or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › this is appalling, abuse of Iraqi prisoners
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

this is appalling, abuse of Iraqi prisoners - Page 10

post #361 of 613
The other apologist argument, as we've seen here in this thread, is "...they were bad men..." Never mind our core values as Americans. Forget about that rule of law. Protect the Pres, and Scumfeld any way possible. Their explanations are shallow and I dare say most people see right through them. You can't polish a terd no matter how hard you try. Bush needs to come forward and apologize to the Iraqis himself. Bush needs to give Scummy the boot before this little incident will truely blow over. Until that time pictures an alligations will do nothing but harm his bid for reelection. A picture or alligation, or video will find media coverage each week for the next month chipping away at Bush's standing and credability unless he--himself not McCleland--steps up to the plate.

Oaklhoma residents here's your rep: James Inhofe.
Quote:
If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands, and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals.

...

I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human-rights violations while our troops, our heroes, are fighting and dying.

source

Moron!!! We have a constitution which applies. We are signatories to the Genovia Conventions. What a F'n boob!!!

McCain got up and walked out of the senate hearings while Inhofe was spewing his drivel. Did McCain have to use the bathroom or did he get a 911 text message? Who knows but it is odd that he, a POW, chose that moment to walk out. Well done McCain. Way to lessen the impact of your fellow repub's speech without having to say a word for or against. Well played.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #362 of 613
faust9, you're being too easy on Mr. Inhofe. I have a better term for him and his ilk... I had lost faith in McCain. Apparently some of his soul still remains intact...

Our heroes would not be in such dire straights if our "leaders" had not chosen this particular fight under these particular circustances based on a particular set of seemingly erroneous data.

President Bush dropped the ball (again...) by not immediately appologizing to the people of Iraq directly and honestly. Of course, he doesn't make mistakes, or can't remember a time that he did... This situation is so pathetic and becoming worse by the hour for our soldiers in harms way.

Our troops have been put in position where they will have to fire first and ask questions later.

If, I say if, there is any grain of truth that many of the detainees were mistakenly put in AG, only to suffer at the hands of the "liberators", the damage to American and British military PR integrety may be long term. Even if Kerry takes the White House.

This prison in particular should have been TORN DOWN! WTF!
You know, what's interesting about our country is that for years we were isolated from the world by two great oceans, and for a while we got a false sense of security as a result of that. We...
Reply
You know, what's interesting about our country is that for years we were isolated from the world by two great oceans, and for a while we got a false sense of security as a result of that. We...
Reply
post #363 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by Smircle
And the vicious cycle shifts into high gear:
Al Qaeda-Linked Group Beheads American in Iraq

Are you suggesting that AQ is doing this because of these mistreatments?

What about Pearle?
post #364 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you suggesting that AQ is doing this because of these mistreatments?

What about Pearle?

Just because they died in a similar fashion DOES NOT make their murders connected. Sure, all the needed was an excuse. But an excuse we gave them.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #365 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Just because they died in a similar fashion DOES NOT make their murders connected. Sure, all the needed was an excuse. But an excuse we gave them.

What is the difference?

Plane, knife, gun or explosive. This is what AQ does. If this beheading is our fault then all of it ever is our fault.

You can't have it both ways on this one.
post #366 of 613
Give me proof that this was done by AQ.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that AQ is doing this because of these mistreatments?

Mistreatments? Wow! Be nice to your friends.



Quote:
Plane, knife, gun or explosive. This is what AQ does.

Now replace AQ by USA.

And tell us to how to get out of vicious cycle.
Merdeka!
Reply
Merdeka!
Reply
post #367 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
What is the difference?

Plane, knife, gun or explosive. This is what AQ does. If this beheading is our fault then all of it ever is our fault.

You can't have it both ways on this one.

Barbaric behavior doesn't win wars, it just makes your enemies more dedicated to their cause, which is why it's so important to eliminate the kind of barbarism we've recently seen at Abu Ghraib from our own side: because it just makes our enemies stronger. If we don't purge it root and branch, we've as good as lost the war. In more ways than one.

Don't statements like these from the White House now fall on deaf and uncaring ears when we, ourselves, are no better, "It shows the true nature of the enemies of freedom. They have no regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said regarding the decapitation of Berg.

Really?

It must've been hard for McClellan not to choke on these words. It must've been even harder for Muslim nations not to laugh out loud at our own double standard.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #368 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by sapi
Give me proof that this was done by AQ.


Mistreatments? Wow! Be nice to your friends.





Now replace AQ by USA.

And tell us to how to get out of vicious cycle.

I suppose that killing an innocent person by way of BEHEADING is a expiation for the acts in the prison?

So now that AQ and the islamofascist community have made it equal, they are gonna stop the killings, right?

