Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
tom

Guantanamo Suicides Pr Move?

Recommended Posts

perhaps i shouldn't say this. anyway i'm not supporting any form of terrorism. but methinks the us is being callous, rotten to the core when it says guantanamo suicides a 'pr move'. nobody wanna commit suicide for fun much less as publicity stunt :D

 

(www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5069230.stm"]Guantanamo suicides a 'PR move'[/url]

 

A top US official has described the suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a "good PR move to draw attention".

Colleen Graffy told the BBC the deaths were part of a strategy and "a tactic to further the jihadi cause", but taking their own lives was unnecessary.

 

But lawyers say the men who hanged themselves had been driven by despair.

 

A military investigation into the deaths is under way, amid growing calls for the centre to be moved or closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
perhaps i shouldn't say this. anyway i'm not supporting any form of terrorism. but methinks the us is being callous, rotten to the core when it says guantanamo suicides a 'pr move'. nobody wanna commit suicide for fun much less as publicity stunt :D

 

(www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5069230.stm"]Guantanamo suicides a 'PR move'[/url]

:D/Peace To All

 

The idiotic lies those people try to pass off. Do they not listen to themselves as they say this?

 

This reminds of the Congressmen who stated that the Gitmo detainees are fed extremely well. And those lying, thieves had the nerve to sit down and eat steak as they were saying this, implying that the detainees eat steak also :D

 

May God have mercy on their souls. Their treatment drove them to take their lives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty is what do you do with people picked up on a battlefield. An enemy soldier hasn't commited a crime has he? He is just the enemy and needs to be held until the war is over. What crime did British soldiers captured by the Nazis commit? What laws would allow them to imprison these people, but surely it would have been unreasonable to demand the Nazis release these soldiers.

 

I don't know what the solution is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is no value of the muslim blood today... Every one knows why they commit suicide, only the dumbs can believe this crap..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there is no value of the muslim blood today... Every one knows why they commit suicide, only the dumbs can believe this crap..

 

Yet when 4 muslims blow up buses and underground trains we are supposed to believe they were misguided or not real muslims.

 

"only the dumbs can believe this ####.."

 

Islam is a peacefull religon yet over 5000 terror attacks since 9/11

 

"only the dumbs can believe this ####.."

 

Dosent appear to be much value to infidel blood either.

 

As for the the topic on hand it would appear to be firing up more hostility, so yes it was a PR move

 

edited by thezman 6/11/06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yet over 5000 terror attacks since 9/11
They were in response to the illegal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan & Iraq. Two nations that did not attack the US or EU...

 

And, Kindly list those "5000" terror attacks since 9/11, and who committed them.

 

You make it sound as if all the terror attacks that occur around the world are the works of Muslims.

 

Are you also including State Terror in you figure? Because State Terror is much more barbaric, destructive and deadly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet when 4 muslims blow up buses and underground trains we are supposed to believe they were misguided or not real muslims.

 

"only the dumbs can believe this ####.."

 

Islam is a peacefull religon yet over 5000 terror attacks since 9/11

 

"only the dumbs can believe this ####.."

 

Dosent appear to be much value to infidel blood either.

 

As for the the topic on hand it would appear to be firing up more hostility, so yes it was a PR move

 

Peace Anon,

 

Only an extreme minority of Muslims support those suicide bombers.

 

Yet a democratic majority of westerners support America's disregard for human rights, which far exceeds the attrocities committed by all suicide bombers combined.

 

 

The men held in Guantanamo bay are mostly innocent, as published earlier. Whislt these men suffer abuses and torture, the West has no right to talk of Human Rights. At the very least, they should be given a fair trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet a democratic majority of westerners support America's disregard for human rights, which far exceeds the attrocities committed by all suicide bombers combined.

The men held in Guantanamo bay are mostly innocent, as published earlier. Whislt these men suffer abuses and torture, the West has no right to talk of Human Rights. At the very least, they should be given a fair trial.

 

Suicide bombers' attrocities far exceed anything the US has ever done. I don't think the US goes into shopping malls in peacetime and blows up women and children. I don't think the US are the ones trying to sabotage the establishment of a free and democratic Iraq.

