American Captive Beheaded in Iraq

[Timber Loftis]

Example: what do you guys see below?

Well, I see opportunity lost. I can't get that girl's attention until the old bitch gets outta the way!

[Khazadman Risen]

Uh, Gab? When someone wants to kill you and your entire people you do not fight them in the courts. These things laugh at that. They are not going to change, so the only thing you can do is kill them. We Americans still have the sense to fight when attacked. Too many of you would just throw up their hands it seems, and let the enemy have their way.

[ 05-13-2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Khazadman Risen ]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Khazadman Risen: Skunk, are you equating some terrorist (and these guys were just that terrorists) getting a glow stick shoved up his backside with a man getting his head sawed of with a dull knife?

Whilst i don't want to get involved in this thread particularly on one side or another, a couple of points need to be made.

1) The absuse was a lot more than someone being violated with a glowstick. Prisoners have been murdered by US troops, we've all seen the pictures of the naked prisoner being savaged by guard dogs and left in a pool of blood...i'm not sure that's any less barbaric than slitting someone's throat.

2) Most of these people aren't terrorists. A very large proportion of those held in Abu-Grahib and especially in the camps on airbases are either just common criminals (picked up when all the looting was going on) or random civilians. The vast majority of US detainees at Abu-Grahib have not been charged with an offence and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's from the admissions of US military personel.

But yes, i'm quite sure that it would've happened anyway, there are evil people in the world of all races. My thoughts are with the family.

Those guys are gonna pay for that! Maybe not today, maybe not tommorow, but soon!

I'll keep you informed in my new series of posts called "Downloading: Justice"

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Khazadman Risen: We Americans still have the sense to fight when attacked.

I am still trying to figure out when Iraq attacked you.

[ 05-13-2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Gnarf]

Originally posted by Memnoch: One final point - we're all talking opinions here. This thread is not a case of Skunk winning, or Timber winning, or Crimsom wanting to nuke the world to eliminate a problem. Everyone has their own opinion. Example: what do you guys see below? Some people see one thing, some people see another. Doesn't mean one is right over the other. Chill out, fellas, and don't take yourselves too seriously. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I was intending to stay out'a this topic, but that's a young lady with an eye at about where her ear should be, and it's kinda disturbing.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Most of the MAJOR networks focus on (and perhaps even exaggerate) the "bad news" from Iraq and most assuredly NEVER show any "good news".

Oh please - the major networks never report the 'bad news'. The bad news is not the troops that get killed on a daily basis - troops die in war. The major networks always PLAY DOWN the intense suffering of the people, and *never* question the US administration's official line on events.

Take the siege of Falluja as a typical example. The toll on civilians was hardly reported, the effects of the bombardments on the civilian populace was hardly shown - and almost every civilian (whether its a nine month old baby or a 90 year old woman) is declared a gun-toting militant.

When the US news agencies gleefully announced the deaths of Sadr's militants manning a checkpoint outside of Najaf recently, they reported 5 militants killed in the airstrike. The bad news (that 17 civilians were killed and 22 injured) was left out.

Bad news comes in two halves. The bad news that directly affects your side and the bad news that directly affects the innocent civilians. The latter half is nearly always left out or played down to insignificance.



[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Skunk obviously knows I don't just get my news from that source -- I'M HERE AREN'T I? -- so given that I know he's smart, I must conclude he simply overlooked that fact to present more spin.

This is not a news outlet but a discussion board timber - and you have yet to quote a source outside of the usual US sources.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Skunk, there sure were hundred of pages of reports prepared for something that wasn't "investigated" for nine months. Facts, man, facts. Oh, and you've got some creative system of counting going on there, since the earliest dates of reports filed by anyone I've seen go only back to 12/03. And, I think US servicemen were reporting it before the Red Cross or Red Crescent (whichever it is).

I dare say a number of US servicemen did file reports - they are not all bad guys you know. And the kind of abuses going on would have been enough to make more than one soldier risk his/her entire career by making a formal complaint - of that I'm sure. But if so, they were *NOT* followed up/taken seriously.

The US army does not take nine months to do anything. Whatever charges anyone levels on the US military, laziness and slowlessness are not ones that could stand up and be taken seriously.

From the moment that the allegations were made PUBLIC, the tree was shook, the officer commanding was relieved from duty, charges were issues and working practices changed at the prisons. All in a space of a couple of weeks.

Interesting that former commanders and soldiers at the detention facility have not been indited isn't it? Rather odd for an investigation that started nine months ago, don't you think?


Now, as I said before, the same kinds of allegations of abuse have been leveled at the British army - and what I stated about the US army goes for the British army too. I've seen how quickly action is taken when an allegation is taken seriously, in the British army. When the RMP go in everyone shakes, because these guys know their stuff, can spot discrepancies, know when a cover-up is in progress and know how to pile on pressure - and they don't give up.

It's clear that they have only just been ordered into action too - and they already have results - despite starting with just the name of just one regiment, without any names or pictures. And once they have proven their reputation.

I can't imagine that the US MP's are any less competent - and to suggest that they would take nine-months to produce results is an undeserved plain insult to them.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Skunk: This is not a news outlet but a discussion board timber - and you have yet to quote a source outside of the usual US sources.

I don't think you're in any place to wag fingers about linking sources buddy..

Hey quick Skunk! Who killed baby Jesus???

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Hey quick Skunk! Who killed baby Jesus???

Now, I realise you wern't talking to me, and that it's probably none of my business, but I think that one deserves a reasonably big WTF? What are you getting at here man?

[Link]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: As for Propoganda USA, ABC (the American Broadcasting Channel) was the FIRST network to issue an internal memo stating that their news personnel should STOP wearing American Flag pins on thier outfits shortly after 9/11, because it might offend some of the Muslim audience. EXCUSE ME??? The American Broadcasting Channel doesn't want their employees to wear American flag pins because it might offend a minority of their audience???

I'm sorry Cerek, but what idiot patriotic broadcasting channel lets its employees wear American Flag pins??? What's the supposed reason for that? Because Americans feel proud for their country? You got to be kidding me!

I'm not trying to offend you or attack you here, but I think Americans are taking it one step too far by doing these type of things... even if it's just about a pin. American Patriotism is closer to fanaticism if you'd ask me.

[ 05-14-2004, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Link ]