War makes beasts of men
Scape @ Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:47 pm
Video
$1:
"What i found was absolutely stunning. I found that the majority of prisoners at Abu Ghraib hadn't committed any crimes against the coalition -- they hadn't committed violent crimes. They were at Abu Ghraib for petty theft, public drunkenness, forged coalition documents, impersonating a coalition officer, petty nonviolent offenses and they were inside Abu Ghraib with real murderers, real rapists, real insurgents. In addition, a large percentage of those at Abu Ghraib hadn't committed any offense at all. The military had a policy of random sweeps..."
[quote="Scape]
$1:
"What i found "
[/quote]
"What I found..." is someone's opinion or perception and not a fact. It's a cowardly way to state non-factual information as a fact. It is a nice propaganda technique and nothing more.
As in, "What I found about Canadians is..."
Is it somones opinion if it was recorded that said Iraqi prisoner was not in Abu Ghraib for a violent act againts the Coalition, but was being exposed to war crimes and breaks in the Geneva Convention for simple looting or public drunkeness?
Scape @ Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:17 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
"What I found..." is someone's opinion or perception and not a fact. It's a cowardly way to state non-factual information as a fact. It is a nice propaganda technique and nothing more.
As in, "What I found about Canadians is..."
Your joking right? Aidan Delgado was a former guard at Abu Ghraib. That's a 1st hand report.
Former President Carter on Tuesday called for the United States to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison to demonstrate its commitment to human rights.
SadBlue SadBlue:
Is it somones opinion if it was recorded that said Iraqi prisoner was not in Abu Ghraib for a violent act againts the Coalition, but was being exposed to war crimes and breaks in the Geneva Convention for simple looting or public drunkeness?
The Geneva Convention appiles to prisoners of war. Looters and drunks and terrorists are not prisoners of war. Civilian war criminals would not enjoy Geneva Convention protections, they are prosecuted under the Hague conventions and (where applicable) the International Criminal Court. In the case of Saddam Hussein he is being tried under Iraqi law...much of which he personally authored.
No uniformed Iraqi soldiers who were captured during the invasion cite Geneva Convention violations and all of them have now been released with the exception of Iraqi staff officers held over for trial by the Iraqi government.
Also, no matter how bad these people might be treated from their point of view, they are inarguably being treated better than Hussein would've treated them. The proof of this is that they are alive.
xerxes @ Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:06 pm
Oh, so now they're only being abused and dehumanized as opposed to being killed? What an amazing improvment!!!! God Bless the USA!
Scape Scape:
Former President Carter
is responsible for all of this mess. Had he not been so freaking impotent when the Iranians seized the US Embassy the Muslims would not think so little of the USA these days.
By the way, the only successful rescues of American Embassy staff from Iran was performed by Canadians, not by Jimmah Cahtah.
Another reason Canada kicks ass.
Scape @ Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:42 pm
Guess you missed the Iran contra affair and the fact that the rescue was engineered to coincide with Regan getting in office? In other words Carter did all the work and Regan got all the laurels for it.
Iran hostage crisis
$1:
Rejecting the Iranian demands, Carter approved an ill-conceived secret rescue mission, Operation Eagle Claw. On the night of April 24-25, 1980, as the first part of the operation, a number of C-130 transport airplanes rendezvoused with nine RH-53 helicopters at an airstrip in the Great Salt Desert of South-Eastern Iran. Two helicopters broke down in a sandstorm and a third was damaged on landing. The mission was aborted but as the aircraft took off again one helicopter clipped a C-130 and crashed, killed eight US servicemen and injuring four or more. In the evacuation sufficient mission material was left behind for the Iranians to discover and later display to the world's media.
And then:
$1:
The official history states that after winning the election, before his inauguration, Reagan pushed hard for a resolution. Using the Algerian government as intermediaries successful negotiations were completed. However ther eis strong evidence of what is termed the "Ootober Surprise" took place.
This is the name for the substantuve allegation that representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections, so that Reagan's opponent, then President Jimmy Carter, whose team had been negotiating, wouldn't gain a popularity boost (an 'October Surprise') before election day. The allegations included a date-specific allegation that William Casey met with an Iranian cleric in Madrid, Spain, and much of the tardy investigations centered on whether, at the weekend in question he was actually at Bohemian Grove retreat in California. Though William Casey was provably in London following the alleged meetings, critical pages of his daybook diary were unaccountably missing when the investigators came to look for them over a decade later.
Carter was at the time dealing with the Iran hostage crisis and the hostile regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Those who aver that a deal was made allege that certain Republicans with CIA connections, including George H. W. Bush, arranged to have the hostages held through October, until Reagan could defeat Carter in early November, and then be released. The hostages were in fact released on the very day of Reagan's inauguration, twenty minutes after his inaugral address. If the timing was a double-cross that was meant to tip off the American public to the game, it failed to elicit much commentary.
This from the Reagan administration that 'does not deal with terrorists'. Yet in
Lebanon he up and RAN when attacked, yet your attacking Carter for not doing anything.
xerxes xerxes:
God Bless the USA!
Why thank you! Glad to hear it, xerxes.
I think that the torture the Iraqi prisoners are undergoing is so far worse then death, I can't imagine it. These people lived their entire lives under the rule of the madman Saddam Huessain, the "most dangerous man in the world." They only had one enduring hope, and let's face it, to the uneducated Middle Eastern peasent, America is this gleaming ray of light. But what did America end up doing? They tortured, killed, and dehuminized people for the simple crime of being born in Iraq.
Lets take, for example, a story that surfaced from Abu Gharib just a little while ago. I can't recall any specific names, but one man (A Mayor of an Iraqi town, if I remember correctly) had been thrown in Abu Gharib for no justifiable cause. The people in charge of Gharib then dehuminized this man entirly. They made him stand on a block of wood, clutching in his hands two electric wires, covered in a black shroud. . The man did not die, but the pain of being shocked for nearly a full day while being forced to stand still must have been unimaginable.
God Bless America... Take a look.