 

Now as for Gitmo, it is diffucult, as I said before, to assess what to do with enemy combattants. If you capture a German soldier in WW2 do you give him a fair trial and release him? No he is detained until the war is over. Now what do you do when your enemy is a group who are engaged in unconventional warfare and who will never surrender?

 

I agree that it is untenable to lock up innocents for so long, but clearly the US has captured these people based on serious concerns or they were found on the battlefield. It is a new kind of situation and some new laws and directives need to be drafted to deal with a situation like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberte said: "Suicide bombers' attrocities far exceed anything the US has ever done."

 

 

My response:

 

Lets us compare the suicide bombers with the American bombers, fighters bombers, helicopters, tanks, artilleries, biological and chemical weapons etc:

 

Suicide bombers kill very few enemies in response to the illegal invasions and occupations of Palestine, Afghanistan & Iraq etc.

 

The Americans have been using the bombers, fighters bombers, helicopters tanks, artilleries, biological and chemical weapons

etc to bomb and bombard civilian targets in Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua etc since the 2nd World War and they have massacred millions of innocent civilians in the name of the American imperialism!

 

Why do you Liberte slander Muslims?

Edited by Abdul2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the US goverment detain the innocent Muslims at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ?

 

The US government knows that if the Muslims are detained in USA the Muslims will be able to challenge and question the US government in the courts. Since the US goverment has no proofs against them the US government detain them in foreign nations so that the courts will not be able to question the illegal detention.

 

According to the Human Right reports and the media the innocent Muslims are being tortured by the US marines and CIA's soulless agents at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The three Muslims were tortured to death at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and suicide is just a lie to condone the atrocities of the US agents!

 

Do you remember how American troops and CIA soulless agents and Zionist agents torture innocent Iraqi people in the infamous Abu Gharaib jail etc in Iraq?

Edited by Abdul2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you remember how American troops and CIA soulless agents and Zionist agents torture innocent Iraqi people in the infamous Abu Gharaib jail etc in Iraq?

 

I know I accuse you guys of focusing on the worst of my arguments and ignroing the most important ones but I am going to do it too!

 

LOLLOLLOL!!!! "Zionist agents toture innocent Iraqis", can you hear yourself? Abu Ghraib was commited by reservist soldiers and you think it is some kind of systematic treatment represenetative of the whole US force in Iraq.

 

Answer this: Do you think Abu Ghraib was an isolated event and unrelated to events elsewhere in other prisons? Are you aware that the people who did this are being punished as we speak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberte....It seems to me that you are fooling yourself by making such stupid statement above! I really pity you for you are proving to the world that you are stupid by making nonsesical statements!

 

israeli Interrogators 'in Iraq'

BBC

 

Saturday 03 July 2004

 

The US officer at the heart of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal says she has evidence that israelis helped to interrogate Iraqis at another facility.

 

Brig Gen Janis Karpinski told the BBC she met an israeli working as an interrogator at a secret intelligence centre in Baghdad.

 

A BBC reporter says it is the first time a senior US officer has suggested israelis worked with the coalition.

 

Intelligence Access

 

Gen Karpinski was in charge of the military police unit that ran Abu Ghraib and other prisons when the abuses were committed. She has been suspended but not charged.

 

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme she met a man claiming to be israeli during a visit to an intelligence centre with a senior coalition general.

 

"I saw an individual there that I hadn't had the opportunity to meet before, and I asked him what did he do there, was he an interpreter - he was clearly from the Middle East," she said in the interview.

 

"He said, 'Well, I do some of the interrogation here. I speak Arabic but I'm not an Arab; I'm from israel.'"

 

Until a 1999 ruling by the israeli Supreme Court, israeli secret service interrogators were allowed to use "moderate force".

 

The US journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal told the programme his sources confirm the presence of israeli intelligence agents in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what, israeli interrogators are assisting. Just like the israelis assisted the UK with their policies on suicide bombers and how to deal with them (ie: shoot to kill if someone is carrying a bomb to imobilise them so that they cannot trigger their device).

