesX3.png

Gilsch

07-15-2004, 06:36 PM

Amazing.. Naples, I'm glad I don't have anyone like you even remotely close or around my life.

It saddens me greatly that we have some great men and women in Iraq dying for individuals like you.
:no:

midwinter

07-15-2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Do you really think that they were detained for mere carjacking?

Carjackers tend not to have the proper paperwork for the car they're driving when they come to a checkpoint.

FormerLurker

07-15-2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Do you really think that they were detained for mere carjacking? I don't know the facts any more than you do, but I doubt that was all they were involved in. Hey, if you want to believe otherwise, fine.

So you're saying that Newsweek is just making this shit up? Man, you really live right smack in the middle of "a river in Egypt" don't you?

From Newsweek link above (which you obviously haven't even looked at)
NAME: Haqi Ismail Abdul-Hamid
CHARGE: Simple assault
ABUSE: Interrogators sicced unmuzzled dogs on prisoners like this one, who was jailed for approaching Iraqi police and Coalition soldiers, swearing at them and making threats. Prison officials finally concluded he "suffers from mental disability."
BACKGROUND TO ABDUL-HAMID'S ARREST: A 72-Hour Review document filed by the U.S. Detainee Review Authority lists Abdul-Hamid as a “criminal detainee” held for “simple assault by trying to punch and kick Iraqi police and Coalition MP.” The document adds: “On behalf of the Coalition Forces, it is hereby ordered that detainee be released as a criminal detainee who meets the minor crimes criteria.” A separate “detainee tracking form” notes that Abdul-Hamid should be released on 31 Oct. 03.
Hey, we're not just torturing innocent children... we're torturing innocent mentally disabled people, too! Well, they brought it on themselves, didn't they, and besides, we gotta do whatever it takes in IRAQ to win the WAR ON TERROR, right?

[/sarcasm]
[wishing for "Puke" smiley]

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Harald
OK, so you acknowledge that mistreatment (which is a crime) is justifiable to you if lives are saved.

What other crimes would be justifiable?

Presumably the murders would be justifiable; but how about expropriation of assets, say, or assasination of government ministers that were in the way of US interests? I'm NOT saying these have happened; I'm just asking:

If mistreatment is justifiable, where does a crime become unjustifiable?

Would it be OK for (say) Bush to declare an election null and void because he considered Kerry's policies likely to lead to dead Americans?

NOT saying this is likely. But it would be a crime.

At what point, NaplesX, would a crime become unjustifiable? This whole thread was based on suppositions and assumptions, which makes me laugh at all of the angst on this, but hey...

Have you ever heard of mitigating circumstances? Every US court recognizes these.

You know this is funny how many of the posters on this thread have accused me of seeing only black and white, yet they can't see that this is a situation where there is plenty of gray. So I guess it is OK to adopt a tack when it suits.

From the posts thus far, I can't imagine how angry some here must get when they think of SH's hundreds of thousands victims or the 3000+ that died on 9/11 or the thousands of Iraqi victims at the hands of the Iraqi "freedom fighters" I expect to see thousands of Liberal Democrats gathered outside the green zone to show their support for SH's conviction of war crimes.It will be quite a sight, for sure.

jimmac

07-15-2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
This whole thread was based on suppositions and assumptions, which makes me laugh at all of the angst on this, but hey...

Have you ever heard of mitigating circumstances? Every US court recognizes these.

You know this is funny how many of the posters on this thread have accused me of seeing only black and white, yet they can't see that this is a situation where there is plenty of gray. So I guess it is OK to adopt a tack when it suits.

From the posts thus far, I can't imagine how angry some here must get when they think of SH's hundreds of thousands victims or the 3000+ that died on 9/11 or the thousands of Iraqi victims at the hands of the Iraqi "freedom fighters" I expect to see thousands of Liberal Democrats gathered outside the green zone to show their support for SH's conviction of war crimes.It will be quite a sight, for sure.

What does 911 have to do with Iraq?:rolleyes:

NaplesX

07-15-2004, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
What does 911 have to do with Iraq?:rolleyes: To lemmings, nothing.

kneelbeforezod

07-15-2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
To lemmings, nothing. So you don't have an answer to the question?

faust9

07-15-2004, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
To lemmings, nothing.

You got that backwards there killer. The lemmings bought the 9/11-Iraq speil hook line and sinker. Those of us who opposed the invasion into Iraq as a farse are not the lemmings. We(the thinkers) analyzed a situation and said nothing good will come of this. The lemmings OTOH followed Bush-a-roonie right over the cliff.

Lemmings

jimmac

07-15-2004, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
To lemmings, nothing.

It's getting harder, and harder to get by this kind of crap isn't it? ;)

sammi jo

07-15-2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
What does 911 have to do with Iraq?:rolleyes:

Very little. No more than any middle eastern nation you could care to name, and a lot less than most of those. And probably very little in comparison to a number of European nations as well.

sammi jo

07-15-2004, 10:33 PM

What Seymour Hersh has learned about Abu Ghraib:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0107946/2004/07/14.html#a1922
Boys allegedly being sodomized there? See the link to his speech.

This type of abuse is probably quite likely, being standard practise in jails anywhere. These are not bozo prison guards however; this is behavior by highly trained (and supposedly well disciplined) soldiers. What has gone so awfully wrong? Or is this just a manifestation of that negative aspect of human nature... "abuse and maltreatment will happen by default by persons who are in positions of absolute power over others".

pfflam

07-15-2004, 10:40 PM

from the Hersh speech:
Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."

"It's impossible to say to yourself how did we get there? Who are we? Who are these people that sent us there? When I did My Lai I was very troubled like anybody in his right mind would be about what happened. I ended up in something I wrote saying in the end I said that the people who did the killing were as much victims as the people they killed because of the scars they had, I can tell you some of the personal stories by some of the people who were in these units witnessed this. I can also tell you written complaints were made to the highest officers and so we're dealing with a enormous massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there and higher, and we have to get to it and we will. We will. You know there's enough out there, they can't (Applause). .... So it's going to be an interesting election year."

addabox

07-16-2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
To lemmings, nothing.

OK.

Put up or shut up.

9/11 commission report says no connection between Saddam and 9/11. No operational connection between AQ and Iraq.

Here's (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/iraq_usa_detainees_dc) a report that two percent of the people in custody in Iraq are "foreign fighters", suggesting that despite Bush's attempts to make Iraq "terror central" we are dealing with almost exclusively Iraqis.

So what in the name of God is your smug assurance that Iraqi=terrorist=AQ=hurting people saves lives all about?

I really want to know. Please show us your evidence. Please make it clear why each and every motherfucking time you open your mouth you default to "it's all about the global war and saving American lives which is why I don't lose sleep over abusing children and torturing car thieves".

How does torturing a car thief save American lives? And please don't say that he "probably" was something more sinister, because your government thinks otherwise.

TELL HOW TORTURING A CAR THIEF SAVES AMERICAN LIVES? EXPLAIN IT.
HOW DOES TORTURING A MENTALLY HANDICAPPED MAN SAVE AMERICAN LIVES? EXPLAIN IT. HOW DOES HURTING CHILDREN SAVE AMERICAN LIVES? EXPLAIN IT.

Not al Qaeda. Not terrorists. Nothing to do with 9/11. You don't care, do you?