Al-Qaeda BEHEADED U.S. Contractor

[billvon 3,114]

>The understanding - clear and unambiguous - that the men who did
> this, and all those who protect, offer aid and succor, and who assist
> these men, deserve no less than the most we can deliver to them.

I recall you were disappointed that Clinton did not do more to try to kill or capture Bin Laden before 9/11. Are you disappointed that the Bush administration passed up three opportunities to kill or capture Zarqawi for political reasons?

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

(from MSNBC)

[PhillyKev 0]

Interesting, so Bush DIDN'T attack a known terrorist camp because it conflicted with his supposed agenda of fighting terrorism?

[Michele 1]

Quote

Are you disappointed that the Bush administration passed up three opportunities to kill or capture Zarqawi for political reasons?

Absolutely.

On a side note, I will add that this article demonstrates a clear link between terrorism and Iraq, which many on this board do not believe to have existed prior to the war.

Zarqawi was known to be in Iraq (since that's where they were talking about striking), and is thought to be involved in AQ, Anwar al-Islam, and al-Tawhid; he is a poison expert. And has lived and trained in both Iraq and Iran for many years...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>OK - allowed by the Geneva Convention
>"OK" - Clint doesn't personally think it's right to do even if it's OK
> (see first definition above)

I was not prepared for someone to use the same word to mean two different things in the same post. It's a rather unusual tactic for an internet board, where words are the only thing you can use to convey information.

In any case, it sounds like Turtle thinks it's acceptable per the Geneva Convention but not personally acceptable to _him_. Is that accurate, Turtle?

I think you are having an off day.
Q. Is it OK for US news services to show pictures of people we tortured and killed?
A. Part 1 - No, (I am assuming at this point that your use of "OK" is meant as acceptable)not if they are still prisoners, yes if they are ALREADY DEAD.
A. Part 2 - I am niether condoning, or suggesting either act (Torture or Murder) as"OK" (My use of "OK" in this case was was also "acceptable")

Q. Is it OK for someone to show a video of an american being tortured and killed?
A. Part 1 - No, (I am assuming at this point that your use of "OK" is meant as acceptable)not if they are still prisoners, yes if they are ALREADY DEAD.
A. Part 2 - I am niether condoning, or suggesting either act(Torture or Murder) as "OK" (My use of "OK" in this case was was also "acceptable")


Show me the flip flop again? Seems pretty clear - even the first two times I typed it.

The above is what I posted yesterday - so I will bold the parts that are changed so that it will be, hopefully, clear what is meant.

I do find it odd though, that when an argument with validity is not available to the one side- that side seems to like to attack the way someone speaks as opposed to what they know the speaker was trying to convey.

Bill, I have seen you convey your thoughts here - Surely I haven't been that disillusioned of your capabilitities. Don't play dumb, it isn't becoming or condusive to real conversation as it only gives rise to contempt and belligerance.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Trent 0]

Quote

DUBAI, UAE (CNN) -- Many Arabic newspapers published the story of the beheading of U.S. civilian Nick Berg on Wednesday -- but all did so without commenting and the amount of coverage varied greatly.

However, several Arabic dailies, including leading Egyptian papers Al-Ahram and Al-Akhbar, as well as the Kuwaiti daily Al Qabas, did not publish the story at all on their Web sites.

The papers mentioned the execution had been carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an Islamist terrorist group that has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. This claim has not been verified.

The London-based Arabic daily Al Quds Al Arabia and the Yemen Daily Al-Ayam devoted most space to the story.

Al Quds used long quotations from a statement read by Berg's captors in which they said the killing was retaliation for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

Al-Ayam published several pictures of the incident on the lower part of its front page, but the full story was published on page seven.

On the other hand, the Saudi-owned, London-based daily Al-Hayat published details of the killing as part of its lead story on the Iraq abuse scandal front page.

Both the Bahrain daily Al-Ayam and the Jordanian daily Al-Rai did the same.

