OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
 

Larry Cable wrote:

seldom_seen


Typed in Message-ID:

Does anyone else recognize this language, and get a bit of a chill

from it?

"We provided advisors, in particular fire control and forward air
controllers, to the Northern Alliance. The US did not command the


unit nor have control over the action of its troops."


Pete, we have provided arms and advisors to many an ally that we didn't control
thier political or command structure, that's why they are called advisors. Some
that get supported are strictly politically expediate, think Stalin, and some
are long term relationships. Should we take responsiblity for the slaughter of
Polish Army Officers by Stalin because we supported him when he entered the war
with Hitler?

The Advisors are often in a pretty hairy position. They are often supporting
groups that don't particularly like the US, but want the technical and tactical
support that we can provide. Afganistan is a perfect example of this type of
situation.

Of course you're right, Larry, but they don't want to hear it. You're
not going to convince these guys that what we're doing is justified or
even tactically correct. They just want to whine and complain, and
they're going to do that whether there's any reason to or not. Logical
argument isn't going to sway them, since facts are irrelevant to them.
Irrational statements, conspiracy theories and wildly fantastic
correlations to unrelated historical events are their stock in trade.
They'll go to any length to try to prove their point, even if it makes
them look ridiculous. They're just trying to forward their wrong-headed
agenda, nothing more, and it will go on ad-nauseum.

Oh well, at least we live in a country where everyone gets to speak
their piece.

OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
 

Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:50:45 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:


It's quite possible that they didn't.


Possible? I'd say obvious.


I don't think anyone has drawn any concrete conclusions. Investigations
are ongoing. Let's see where they lead before we jump to any conclusions.


Seymour Hirsch noted that the picture of the Iraqi with the dogs involved
an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT UNIT than those pictures previously shown on, among
other things, 60 Minutes II. He details that over a 12 minute period two
cameras were used. Now there were two soldiers with the dogs, who
obviously didn't take the pictures. That's three people right there,
assuming one of the dog handlers was also one of the photographers in other
shots, if not, then we can get up to four. In one shot of the first set of
pictures you can see four or more soldiers (from another unit). Right
there, that's more than the oft quoted "6 or 7" bad apples. You don't even
have to be able to count very high to realize it was IMPOSSIBLE for only "6
or 7" to be involved. This isn't "jumping to conclusions" or anything, it
is just some common sense and a little math any third grader should be able
to handle.

Fine. Two more people have already been court martialed and I'm sure
there are more to come. As I said, the investigations are ongoing. What
is it with you and others here that you have to have the whole story
RIGHT NOW!? It's going to take time to get to the bottom of this. Is
that so unreasonable?

OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
 

From: (Backyard Renegade)
Date: 5/13/04 7:30 AM Mountain Daylight Time
Message-id:

Wilko wrote in message
.. .
Paddlec1 wrote:

Yep, just an "isolated incident". Here's something from the CBC.

"3000 Prisoners Slaughtered in Afganastan

This video is about how the US slaughtered 3000 Afgan prisoners of war.
The
video is big - 55 megs download and it is shocking. It makes the Black
Hole of
Calcutta look like a picnic. These prisoners were left in sealed truck
containers to suffocate and fry in the hot sun. The few that survived a
week
were taken out and shot an buried in mass graves.

The video is EXTREMELY disturbing and it will give you nightmares. If you
are
not ready to see this footage - DO NOT WATCH IT !!! This is NAZI level
stuff."

http://marc.perkel.com/images/AfganPOWsKilled.mov

The funny thing is that this documentary was shown on German and Dutch
TV almost two years ago, not too long after the invasion of Afghanistan.
I posted about seeing it in a thread about the war in Afghanistan on
Boatertalk, and got a wave of resentment and being called a liar because
it wasn't shown on any U.S. TV station, therefore it wasn't true.

If only that link had been available then. :(

The sad thing is you are so ignorant and arrogant you beleive this
crap, as if you are the only one who is aware. Bull****... Yes I know
coming back to this group and picking on one of the biggest trolls

Would you like to do a little search, and document that assertion?

will get me the warnings and physical threats I got last time from
Dennis

"Physical threats"? That's a rather harsh accusation. How about some evidence
to support that. Failing that, how about an appology?

and others who of course love free speech until it is not in
line with their agenda but you guys and your little circle jerk are
getting a little out of touch with the real world...