 

What happened in Abu Ghraib was a bunch of idiotic americans deciding to take the law into their own hands and humiliate prisoners. It was wrong and they were court marshalled and punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberté said: "LOLLOLLOL!!!! "Zionist agents toture innocent Iraqis", can you hear yourself? Abu Ghraib was commited by reservist soldiers and you think it is some kind of systematic treatment represenetative of the whole US force in Iraq."

 

 

 

I have proven that you are wrong for making fun of my facts! .....lololololol ...you are a joker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberté said: "LOLLOLLOL!!!! "Zionist agents toture innocent Iraqis", can you hear yourself? Abu Ghraib was commited by reservist soldiers and you think it is some kind of systematic treatment represenetative of the whole US force in Iraq."

I have proven that you are wrong for making fun of my facts! .....lololololol ...you are a joker!

 

No you proved that there was limited evidence that israelIS assisted in interrogation. Do you know the difference between interrogation and torture? They way you phrased it made it sound very sinister when in fact there is no evidence of underhand going ons.

 

I can see now why you are so anti-american. You believe anything you read as long as it is anti israel or anti America. In fact you even skew what you learn so that it reflects badly on those you hate. It is all in your head though.

 

OK I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS. Our discussions basically adopt the form of me telling you that you are deluded and you telling me the same thing. Don't you think we should try to find a way to move past this? Maybe if we can agree on something then we can move forward instead of playing insult tennis.

 

Do you at least agree that democracy and accountability (like that which I think exists in America and israel) are the best way that a people can choose to be governed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberté said: "No you proved that there was limited evidence that israelIS assisted in interrogation. Do you know the difference between interrogation and torture? They way you phrased it made it sound very sinister when in fact there is no evidence of underhand going ons."

 

My response:

 

israeli Interrogators 'in Iraq'

BBC

Saturday 03 July 2004

 

The US officer at the heart of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal says she has evidence that israelis helped to interrogate Iraqis at another facility...."He said, 'Well, I do some of the interrogation here. I speak Arabic but I'm not an Arab; I'm from israel.'"

 

Rumsfeld Gave Go-Ahead for Abu Ghraib Tactics,

Says General in Charge

By Julian Coman

Sunday Telegraph U.K.

 

Sunday 04 July 2004

 

The former head of the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad has for the first time accused the American Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, of directly authorising Guantánamo Bay-style interrogation tactics.

 

Brig-Gen Janis Karpinski, who commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade, which is at the centre of the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal, said that documents yet to be released by the Pentagon would show that Mr Rumsfeld personally approved the introduction of harsher conditions of detention in Iraq.

 

In an interview with The Signal newspaper of Santa Clarita, California, which was also broadcast on a local television channel yesterday, Gen Karpinski was asked if she knew of documents showing that Mr Rumsfeld approved "particular interrogation techniques" for Abu Ghraib.

 

Gen Karpinski was interviewed for four hours by Maj- Gen Antonio Taguba, who was ordered to investigate abuse at Abu Ghraib and produced a damning report, which heavily criticised Gen Karpinski for a lack of leadership at the prison.

 

During inquiries into the scandal, she has repeatedly maintained that the treatment of Iraqi detainees was taken out of her hands by higher-ranking officials, acting on orders from Washington.

 

That means the US troops and israeli agents are allowed to torture the Iraqi people!

 

 

I really pity you Liberte for trying to condone the brutality of the US troops and israeli agents in Iraq.

Edited by Abdul2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS. Our discussions basically adopt the form of me telling you that you are deluded and you telling me the same thing. Don't you think we should try to find a way to move past this? Maybe if we can agree on something then we can move forward instead of playing insult tennis.

 

Do you at least agree that democracy and accountability (like that which I think exists in America and israel) are the best way that a people can choose to be governed?

 

Ok now please respond to the more important part of my post. Do you agree with democracy and with an independent media who can criticise the government. Is that a "good" for the people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you at least agree that democracy and accountability (like that which I think exists in America and israel) are the best way that a people can choose to be governed?

 

This would be a laugh if it wasn't serious. What democracy and what accountability and for whom? Democracy has been abused by the ruling elites in both countries and they have shown incontrovertibly that they are not accountable to anyone.

 

We have seen how elections could be subverted in the US, not that it would have made any difference to the so-called democratic process as practised by its ruling elites.