SadBlue SadBlue:
I think that the torture the Iraqi prisoners are undergoing is so far worse then death, I can't imagine it. These people lived their entire lives under the rule of the madman Saddam Huessain, the "most dangerous man in the world." They only had one enduring hope, and let's face it, to the uneducated Middle Eastern peasent, America is this gleaming ray of light. But what did America end up doing? They tortured, killed, and dehuminized people for the simple crime of being born in Iraq.
Uh, wow. ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT??
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
SadBlue SadBlue:
I think that the torture the Iraqi prisoners are undergoing is so far worse then death, I can't imagine it. These people lived their entire lives under the rule of the madman Saddam Huessain, the "most dangerous man in the world." They only had one enduring hope, and let's face it, to the uneducated Middle Eastern peasent, America is this gleaming ray of light. But what did America end up doing? They tortured, killed, and dehuminized people for the simple crime of being born in Iraq.
Uh, wow. ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT??

Not certain, but rather. Now, to America's credit, your country incredibly good at making themselves look incredibly good (I.E covering up their faults) and too the unimformed Middle Eastern peasent, as I said before, they seem like this big to-good-to-be true savior, Al-Queda and other Muslim fanatics aside.
SadBlue SadBlue:
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
SadBlue SadBlue:
I think that the torture the Iraqi prisoners are undergoing is so far worse then death, I can't imagine it. These people lived their entire lives under the rule of the madman Saddam Huessain, the "most dangerous man in the world." They only had one enduring hope, and let's face it, to the uneducated Middle Eastern peasent, America is this gleaming ray of light. But what did America end up doing? They tortured, killed, and dehuminized people for the simple crime of being born in Iraq.
Uh, wow. ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT??

Not certain, but rather. Now, to America's credit, your country incredibly good at making themselves look incredibly good (I.E covering up their faults) and too the unimformed Middle Eastern peasent, as I said before, they seem like this big to-good-to-be true savior, Al-Queda and other Muslim fanatics aside.
Sorry, this point is not arguable. Neither of us know enough "uninformed Middle Eastern peasants".
That much is true.
But you still can't argue that what the Iraqi people experianced at Abu Gharib was a crime againts Human rights.
SadBlue SadBlue:
But you still can't argue that what the Iraqi people experianced at Abu Gharib was a crime againts Human rights.
![huh? [huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif)
I'm confused. I thought you were against that kinda stuff.