Oh wait, AQ is not in Iraq. I keep forgetting that.
post #369 of 613
Quote:
Oh wait, AQ is not in Iraq. I keep forgetting that. [/B]

Naples, it doesn't help the discussion to get cute. You know as well as any of us that there were no credible links between al Qaeda and Iraq, and no reason to think they were doing business there, before the war.

Whether or not they have set up shop subsequently is anybody's guess, but I don't think you'll find anybody on these boards insisting it isn't possible.

You may recall that one of the reasons proffered by folks here abouts for not invading Iraq in the first place was the likelihood that the chaos it would cause would afford AQ an opportunity to step in.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #370 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh wait, AQ is not in Iraq. I keep forgetting that.

Some are now (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)... they weren't there before the war.
post #371 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by Akumulator
Some are now (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)... they weren't there before the war.

Well so says you.

You are assuming that just because there is no solid intel on the presence of AQ in Iraq that they were not there.

Thing about that line of thinking is this:

I thought AQ despised Iraq, and according to many here on the boards, they steered clear of that region.

But the funny thing about that is they immediately slipped in and infiltrated the citizenry, if I recall they were there before the US arrived in Bagdad.

It seems amazing how that without any real previous knowledge they blended in so quickly. They must have instinctually just where to where they would fit in. A nation that was in effect insulted by AQ and UBL just opened their arms wide to let them live among them with such short notice.

Maybe I am missing something.
post #372 of 613
Zarqawi, who apparently was behind this beheading, was in Iraq before the war. He was the primary Iraq-al qaeda link. The problem is, he was in Kurdish-controlled Iraq, which was free of Saddam's control. In addition, we apparently had several chances to get him before the war, but decided not to. Some have suggested that perhaps we didn't take him out because it would have undermined the case for regime change.

Quote:
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawis operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone._ Heres a case where they waited, they waited too long and now were suffering as a result inside Iraq, Cressey added.

Man, if we didn't take this guy out due to political reasons...
post #373 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well so says you.

You are assuming that just because there is no solid intel on the presence of AQ in Iraq that they were not there.

Thing about that line of thinking is this:

I thought AQ despised Iraq, and according to many here on the boards, they steered clear of that region.

But the funny thing about that is they immediately slipped in and infiltrated the citizenry, if I recall they were there before the US arrived in Bagdad.

It seems amazing how that without any real previous knowledge they blended in so quickly. They must have instinctually just where to where they would fit in. A nation that was in effect insulted by AQ and UBL just opened their arms wide to let them live among them with such short notice.

Maybe I am missing something.

al Qaeda didn't approve of Saddam's secularist state. They didn't "despise" the geographical boundaries of Iraq or its people.

No Saddam, subsequent political chaos, opportunity for AQ.

I think you should start a support group for people that can't let go of WOMD and links to al Qaeda. Hash it out amongst yourselves, because it's really getting old here.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #374 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
al Qaeda didn't approve of Saddam's secularist state. They didn't "despise" the geographical boundaries of Iraq or its people.

No Saddam, subsequent political chaos, opportunity for AQ.

I think you should start a support group for people that can't let go of WOMD and links to al Qaeda. Hash it out amongst yourselves, because it's really getting old here.

Wait, many on the same side you are on, bristle when you mention AQ and Iraq in the same sentence.

I have heard arguments that state that AQ wasn't even interested in the area. Those people will fight tooth and nail to prove that AQ never even stepped foot in Iraq, for whatever reason they can conjure up.

I just wonder how they set up the logistics and friendships so quickly if they were not already installed.

That new report states that there was a factory being used by AQ in June 2002. That was before the war began, no? Almost a year, by my watch. How long did it take to set up that facility for that purpose?

In order for you to accept that article your whole "no AQ Iraq link" defence must be dropped.

Sounds like a pickle.
post #375 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
al Qaeda didn't approve of Saddam's secularist state. They didn't "despise" the geographical boundaries of Iraq or its people.

No Saddam, subsequent political chaos, opportunity for AQ.

I think you should start a support group for people that can't let go of WOMD and links to al Qaeda. Hash it out amongst yourselves, because it's really getting old here.

Oh yeah, that was a Ricin factory. That would be a WMD, no?
post #376 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you suggesting that AQ is doing this because of these mistreatments?

So their statement says. Could be they are lying, but without proof I tend to believe them.

Mind you, I think this is both as low as the behaviour of the US troops and a major tactical plunder since it only serves to bolster the mindless position that all arabs are cruel, inhuman beasts, but sure looks like revenge, don't you think?

Next stop: coalition troops bombing some AlQuaida hideouts killing some innocent neighbors or something to this effect.
post #377 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by Smircle
So their statement says. Could be they are lying, but without proof I tend to believe them.

Mind you, I think this is both as low as the behaviour of the US troops and a major tactical plunder since it only serves to bolster the mindless position that all arabs are cruel, inhuman beasts, but sure looks like revenge, don't you think?