This is what I'm talking about. I hear from someone's post that there was a nice demonstration by muslims against terror, but OF COURSE the vast majority of arab news outlets would rather replay the murderers' message and explain that it was because of the abuse in prisons. It's almost like... they don't want there to be a reasonable peace process.... go figure.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,114]

>I will add that this article demonstrates a clear link between terrorism
> and Iraq, which many on this board do not believe to have existed
> prior to the war.

There was certainly a connection between that group and the geography of Iraq; there was just no serious connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda. The fact that they are still operating (and getting stronger) even with Hussein gone is evidence that Hussein's regime was not supporting them to any extent.

>Zarqawi was known to be in Iraq (since that's where they were talking
> about striking), and is thought to be involved in AQ, Anwar al-Islam,
> and al-Tawhid; he is a poison expert. And has lived and trained in
> both Iraq and Iran for many years...

Agreed. But Al Qaeda has been in the mountains near the Pakistan / Afghanistan border for years; we seem to be able to make the distinction between a group that hides by the borders in the desert and a group supported by a government (i.e. the Taliban.)

[billvon 3,114]

>Don't play dumb, it isn't becoming or condusive to real conversation
>as it only gives rise to contempt and belligerance.

If you'll agree not to use the same word to mean two different things in the same post, you've got a deal.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>If you'll agree not to use the same word to mean two different things in the same post, you've got a deal.

The obvious answer to this is "OK".

or more fully "OK, when the specifics meets the requirements of the Geneva Convention"

Edit: Is OK one word or two?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Are you disappointed that the Bush administration passed up three opportunities to kill or capture Zarqawi for political reasons?

Absolutely.

On a side note, I will add that this article demonstrates a clear link between terrorism and Iraq, which many on this board do not believe to have existed prior to the war.

Zarqawi was known to be in Iraq (since that's where they were talking about striking), and is thought to be involved in AQ, Anwar al-Islam, and al-Tawhid; he is a poison expert. And has lived and trained in both Iraq and Iran for many years...

Ciels-
Michele

You should e-mail President Bush right away, since he stated just last year that he knew of no connection.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Beheading:-
Its still an accepted and official means of execution in 3 countries, The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and The DR Congo. (source http://www.nutzworld.com/amerikaarticles/methods_of_execution_by_country.htm) At least 2 out of 3 of these countries are our 'friends', and we (the civilised West) support them with trade agreements, supply military equipment and training, etc.
To me beheading is barbaric, and as for public execution using this method, disgusting. So too is the death penalty, another topic entirely methinks though.....

Utah has just phased out execution squads as a method of death penalty. Two remaining convicts have opted for it over lethal injection.

I don't think beheading is particularly different from that or gas or electric chairs. If done properly, it's a clean blow. I haven't been able to open any links to the video yet, but I didn't get the sense they did so well - instead they sawed his neck. And did he even know it was coming? Even for war, it's rather inhumane.

The act has been described as a war tactic, but I'm not convinced it was an intelligent one. It deflected a lot of attention away from our now rather piddling looking abuses and within the US has now made people more than willing to engage in any means necessary.

Unfortunately for those who want retaliation now - what can be done that isn't already being tried?

[Gravitymaster 0]

I have been too busy to keep track of this voluminious thread but has anyone commented about why Berg was wearing an orange jumpsuit? It looked the same as the prison uniforms given to the detainees at Gitmo.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"And all this does is delay the issue. Its a religious war...they have made it one, and thats all it takes. If we gave them everything they want, they will still attack us to "convert" us,"

