The Secret File of Abu Ghraib

[Satan]

Rolling Stone is an established, respected publication. Are they biased? Quite possibly, but then there are right wing magazines quoted here often. Some are owned by Moonies, some are operated by PNAC itself (the Weakly Standard).

[Big Train]

OK,

Ford, I apologize for prematurely jumping down your throat (which doesn't mean I won't in the future). It's from a fairly reputable source, although Rolling Stone is so liberal it makes me ill.

I agree about abuses. If they happened, the people involved should be punished.

[HELLVIS]

Re: The Secret File of Abu Ghraib

[[b]In one sworn statement, Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, detainee number 151108, said he witnessed a translator referred to only as Abu Hamid raping a teenage boy. "I saw Abu Hamid, who was wearing the military uniform, putting his dick in the little kid's ass," Hilas testified. "The kid was hurting very bad."


Is it possible that the translators follow our news ?
And, isn't it possible that they believe anything they hear/read (like some posters here) ?
And, if that is true, is it possible that they believe JOhn KErry (a self admitted war criminal) is going to be our next president?
And since the press seems to have no problem with that and (according to the press) the american people have no problem with it...

maybe these translators are just trying to be more like JOKE so they can win favor and reserve their place in the "next american dream".

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
But, as far as beating the crap out of a terrorist asshole that planted 2 roadside bombs to extract information to save the lives of American soldiers in the future - I'm not going to lose any sleep over that, and neither shold anyone else.

uh...i am.

it sure as hell doesn't make our soldiers LESS likely to be hit by a roadside bomb in the future. in fact, if it attracts more thugs to the insurgent side, then it actually might hurt our troops over there.


in some grand moral scheme, the pricks probably had it (and a lot worse) coming to them. but as Americans, we're better than they are. we don't have to stoop to their level.

[JCOOK]

I wonder what NAMBLA's stance on this would be?

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
uh...i am.

it sure as hell doesn't make our soldiers LESS likely to be hit by a roadside bomb in the future. in fact, if it attracts more thugs to the insurgent side, then it actually might hurt our troops over there.


in some grand moral scheme, the pricks probably had it (and a lot worse) coming to them. but as Americans, we're better than they are. we don't have to stoop to their level.

This would be the "if we fight them they will just get madder at us" argument? The aggressor sets the rules. Us engaging the enemy, killing and defeating him does not make them madder at us or recruit more numbers to their cause. We had to engage them and in doing so we are going to take casualties.

Denying some sleep to a terrorist thug to get information - that isn't sinking to their level that is humane compared to how they operate.

[JCOOK]

We need to try to understand them.that way we can change. then and only then will we truly be free.

[John Ashcroft]

Exactly.

What did Bill Clinton do to piss the terrorists off? Considering more terrorist attacks happened against American people and property under his watch than Bush's.

He was an appeaser-extrodinaire, and yet the terrorists still hit. Osama himself said he was emboldened by our apparent weakness following Mogadishu.

I know, maybe if we just disband our military entirely, the terrorists will "like" us again...