Next stop: coalition troops bombing some AlQuaida hideouts killing some innocent neighbors or something to this effect.

They hide among civilians for protection. How do you stop that from happening?
post #378 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wait, many on the same side you are on, bristle when you mention AQ and Iraq in the same sentence.

I have heard arguments that state that AQ wasn't even interested in the area. Those people will fight tooth and nail to prove that AQ never even stepped foot in Iraq, for whatever reason they can conjure up.

I just wonder how they set up the logistics and friendships so quickly if they were not already installed.

That new report states that there was a factory being used by AQ in June 2002. That was before the war began, no? Almost a year, by my watch. How long did it take to set up that facility for that purpose?

In order for you to accept that article your whole "no AQ Iraq link" defence must be dropped.

Sounds like a pickle.

New report?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #379 of 613
Just because there were/are members of al Qaeda in Iraq does not mean that Iraq and al Qaeda ever worked together. There were al Qaeda in the U.S. and still may be some.... obviously there's no link between the U.S. and al Qaeda.

I may be wrong about the time period that Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, but the point is that he was not associated with Saddam. He was set up in Northern Iraq which was not even in Saddam's control. After Saddam lost control of Iraq, there were many opportunities for al Qaeda, Shiites and other groups to take advantage of the lack of control of the country. Who knows how many al Qaeda members may have entered Iraq since the downfall of Saddam's government.
post #380 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
New report?

Yep, it was posted earlier in this thread.

Are you paying attention?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
post #381 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Yep, it was posted earlier in this thread.

Are you paying attention?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Updated: 7:14 p.m._ET March_ 02, 2004


are you?
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #382 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by Akumulator
Just because there were/are members of al Qaeda in Iraq does not mean that Iraq and al Qaeda ever worked together. There were al Qaeda in the U.S. and still may be some.... obviously there's no link between the U.S. and al Qaeda.

I may be wrong about the time period that Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, but the point is that he was not associated with Saddam. He was set up in Northern Iraq which was not even in Saddam's control. After Saddam lost control of Iraq, there were many opportunities for al Qaeda, Shiites and other groups to take advantage of the lack of control of the country. Who knows how many al Qaeda members may have entered Iraq since the downfall of Saddam's government.

We are talking a year or more before the war.

SH had palaces in northern Iraq. Iraq was his country, no?

I would have to say he had more control over it then say the US did or any other leader.

That argument is pretty weak. IMO
post #383 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
We are talking a year or more before the war.

SH had palaces in northern Iraq. Iraq was his country, no?

I would have to say he had more control over it then say the US did or any other leader.

That argument is pretty weak. IMO

Saddam didn't have control of Northern Iraq since the first Gulf War.
post #384 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by Akumulator
Saddam didn't have control of Northern Iraq since the first Gulf War.

Who did, then?

Why do we call it northern IRAQ?

I am going to find a map and post it so we all can see where this was.
post #385 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX

I thought AQ despised Iraq, and according to many here on the boards, they steered clear of that region.

Maybe I am missing something.

AlQuaida despised the Baath regime, because it was not a "true islamistic" leadership. So there was no love lost between them and no ties - but of course AlQuaida agents were in Iraq to find ways to overthrow Hussein.

So, yes you are missing why they were there: as enemies of Hussein - and now as enemies of the war coalition. Don't fool yourself thinking that your enemies enemy is your friend.
post #386 of 613
Quote:
Who did, then?

Why do we call it northern IRAQ?

I am going to find a map and post it so we all can see where this was.

Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq
post #387 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by Smircle
AlQuaida despised the Baath regime, because it was not a "true islamistic" leadership. So there was no love lost between them and no ties - but of course AlQuaida agents were in Iraq to find ways to overthrow Hussein.

So, yes you are missing why they were there: as enemies of Hussein - and now as enemies of the war coalition. Don't fool yourself thinking that your enemies enemy is your friend.

Is that the new argument now?
post #388 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
They hide among civilians for protection. How do you stop that from happening?

Shoot 'em all. Let god sort them out. I am sure, the moderate part of the Iraqi population will understand and offer flowers to the nice troops.
post #389 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by Smircle
AlQuaida despised the Baath regime, because it was not a "true islamistic" leadership. So there was no love lost between them and no ties - but of course AlQuaida agents were in Iraq to find ways to overthrow Hussein.

So, yes you are missing why they were there: as enemies of Hussein - and now as enemies of the war coalition. Don't fool yourself thinking that your enemies enemy is your friend.

Read the article, it states they were going to use the Ricin in EU. And then later they found another Ricin lab in EU that was connected to Iraq, also before the war.