I spent a fair bit of time pondering this last night, see, I do take you seriously, Ron.
I don't believe this is a religious war, for the following reasons.
They haven't struck symbols of 'infidel' religious belief.
What they have most famously struck were symbols of American commerce (WTC), American military (Pentagon), and they attempted to strike a symbol of American government but failed. I see no religious significance in these targets.
They struck Madrid to sway voters to a previously stated manifesto objective to withdraw support from the coalition, and to divide the coalition members. Remember the war (the part that involved liberating Iraq) was not particularly popular outside the US.
They have not struck religious centres such as the Vatican, cathedrals, Salt Lake City, etc. They have bombed their own (muslim) religious gatherings in Iraq.
They are targetting American and Western interests and enterprises, they have not targetted, say China, which is a land full of non Muslim infidels.
I believe they are using religion as a rallying call to sway marginal support for them in their favour. It also serves to stir up anti muslim feelings outside the middle east. This has a two fold effect, it weakens the resolve of coalition members with a large muslim community (muslims vote as well), and it divides that community (Bubba calls Mustafa raghead, Mustafa calls Bubba a redneck, and you can guess the next stage), creating an ideal recruitment ground for the terrorists with Muslims who feel marginalised in their own country.
The use of religion as an excuse for their strikes is also an attempt to legitimise their attrocities in the eyes of those muslims who might otherwise have been repulsed by the terror actions. Killing people in gods name, doesn't seem quite as bad (to those that subsribe to this type of belief) as killing them for any other reason.
Finally, using the religion banner unites the many factions of Muslim fundamentalist terrorist organisations under a common cause, thereby strengthening their forces.

The stream of religious ranting associated with various announcements from the likes of Bin Laden provides a pretty neat means of passing coded instructions to their followers. Its a method we used during WW2 to communicate with resistance groups in Europe via the BBC's world service. Only nowadays you don't have to tune in to the radio at a certain time to hear your coded instructions, they are all over the internet, and you can pick them up any time you feel like it from willing news sites who carry the full texts of those messages, they are even published in newspapers. Religious rants also serve to remind the world that the likes of Bin Laden are not dead and still very much at large, a further morale boost to their followers.

If we treat this as a religious war, we will be playing straight into the hands of the wackjobs (thanks Trent We must rise above this sectarian rhetoric, ignore it for what it is, and demonstrate, nay celebrate the success of a society that not only tolerates, but even encourages multi racial, and multi denomination members.

Accepting that this is a religiously motivated war only aids those that are seeking to further their own agendas. It will also blind us from seeking out the true cause of this hatred, and prevent us from dealing with that.

Edit to add, nice to see the Muslims who live in America agree with me.
"And it says that just as America cannot be judged by what it calls "often misguided foreign policy" or torture committed by American soldiers, neither should the world of Islam "be held accountable for the un-Islamic and barbaric deeds of a minuscule minority."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3713625.stm

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I have been too busy to keep track of this voluminious thread but has anyone commented about why Berg was wearing an orange jumpsuit? It looked the same as the prison uniforms given to the detainees at Gitmo.

The theory is that is exactly why he was wearing it. They were trying to show a parallel situation and infer that we're doing the same kind of thing.

[Ron 10]

A well thought out reply.

I do think that there is more to their hatred of us than JUST religion.

I do still think that it is the main calling.

Quote

I don't believe this is a religious war, for the following reasons.
They haven't struck symbols of 'infidel' religious belief.
What they have most famously struck were symbols of American commerce (WTC), American military (Pentagon), and they attempted to strike a symbol of American government but failed. I see no religious significance in these targets......They have not struck religious centres such as the Vatican, cathedrals, Salt Lake City, etc

If you want to strike an enemy...You can hit him in many places.

If they had attacked the Vatican....There would have been a much larger swell of hatred for them in countries that are Christian. Also name one religious symbol in the US that if they had destroyed would have had such a large impact on out lives.

There is no religious building that they could have destroyed that would have:
1. Killed as many as they did with the WTC.
2. Been located in such a high population area, and area where the UN is but 3 miles away.
3. Destroying a church would not have done as much if any damage to our economy.
4. The WTC is know as one of the tallest and srongest buildings in the world. By taking that down they send a message that the mighty US can fall just like that building.
5. The WTC is known by everyone, was visited by thousands. I can't name one famous church other than the Vatican...And the Vatican is not on US soil.

Quote

They struck Madrid to sway voters to a previously stated manifesto objective to withdraw support from the coalition, and to divide the coalition members. Remember the war (the part that involved liberating Iraq) was not particularly popular outside the US.

Its not that popular IN the US. A recent poll showed Bushes approval ratting lower than it has ever been.