 

Have the US and israel ever listened to anybody else? How many dictatorships and despotic regimes have been propped up by the US in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the people of those countries? Democratic hypocrisy!

 

The US and israel regularly thumb their noses at the majority of the world's nations in the UN.

 

See a list of UN resolutions vetoed by the USA (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.krysstal(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/democracy_whyusa03.html"]here[/url], many of them to do with israel.

 

As stated at this site, "The USA used its veto over 70 times during the 20th century. On the majority of occasions, the USA vetoed resolutions that were favoured by the majority of the world's nations.

 

Very little of the USA's voting patterns is reported in the Western media. When other countries consider voting against a resolution put forward by the USA, they are usually demonised in the Western media and the whole basis of the United Nations called into question.

 

The United Nations and its voting system was set up at the end of World War II by the victorious nations from that conflict. There is, perhaps, an argument to modify the United Nations voting system and make it more representitive of the modern world.

 

Even with its faults, the United Nations is not a few people in an office - it is the world community. It is the rest of the world - the 94% of the world's population that is not from the USA. By damning and ignoring the United Nations, the USA is snubbing the majority of the world's population. This will not make the USA more popular around the world.

 

As one commentator on USA baseball in the UK noted: "Only the USA could have a World Series and not invite the rest of the world". This is the political equivalent."

 

Quotes

Richard Perle, USA Pentagon advisor:

 

"I do not believe that the United States should be bound by the same rules as the smallest African nation. Life isn't like that."

 

Madeleine Albright, former USA Secretary of State to the United Nations:

 

"[The USA will] behave, with others, multilaterally when we can and unilaterally as we must."

 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, USA ambassador to the United Nations writing in his book, A Dangerous Place:

 

"The [uSA] Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."

 

George Bush, USA president during the bombing of Iraq:

 

"What we say goes."

 

Edward S Herman, USA writer on the Middle East:

 

"Thus, instead of having to leave the occupied territories israel continues to push out the locals by force, uproot their trees, steal their water, beggar them by 'closures' and endless restrictions, and it suffers no penalties because it has USA approval, protection, and active assistance. The partners also deny Palestinians any right to return to land from which they were expelled, so 140+ contrary United Nations votes, and two Security Council Resolutions (both vetoed by the United States) have no effect; and in a remarkable Orwellian process of doublethink - and double morality - israel is free to expel more Palestinians in the same time frame in which their protector spent billions and great moral energy in a campaign to return worthy victims in Kosovo."

 

"Another remarkable Orwellian process is this: the abused and beggared Palestinian people periodically rebel as their conditions deteriorate and more land is taken, homes are demolished, and they are treated with great ruthlessness and discrimination. Many are among the hundreds of thousands expelled earlier, or who have still not forgotten their relatives killed and injured by israeli violence over many years - and Palestinian deaths by israeli arms almost surely exceed israeli deaths from 'terrorism' by better than 15 to 1. And after this long history of expulsion and murder they are still under assault. In this context, if they rise up in revolt at their oppressors this is not 'freedom fighters' or a 'national liberation movement' in action, it is 'irrational violence' and a return to 'terrorism,' and both israeli and USA officials (and therefore the mainstream USA media) agree that the first order of business is to stop this terrorism."

 

"But in the definitional system of oppressor and patron this is TERRORISM, horrifying and intolerable. What israel has done making this people desperate is not terror. As [uSA] State Department PR man James Rubin explained after another spate of israeli demolitions of Palestinian houses, this was 'a wrong signal' for a delicate stage in peace talks. Not bad in themselves and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, just a wrong signal. Madeleine Albright called on the israelis to refrain from 'what Palestinians see as the provocative expansion of settlements, land confiscation, house demolitions and confiscation of IDs'. Only 'the Palestinians' see these actions as 'provocative;' Albright does not find them objectionable in themselves or illegal. In fact, under Clinton the United States finally rejected the international law and almost universal consensus on the occupation, declaring the territories not 'occupied Palestinian lands' but 'disputed territories' (Albright). By USA fiat Palestinian lands became open to settlement by force by the ethnic cleanser who the United States has armed to the teeth, and who has aggressively brutalized while creating 'facts on the ground' during the 'dispute,' which will not be settled until the victims end their terrorism."