This is MSNBC. Far from being a Bush shill.
post #390 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by Smircle
AlQuaida despised the Baath regime, because it was not a "true islamistic" leadership. So there was no love lost between them and no ties - but of course AlQuaida agents were in Iraq to find ways to overthrow Hussein.

So, yes you are missing why they were there: as enemies of Hussein - and now as enemies of the war coalition. Don't fool yourself thinking that your enemies enemy is your friend.

I realize that this is an attack on the Bush white house, but in their fervor to do so they admitted to the AQ/Iraq connection IMO.
post #391 of 613
C'mon people, lets have some realism here. If, and only if, a credible and proven link was found between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (or the Baathist regime), the US media and the Bush administration would be milking it for all its worth, for weeks and months, up until the election. We wouldn't hear the end of it...it would be "all Al Qaeda <----> Iraq all the time". To date...zilch, because there isn't anything that stands up to scrutiny. Same goes for any credible discovery of chemical/bio weapons etc.

AND......

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...use/index.html

Now look who's at what Sen. Inhofe is saying. The weasel of Oklahoma implies that he approves the abuse, torture and killings of Iraqi prisoners. Doesn't he know that up to 90% of those prisoners are there with no just cause, arrested "by mistake"? Doesn't he know that these abuses are in flagrant breach of both US military codes of conduct and international law? Doesn't he realize that this kind of extremist commentary is the sort of thing that makes us even more hated than we already are??? What a stupid, dumb, jackass IDIOT!!!! Just what the hell is this appeaser of evil doing in the Senate?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #392 of 613
Yes this Zarqawi was in Iraq, and he was al Qaeda. But Saddam did not have control over the area of Iraq that Zarqawi was in.

bin Laden has an interesting history with Saddam Hussein. One theory about how al Qaeda formed is that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, bin Laden offered to use his connections from the Afghan-Soviet war to form an army to protect Saudi Arabia. Instead, the Sauds went with Bush. It was downhill from there.
post #393 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Who did, then?

Why do we call it northern IRAQ?

I am going to find a map and post it so we all can see where this was.

A google search for Kurdish controlled northern Iraq yields 70,000 hits.
post #394 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by Akumulator
Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq

The town is spelled Khurma and is approx. 20 miles north of Halabjah. Remember that name?

It is also south of the northern no-fly zone (36th parallel).

Kerry and many other senators had access to this info. It would have been a bona-fide act of war and would have forced the US to attack prematurely without the proper build up. They chose not to bomb it for that reason, IMO.

Here is a link to a map:

http://www.multimap.com/wi/browse.cg...dvanced=&lang=

The previously quoted article by MSNBC neglected to mention those facts. And they spelled it phonetically as opposed to it's real spelling on purpose, IMO
post #395 of 613
Naples, it seems you're right that it's outside of the no-fly zone. But it's still in Kurdish-controlled Iraq, according to your maps. And both Clinton toward the end of his term and Bush bombed Iraq virtually weekly. It would have been no problem, and probably would have hardly even been reported in the news, if Bush had taken out Zarqawi when we had the chance. And remember, this was post 9/11. We were already in a shooting war with al Qaeda. No one would have had a problem with us going after this guy. But in any case, what bothers me is the possibility that he might have decided against taking him out simply for PR purposes.
post #396 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Naples, it seems you're right that it's outside of the no-fly zone. But it's still in Kurdish-controlled Iraq, according to your maps. And both Clinton toward the end of his term and Bush bombed Iraq virtually weekly. It would have been no problem, and probably would have hardly even been reported in the news, if Bush had taken out Zarqawi when we had the chance. And remember, this was post 9/11. We were already in a shooting war with al Qaeda. No one would have had a problem with us going after this guy. But in any case, what bothers me is the possibility that he might have decided against taking him out simply for PR purposes.

Sure but there is also the possibility that the choice was made for other reasons. And we all know that a missile strike does not guarantee success.
post #397 of 613
please do not let one person derail an important thread...

by certain logic florida is a terrorist state since they actually housed and trained the saudia nationals that flew planes into the twin towers


g
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
post #398 of 613
While everyone sides for the terrorists here.

I suggest that you watch the video AQ took of the new famous beheading.

It is in another thread in AO.

It may just change your perspective.

To say that the torture or whatever you call it at the prison is even close to that video, is just sick.

I don't even care if it was a US Citizen, I would not do that to an animal.

I really hope you people don't feel these lowlifes are worth defending.
post #399 of 613
can somebody please ban this man...

first he calls anybody he disagrees with names, he questions their compassion, he calls them liars...now he says they support terrorist


please mods help a brother out here

g
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
post #400 of 613
Quote:
Originally posted by thegelding
can somebody please ban this man...

first he calls anybody he disagrees with names, he questions their compassion, he calls them liars...now he says they support terrorist


please mods help a brother out here

g

I did nothing of the sort.

And you know it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › this is appalling, abuse of Iraqi prisoners