Quote

They have bombed their own (muslim) religious gatherings in Iraq.

Not Sunni gathereings...Isam is divided into many factions. Some ARE peace loving...Others such as Sunnis are not. The Sunni's see the others as weak.

Just like some Babtists don't like Catholics, or vise versa.

Quote

They are targetting American and Western interests and enterprises, they have not targetted, say China, which is a land full of non Muslim infidels.

Good point.
1. They hate the US for being immoral...Much more immoral than China. From OBL "Letter to America"

Quote

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,
"Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39]

"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76]

It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed.

You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.
It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.
(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.
(b) is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?
(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.
Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?
(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.
(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.
(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.
(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

There is plenty in there also of us supporting Israel and our taxes being used to attack them....It is this reason that they are also trying to hurt our economy.

But the underlying base is religion. They hate us cause we support the israeli occupation of their HOLY Land. Not that we support them, but we help them keep the holy land.

They hate the israeli's for that reason..And as it is said. "The friend of my enemy is my enemy"...So we are their enemies.

And like I have said...It only takes one side to make something a religious war.

But it was these reasons that they felt America was the best to attack. China does not support Israel, and by supporting Israel we are denying them access to their Holy land.

It really does boil down to religion.

Even if we don't fight in the name of any God (Which BTW they take issue to the fact we don't live by God's rules and make our own)...It is a religious war if they do attack for Allah.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I do think that there is more to their hatred of us than JUST religion."

I think if we could find out what the other reasons are we could go a long way to defusing some of this hatred.

"I do still think that it is the main calling."

I'd still disagree with you there, but I don't see much point in flogging the expired equine over minor details. I'm inclined to see it as a tactic rather than a purpose.

I think we might agree that even though they are using religion as a banner/motive, we can not react in a similar manner. What I'm saying is that we can not villify all Muslims based on a few extremist rantings, or someone's interpretation of their holy scriptures. Thats a very dangerous and ugly path to tread. As my link shows there is widespread condemnation of the terrorist actions from Muslims, not only in the US, but also in many other countries.

I'm going to have to leave this all now and make a break for (well defended) freedom from the office.
I've got some jumping to do.
Have a good weekend, blues skies, fluffy openings, and bounce free swoops to ya.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[falxori 0]

Quote

but I would substantially reduce it and make them fall back to 1968 borders.

do yourself a favor and first learn the facts.
and unless there will be a willing and responsible palestinian force who will take over these regions it will not help.
it was tried in the Oslo agreement and it failed because instead of establishing a strong single force, they had several, each with it's own chief, not to mention nothing has been done about the terrorist groups.
wont you agree its better to try it out first?
and thats the plan, in gaza where most of the palestinian "police" is intact, but they refuse to take control over there.
over simplistic statements like "make them pull out" are only good as statements.

P.S
if israel goes to the 68 borders it will mean israel getting 3 times larger (the sinai desert was under israeli control until the peace treaty with egypt was signed.)
what you mean is 67, and in that case, the land should go back to jordan and egypt, right? well they don't want it...

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't believe this is a religious war, for the following reasons.
They haven't struck symbols of 'infidel' religious belief.
What they have most famously struck were symbols of American commerce (WTC), American military (Pentagon), and they attempted to strike a symbol of American government but failed. I see no religious significance in these targets.

Religion and economics quickly tie together. In the Middle East power is concentratred in the hands of their kings and clerics. They live very well, while their people do not benefit much from petrol dollars. And moreover, the people are seeing this. The only way for the priviledged to maintain the status quo is to make it a holy war against the corrupt heathens.

If you accept that argument, then there isn't a peaceful coexistence. Either one side goes away, or you go back to Reagan's peace through strength philosophy.

[freeflygoddess 0]

I am by no means a cruel or insensitive person, but hello this is war! I think that people who actually think there are "rules in war" are completely nieve and need a reality check, yeah it is aweful what is going on but that is what happens. Wars are not won by holding hands singing songs and picking flowers. Was any country formed that way? Hell no!