 

"And Albright has stressed that there is 'No moral equivalency between suicide bombers and bulldozers' (Newsweek, Aug. 18, 1997). Clinton, standing next to israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres as the latter defended a blockade of the Palestinians that was adding to their misery, put the blame on Hamas who were allegedly 'trying to make the Palestinians as miserable as possible' (Phila. Inquirer, March 15, 1996). There was not the slightest hint that israel was contributing to Palestinian misery despite massive expropriations and 300 devastating "closures" after 1993."

 

"So it is not israeli policy, which amounts to a continuous and illegal assault on and displacement of the Palestinians, that is ultimately at fault and that must be changed to resolve this conflict. Albright can't recognize that decades of 'bulldozers' necessarily produce suicide bombers, although she was quick to find that much less repression in Kosovo produced 'freedom fighters;' nor can she distinguish between systematic policy (i.e., bulldozers) and uncontrollable outbursts from victims that do NOT constitute policy. The inability of these USA officials to see israel's hugely discriminatory and brutal expulsions, demolitions, mistreatment and plain exploitation as seriously wrong in themselves, illegal, or causal manifests a complete identification with and apologetic for the ethnic cleansers. Five years ago a senior Clinton White House official declared that 'We are not going to second-guess israel'. [Later] Colin Powell assured the Jewish lobbying group AIPAC that 'We are dedicated to preserving this special relationship with israel and the israeli people...[and] a secure israel with internationally-recognized borders remains a cornerstone of the United States foreign policy.' In short, now as in the past, and with only rare exceptions, as in the case of the unauthorized israeli attack on Egypt in 1956, israel will get strong USA support for whatever it does, and the ethnic cleansing of its unworthy victims can proceed as required."

 

"One of the triumphs of [the] Oslo [Agreement] was its buying off of Arafat, making him into a second class client and an enforcer of the pathetic 'settlement,' with USA and israeli funds and training exchanged for his commitment to keep his people in line and control 'terrorism.' The formula for the wholesale terrorists (israel) has always been: whatever violence we perpetrate is 'retaliation' and it is up to the retail terrorists (Palestinians) to stop terrorizing and then we might 'negotiate' with them in a 'peace process.' israeli leaders say 'You can't ask us to stop expanding existing settlements, which are living organisms' (Netanyahu), as if this were not in violation of UN resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and even the 1993 Oslo agreement itself."

 

"USA officials can never bring themselves to say that what israel is doing is wrong - at worst it may send 'a wrong signal,' etc. And they follow closely the israeli party line that 'terrorism' (Palestinian, not israeli) must be stopped first, so that the 'peace process' can be put back on track. For Albright, 'security' is primary, and she told Arafat that 'she needed a commitment and action on the subject of security' before she could make a credible approach to israel on other issues. 'Security' always means israeli security, not Palestinian, for Albright - or for Colin Powell - just as for israeli officials. Here as elsewhere these high USA officials internalize the israeli perspective and the idea of 'security' for the unworthy victims doesn't arise, any more than the notion that israeli insecurity arises from the much greater Palestinian insecurity that inevitably results from israeli policies. In his visit to Jerusalem in March 1996, Clinton spoke of 'the awful persistence of fear' - but only in reference to israelis, not to Palestinians. This is an internalized racist bias that has characterized USA official statements and media and expert opinion here for decades."

 

"Why does the United States support israel's ethnic cleansing? Broadly speaking, the reasons boil down to two factors. One is israel's role as a USA proxy in the Middle East and its integration into the USA security system, which encompasses not only keeping the Arab world in line, but also providing services like supplying arms to the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, the Pinochet government of Chile, Mobutu, Idi Amin, apartheid South Africa, and the Guatemalan and Argentinian terror states. Because of these services, israel's victims are not merely unworthy, they also become 'terrorists' and part of the 'Islamic threat' for the USA political elite and mainstream media."

 

"The second factor is the exceptional power of the pro-israel lobby, which for many years has bought and bullied politicians and the media, so that they all vie with one another in genuflections to the holy state. This bullying is especially strong and effective in Canada and the United States, but it applies widely, and the distinguished British reporter Robert Fisk, describing the abuse he has suffered in reporting on the Middle East, says that 'the attempt to force the media to obey israel's rules is now international'."