Or, maybe some of us have some personal experience with this war crap that
would make us a little les gullable.

Dennis

OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
 

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:30:16 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:

Well, it's not quite that simple. I agree that the restrictions on what
passengers can carry have gone overboard, but it's important to make
sure that they don't carry anything that could be used to damage the
aircraft catestrophically. Firearms definitely fall into that category.

I hope you're not referring catastrophic decompression being caused by
things a passenger might bring on board, like a gun or other implement.

http://kwc.org/blog/archives/000929.html
http://www.nfa.ca/journalist/skymarshal.html

It just doesn't happen.

Years ago, I carried ice axes on a plane once, but I wouldn't try to do
that again.

I can see security inspection concerns, but aside from that, why not?

You say "It's not quite that simple." Uh, yes it is.

That's a completely unfair characterization. The warning system has a
purpose, which is to make the public aware of possible threats and to
enlist their aid in watching for problems.

You left out that the public should be checking it's shopping lists. Bush
has told us that shopping is a very important thing to do. When they raise
the "terror alert" what is the message that the administration tells us?
Go shopping, but be more alert when you do. Or continue to go to public
(but not events where criticism might be aired) events, but to be "more
alert."

Rather than making sweeping criticisms motivated by your disdain for the
administration, why don't you propose some better ideas? "Effective
stuff" is not exactly specific or helpful, is it?

I did posit some suggestions. One effective thing that could be done is
to secure the cockpits. No more commercial aircraft flying into buildings
as was done at the WTC and the Pentagon. Quit telling us that "two oceans"
used to "protect" us. I suppose that "protection" is why the current
administration was hell bent on building a missile defense (What was Dr
Rice going to speak about on 9/11?). I notice the administration isn't
yelling quite so loud about that anymore.

It's time to take a deep breath and consider things calmly. Yes, a tragedy
occurred on 9/11, but we can eliminate that possibility entirely, something
the current administration with its Homeland stuff and the increased
"security" around airports has failed to do. In spite of all the Justice
Department's "efforts," not a single terrorist regarding 9/11 has been
charged by the US. Why is it that the current administration wants more
and more money for the Defense Department, yet denies funds for local first
responders? Do you think that has anything to do with why the New York
Fire Department personnel will no longer pose with Bush?

Americans are willing and capable of doing more than just being frightened.
Americans can understand fairly complex ideas that go beyond "them evil, us
good," even if the Bush crew can't.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
We are the CroMagnon of the future

OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
 

On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:48:35 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:

Fine. Two more people have already been court martialed and I'm sure
there are more to come. As I said, the investigations are ongoing. What
is it with you and others here that you have to have the whole story
RIGHT NOW!? It's going to take time to get to the bottom of this. Is
that so unreasonable?

RIGHT NOW I can tell that more than just "6 or 7" were involved. I didn't
need any hearings to determine that. Why are we being told it was "just a
few bad apples" when RIGHT NOW there is plenty to suggest it went much
higher than that? I don't demand the whole story RIGHT NOW but then
neither am I trying to close my eyes to evidence that is available RIGHT
NOW.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
We are the CroMagnon of the future

OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
 

in article , Brian
Nystrom at wrote on 5/13/04 6:44 AM:

They just want to whine and complain, and
they're going to do that whether there's any reason to or not. Logical
argument isn't going to sway them, since facts are irrelevant to them.

Hi Folks,

Just like the facts are irrelevant to Ret. General Wiliam Odom, of the
conservative Hudson Institute.

Retired Gen. William E. Odom, a former staff member of the National Security
Council and now at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, reflects
the depth of dismay in the upper ranks of the military. "It was never in our
interest to go into Iraq," he told me. He calls that war a "diversion" from
the war on terrorism; the rationale for the war, finding WMD, "phony"; the
U.S. Army overstretched, being driven "into the ground"; and the prospect of
building a democracy in Iraq "zero." In Iraqi politics, he says, "legitimacy
is going to be tied to expelling us. Wisdom in military affairs dictates
withdrawal in this situation. 'We can't afford to fail' -- that's mindless.
But the danger has been done. The issue is how we stop failing more. I'm
arguing [for] a strategic decision."

From Salon.com

Chuck
http://www.wildcountry.info

OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
 

Galen Hekhuis wrote:

I did posit some suggestions. One effective thing that could be done is
to secure the cockpits. No more commercial aircraft flying into buildings
as was done at the WTC and the Pentagon.