For one thing the picture taken of the US sexually humiltating the prisoners are just what needed to be done to get information. I don't like it but what do expect? Are we suppose to hold their hands give them all they want and think they will tell us anything? If we were to torture them in the genral sense of burning fingers and such, they wouldn't respond to that, because it doesn't bother them, just look at what they do to each other. The sexual humiliation is what they respond to.

Another thing about this beheading, it is coming out that he was friends with one of the terriorist that crashed the plane into the WTC. Also, his sister is married to an Al-queda opp and he was trying to get in with them. That is why he wasn't scared in that video until they started sawing off his head. Now I have the video, and I watched it and it is sickening and disccusting, but what do you expect in war? If you go in and bomb places then deaths are going to happen no matter what. I think we should be in Iraq and I don't think we should be holding back any at all with our prisoners, because they sure aren't.

Oh but there is that other theory out there that those mask individuals in the video are infact CIA opps and they are the ones doing the beheading, well good for them, he was after all tradeing secret information to Al-Queda to begin with. If I am ever in a war and stupid enough to trade information back and forth I sure would hope that I got punished for it. Also if I ever go to war and am caught as prisoner I would not expect to be babied into giving information, I mean really what are people thinking, oh wait they don't think ahead, they just think about what is socially and politaclly acceptable and what every one else whats to hear. I for one don't give a crap what people think because they sure can not think about the future or the effects of their thinking.

[wmw999 2,587]

Wow.
So -- are you saying he deserved it? And that whatever we do is OK? Yes, there are rules to war, we signed them, and they're called the Geneve Convention.

Yes, this is war. We started it. Of course they're fighting back -- WE FUCKING INVADED THEM. Imagine a group of foreign liberals were to invade the US to rid us of the "evil of GWB." I'd fight them, and I'd probably vote for Skippy the Wonderdog before GWB. Don't you think Iraqis are the same?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[freeflygoddess 0]

Quote

I don't think beheading is particularly different from that or gas or electric chairs. If done properly, it's a clean blow. I haven't been able to open any links to the video yet, but I didn't get the sense they did so well

No they didn't do it cleanly, they sawed off his head with a knife. I am sure it was a dull knife at that, in the video you can hear him screaming and crying for his mommy. He only stops screaming when they hit his voice box, but even after they hold up his head you can still see his eyes move and his mouth open. If you want the video I will email it to you, pm me your email address, it is too big to send through here.

[freeflygoddess 0]

yeah I am saying that, and I am not affraid to admit it, if in fact he was tradeing information with Al-Qaeda. I am sorry, but the Geneva Convetion is a joke. Do you really think our fore fathers followed the "rules of war" when they fought for our independence? Would we have won if we all marched out in lines and did not shot any officers because leaderless armies would create chaos? I mean really. Come on. I do think it is sick and sad but this is what happens. It has happend since man walked this earth. The only difference now is we have the freadom of speach and the information age allows everyone everywhere to know what is going on. What do you think we should do? Pull out and say "Oh my you beheaded a trator that is just too much, you can do what ever you want to to your country men and women." Yeah right. I can't believe the women over there aren't joining up with us and beating the crap out of the men there. I sure would, if I knew that the country I lived in was the only one that made their women go to jail for the things that their men do, plus the only one were I had no rights at all, because I am a chick. You think that their country dosen't deserve being tortured or forced to war with us then move there and share a husband with thirty other women and kiss his butt and take his beating and watch your younge daughter be raped everyday.

[billvon 3,114]

>For one thing the picture taken of the US sexually humiltating the
>prisoners are just what needed to be done to get information. I don't
>like it but what do expect?

If we expect our troops to be treated well when they are captured, we have to do the same. If Iraqi militants captured female US soldiers, raped them, and then sent the pictures to their children, would your response be "hey, it's just war!"

>Now I have the video, and I watched it and it is sickening and
> disccusting, but what do you expect in war? If you go in and bomb
> places then deaths are going to happen no matter what.

Agreed. However, there's a bit of a difference between dropping a bomb on a factory and accidentally killing a child and sawing someone's head off while they are alive.