 

"These factors feed into the intellectual and media culture in complex ways that institutionalize the huge bias, with pro-israeli and anti-Palestinian perspectives internalized and / or made obligatory by potential flak and pressure from above and without. This is extremely important, as there is no reason to believe that the USA public would support a massive and brutal ethnic cleansing program if they were given even a modest quantum of the ugly facts, if the main victims rather than the ethnic cleansers were humanized, and if the media's frames of reference were not designed to apologize for israeli expropriation and violence. However, the ongoing media and intellectual biases do very effectively complement the national policy of support for the ethnic cleansing state, just as they helped cover up national policy supporting Indonesia's murderous occupation of East Timor, and just as they roused the public to a pitch of frenzy over the unapproved Yugoslav violence in Kosovo."

 

Der Spiegal, news magazine from Germany (1 September 1997):

 

"Never before in modern history has a country dominated the earth so totally as the United States does today... America is now the Schwarzenegger of international politics: showing off muscles, obtrusive, intimidating... The Americans, in the absence of limits put to them by anybody or anything, act as if they own a kind of blank cheque in their 'McWorld'".

 

NoControllingLegalAuthority, from a post on a forum about the USA's role in the United Nations:

 

"The UN is headed for the dust bin of history. It has no moral authority. It is dominated by cowards, scoundrels and thieves. It's participants do not even obey the laws of the city of New York. Many of us are ready to help UN personnel pack and to drive them to the airport for a one-way trip out of our country. Today would not be soon enough. Good riddance to the self-serving human debris."

 

Reuel Marc, former (USA) CIA covert operator in February 2003:

 

"The tougher Sharon becomes, the stronger our image will be in the Middle East".

 

Yes, we are all aware of the democracy and accountability practised by the US and israel and we have had ENOUGH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difficulty is what do you do with people picked up on a battlefield. An enemy soldier hasn't commited a crime has he? He is just the enemy and needs to be held until the war is over. What crime did British soldiers captured by the Nazis commit? What laws would allow them to imprison these people, but surely it would have been unreasonable to demand the Nazis release these soldiers.
Your statement deals with the Geneva Convention, a war between 2 states. But, as you know, Rummy threw out the Geneva Convention, because it isn't applicable to "enemy combatants," who do not fight for a "recognized" state.

 

He also declared that the war on terror is a "long war," a "generational war." So, are people supposed to languish in prison for generations?

 

If the answer is yes, then is it not appropriate for the other side to imprison US & European soldiers for generations, without trial, under inhumane conditions, and with a touch of torture?

 

Lastly, most of the Gitmo detainees weren't even picked up on the battlefield. Many worked for humanitarian organizations, many were innocent bystanders. The U.S. military in all it's wisdom, loves to bribe people to bow out of the battlefield. In Afghanistans case, they bribed the Northern Alliance to abduct "terrorists", in essence, they became bounty hunters. Since everyone loves the moghty dollar, those guys started abducting anyone they could get their hands on to make more money.

 

Like I said, the detainees are innocent, which is why the Pentagon has been quietly releasing them to their original homelands, for lack of evidence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suicide bombers' attrocities far exceed anything the US has ever done.
You can't compare the damage a suicide vest or car bomb does, with conventional & unconventional weapons that are at the disposal of the major powers.

 

A car bomb is nothing when compared to a cruise missile, missiles from an Apache gunship, an F.16 or B-52 strike, cluster bombs, thermobaric weapons, napalm, used on civilian areas.

 

I don't think the US goes into shopping malls in peacetime and blows up women and children.
Afghanistan and Iraq have shopping malls? Has a shopping mall in the US been targeted? Even if they have (for arguments sake), what the US does in war, is light years ahead of what any terrorist can do.

 

I don't think the US are the ones trying to sabotage the establishment of a free and democratic Iraq.
What free and democratic Iraq? There is no democracy under occupation. True, millions of Iraqi's voted, but it was declared that there was much fraud and intimidation, in those elections.

 

True power emanates from the US embassy in the green zone. They issue the decrees and the "Independent" Iraqi government, implements the orders...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×