It is certain that UA flight 175 crashed into the S tower at 9:03 on 9/11
because we saw it on TV. It's fairly certain that AA flight 11 crashed
into the N tower at 8:46 because it's missing and there was a plane-sized
hole in the tower, although the event was not recorded on video. However
it's dubious that AA flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at about 9:40.
Look at these photos if you don't believe me:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm

I don't understand why almost everybody makes fun of "conspiracy theories"
yet fails to recognize that the official account of 9/11 amounts to
little more than a conspiracy theory.

OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
 

Larry Cable wrote:

Even if there is a new President, he can't afford to allow this to
become a victory for the Islamist. Strategically, the Invasion of Iraq
has always been the right move, although the Bush administration has been
very poor [articulating] why that is true.

Why was invading Iraq the right strategic move? I'm trying to think...
(and deleted a bunch of sentences putting words in your mouth).

Tactically, they underestimated the force needed to occupy the country
and had poor intelligence on some of the so called allies, especially
among the Shiite in the South.

Letting go the Iraqi military without pay was a bad decision by Bremer.
I'm not sure of all his bad decisions, but he and others did a good job
(a bad job, really) of alienating the inhabitants. This I knew was true
before the prison scandal broke.

OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
 

On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:43:59 -0000, Bill Tuthill
wrote:

It is certain that UA flight 175 crashed into the S tower at 9:03 on 9/11
because we saw it on TV. It's fairly certain that AA flight 11 crashed
into the N tower at 8:46 because it's missing and there was a plane-sized
hole in the tower, although the event was not recorded on video. However
it's dubious that AA flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at about 9:40.
Look at these photos if you don't believe me:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm

I don't understand why almost everybody makes fun of "conspiracy theories"
yet fails to recognize that the official account of 9/11 amounts to
little more than a conspiracy theory.

In the early 70s I was flown in a helicopter by my brother up the Potomac
River, past the 14th St. Bridge, up past the Pentagon, on up to where I-495
crosses the Potomac River again (now called the American Legion Bridge, at
that time it was called the Cabin John Bridge). As we passed the Pentagon,
I imagined many guns and missiles and stuff being aimed at us and possibly
fired if we deviated from course. My brother told me the flight route (up
the Potomac and very near government landmarks) was indeed a very sensitive
route as far as the military was concerned. Later, when I was in the Air
Force, I was stationed at the time at Andrews AFB, just a short distance
from the District of Columbia in Maryland. I was attached to the Tactical
Air Command (TAC) and while I didn't fly jets (I was a ground radio
repairman) those who did were quite proud of the fact that they could be
"scrambled" (in the air, armed and ready) in an incredibly short time, well
under 5 min. Granted, that was some time ago, but I am a bit skeptical of
a Secretary of Defense who can't even defend his own office building. Did
he think the Pentagon wasn't a target?

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
We are the CroMagnon of the future

OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
 

Bill Tuthill

Typed in Message-ID:


Why was invading Iraq the right strategic move? I'm trying to think...
(and deleted a bunch of sentences putting words in your mouth).

The biggest reason, aside from the general fact that Saddam is the most
murderous ******* since Stalin or the Khymer Rouge, is as an object lesson to
countries that continued to support radical islamist groups. The success or
recent failures of the group depend on governments that are willing to allow
them to train and stage in their countries. Whether or not that Al Qeada
actually trained or was supported by Iraq is fairly irrelavent, I don't know
why any of the Bush administration even mentioned. There has always been a tie
between the Iraqis and Al Qaeda, that's why Clinton bombed the factory in the
Sudan, owned by Bin Laden and supplying the Iraqis. While I think the response
was ineffective, the intelligence there seem to have been correct.

I do believe that this is all out war between the Islamist and the West. If we
in the US and the West are not willing to take direct action against countries
that provide support of terrorist groups, then we lose.
Already you see some results, Libya coming in from the cold, the Saudis
Government, and perhaps more importantly, religious leaders denoucing suicide
bombings and terrorist murders.
Even Iran is softening its hardline stance.
IMO, if we pull out now, we have just paved the way for the Islamist to operate
openly in every Arab nation in the Middle East.

Do you think that the Germans or Japanese loved us when we occupied their
countries?
SYOTR
Larry C.