> I think we should be in Iraq and I don't think we should be holding
> back any at all with our prisoners, because they sure aren't.

One of the reasons we went in was to "shut down Saddam Hussein's torture chambers." If we re-open them, we have failed in that goal. And if we make it clear that we will torture and kill innocent Iraqis, do you think they will respond by accepting our presence, or do you think they will respond with more violence?

Raping, killing and torturing people is morally wrong to begin with. In addition, it will result in far more US soldiers being killed in the long run. Violence doesn't stop violence; Israel has been trying that for decades.

>Also if I ever go to war and am caught as prisoner I would not expect
> to be babied into giving information . . .

How about if you were living in Eloy, just doing your thing, and you were kidnapped, raped and tortured because you were in the same bar as someone who might have been a terrorist? Would you accept that as your lot in life?

> I for one don't give a crap what people think because they sure can
>not think about the future or the effects of their thinking.

I do give a crap about what happens, because if you do screwed up things like rape and kill innocent Iraqis, more US soldiers die. And it takes a pretty cold person to not care about US soldiers dying.

[wmw999 2,587]

OOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKK

I didn't realize that there was only one way to look at everything. Or that one person defined it.

Is the US perfect? Would another country be justified in invading us because our educational system isn't as good as theirs?

And, as Bill said, we invaded them in part because they tortured people. I guess now the beatings will continue until morale improves, right?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[freeflygoddess 0]

ok so what exactly is the right thing to do? If you really want to know how I feel. I think we should announce that those that truelly want freedom and peace have one week to go to the US soliders tents to be sent to the US to be protected, and then after a week, and the ones that truelly want to be free are out, then level the place and kill all the terrorist and then take those that wanted freedom and rebuild the country for them to govern themselves with the knowledge of that everyone is created equal and that terrorism is uncalled for. But no people think that we can not interfere with their ways of lives...I think that would be a bit better and a lot cheaper than they way we are going right now. I mean there are some there that don't deserve this at all, but alot that do.

I just don't think being nice is going to get us any where and in the long run cost us a lot of money and lives.

Also, your point of soldiers dying and being torrtured over there, I do expect that. I feel bad for those families, but their son/duaghter/wife/husband/mother/father, chose to join the military and they should know what they were getting themselves into and I hope that they did stand up for that tortture and die before giving out important information that would jepordize more US lives.

I am just not sure why people always think that anything can be solved by holding hands and siging songs and talking. Those people don't do that, infact I am sure that all countries out there would not do that. There is never going to be world peace because people everywhere are different and have differnt views and beliefs. It will never happen, and trying to to get all religous but the only person that will bring so called world peace and it will seem that way is the anti-christ and it may seem as if he succedes but really he is just taking away every freedom that we all take advantage of everyday. Now weather you believe in God and the Bible or not, I can assure you that world peace is just a nice dream, but there is no way that we can have this as long as we are on this earth. Only if we all were bald and had the same shape and had the same of everything, and were not individuals and did not have opinions and well we were just like plants. Even animals war with each other.

[freeflygoddess 0]

Quote

OOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKK

I didn't realize that there was only one way to look at everything. Or that one person defined it.

Is the US perfect? Would another country be justified in invading us because our educational system isn't as good as theirs?

And, as Bill said, we invaded them in part because they tortured people. I guess now the beatings will continue until morale improves, right?

Wendy W.

I never said that there is one way to look at this, just that it is what happens in war. Yes torrturing is wrong, but what else are we to do? Give a good way to solve this that will work into the future and I will listen. I just want people to realise that war isn't nice and we can't expect to have everything perfect. If another country invaded us, because they felt we were doing wrong, then fine they have that right to. Do you think we should just hand over the US and say Ok and not fight back? No way! Should they just give up and say, oh ok Gearge what ever you say... No they shouldn't, but should expect them to not torrture people, no should we be expected to baby the prisoners, no we shouldn't. Should the families of those soldiers lost blame George Bush, no. Why? because it is not his fault that they chose to fight for their country. There is not a draft going on, everyone in the military choses to be there.