Prediction about the Iraq prisoner abuse.

[Badger]

It will come out, maybe not to the public or to major news media, that the people who did these terrible things are gay or severe closet homos. I have been around the hardcore gay community for a LONG time and I tell you, this is normal kind of stuff for them to do. Im talking about the freaks who do the parades in LA and San Fran. The guys who hang out at rest stops and parks are not the ones im thinking of.

After seeing many of the images, and hearing Rumsfeld's testimony about rape of young boys, messing with dead bodies, the naked men stacked up, made to do homosexual acts, simulated and real. S&M bondage. And the glee shown on the faces of the men doing this, with the butch girl posing for many of these shots....no normally sadistic person would torture like this. And trust me ive known some sick people.

Granted I could be wrong, but this is just my prediction.

Bush will be lambasted over this, roasted alive if he doesnt fire someone for sure. This is bad bad news for him.

[Noleader]

Not really because if they are gay they will blame clinton for letting gays in the military :)

[spyder913]

We laying down some money on this ridiculous idea?

I tell you, this is normal kind of stuff for them to do. Im talking about the freaks who do the parades in LA and San Fran. The guys who hang out at rest stops and parks are not the ones im thinking of.Do you hang out with them? Are you part of their community?
A big difference with consentual S&M and prisoner abuse is the word CONSENTUAL. Playing domination and submission is not the same as actually doing it. People who do this kind of stuff to prisoners are wacked out, but not just because they might be 'gay' or a 'severe closet homo'

[Grundy]

Umm....that is so wrong. This prediction is about as correct as the viability of 3 legged jeans.

When faced with harsh military justice those charged are going to spill their guts about the real folks who ordered them to do it. Although as a negative to their case many of them looked quite enthusiatistic in the pictures.

I would never serve in the military and thus can't imagine what its like to be brain washed into not questioning authority but still completely responsible for making your crucial moral choices in that context. They were between a rock and a hard place.

[]LoL[Harm]

I'm with Grundy, and about as far as I can physically and mentally remove myself from Badger.

[Badger]

BAM YOU ARE ALL OWNED!!
This taken from the Drudge Report.

Pentagon possesses three disks of photos, one of which includes a photo of soldiers sodomizing prisoners with glow sticks... Many of the photos are redundant, and some have little to do with Iraqi detainees but show sex between U.S. soldiers... Pentagon officials prevailed at least temporarily in their insistence that the administration not immediately release the images, which include the forced masturbation of a detainee...

PHOTOS SHOW AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVING SEX WITH ONE ANOTHER

[spyder913]

some have little to do with Iraqi detainees but show sex between U.S. soldiers...Didn't they let women in? This is just a headline and not much of a story either...

[Tammarion]

I would never serve in the military and thus can't imagine what its like to be brain washed into not questioning authority but still completely responsible for making your crucial moral choices in that context. They were between a rock and a hard place.

2 relevant pyche studies:

http://www.augsburg.edu/psych/vml/zimbardo.html
http://www.design.otago.ac.nz/grant/psyc/OBEDIANCE.HTML

My opinion is that the military discipline is necessary to PREVENT abuses like this - basically sufficiently disciplined troops don't do things like this when instructed not to. Putting untrained, low morale troops into running the prisons was just asking for this to happen. This is what the pundits mean when they talk about "a breakdown in leadership". And why some general-type heads need to roll.

[Mateicht]

I have to somewhat agree about the comment of "well trained troops wouldn't do this", but lets think about who is out there. You have Guard, Reserve and the Active Duty Army. You have a mixture of persons that are not trained the same way (intensity) as active duty and really never thought that they would be in a situation as this. Now you throw them into this mix and tell them that they have to spend a year there...oops! The Army lied...+ another 4 months. Frustration!!! This can and will cause a certain amount of anger towards who? the prisoners.

[Allison]

I've seen those and similiar studies, Tam. (I'm always fascinated by the surprises of human nature.) And I agree that proper training could help to prevent the sort of things we've seen recently, in some situations ... IF part of that training included clear instructions about proper prisoner handling, and those instructions were carried down pervasively and repeatedly through the entire command structure.

In this case, I find it hard to believe that some superior officer somewhere didn't order, or instruct, or condone with a blind eye. And that alone could have caused conditions that are ripe for abuse, even if the soldiers had been properly trained in prisoner handling and detention. And I think that's what Grundy was talking about, that even with the best training, circumstances can exist (orders or instructions, frustration, villification of detainees, all your buddies are doing it, fear of authority, etc.) that make it difficult for the lowest on the totem pole to even convieve of the notion of questioning authority, let alone act on it.

[Swifty_Johnson]

One of the men who is in the inital pictures was found and interviewed by a New Zeland T.V. crew.

You won't see this man's interview in the mainstream U.S. media.

He says,

Yes, I was humilated by the guards.
Yes, I feel ashamed at what happened.
I want to leave Iraq and move to America.

Yup, despite the abuse in the prision, he wants to move to America. They should compare the abuse that the U.S. did vs Saddam, and lets see who really suffered.

Swifty

[Boom]

Sex between soldiers doesn't mean it was gay sex. There are girl and boy soldiers.

And there is zero correlation between homosexuality and deviant sexual behavior.

Some straight people like quiet mellow sex.

Some straight people like kinky, wierd stuff.

Some gay people like quiet mellow sex.

Some gay people like kinky, wierd stuff.

Believe me, gay people do not have a monopoly on S&M. Trust me. ;)

Besides some of the photos apparently show male soldiers having sex with female inmates.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Some images you will never see in any liberal media.

http://www.drudgereport.com/iiraq.htm

Swifty

[Tammarion]

Besides some of the photos apparently show male soldiers having sex with female inmates.

I heard that some pics floating around of that were pulled from sex sites who used models.

All you need is one stick of truth to hold up a platform of lies :(

[Tammarion]

I've seen those and similiar studies, Tam. (I'm always fascinated by the surprises of human nature.) And I agree that proper training could help to prevent the sort of things we've seen recently, in some situations ... IF part of that training included clear instructions about proper prisoner handling, and those instructions were carried down pervasively and repeatedly through the entire command structure.

In this case, I find it hard to believe that some superior officer somewhere didn't order, or instruct, or condone with a blind eye. And that alone could have caused conditions that are ripe for abuse, even if the soldiers had been properly trained in prisoner handling and detention. And I think that's what Grundy was talking about, that even with the best training, circumstances can exist (orders or instructions, frustration, villification of detainees, all your buddies are doing it, fear of authority, etc.) that make it difficult for the lowest on the totem pole to even convieve of the notion of questioning authority, let alone act on it.

The way the facts are coming out though, is that the troops were not well trained, and didn't respect the senior officers to be able to resist the guy one rung up on the chain of command.

To me, it seems that a president always ends up fighting a war with the previous president's army. Bush Sr. took Reagan's army to Iraq and kicked ass. Bush Jr. is trying to hold down Iraq with Clinton's army. If that doesn't give you cold chills...

[Boom]

Swifty are you in the right thread? I happen to agree with you, that our worst offense in Iraq isn't even in the same category of abuse that Iraqi's were suffering under Saddam. He was torturing hundreds of people on a daily basis in ways that make me sick to our stomach. The Iraqiis are much much much better off without Saddam.

I think its wrong that our soldiers were mistreating prisoners. Its UnAmerican and we are supposed to be the good guys. I hope they make an example out of the people that were responsible. But its nothing compared to the monsterous treatment they suffered under Saddam.

I totally agree with you Swifty, 100%. But noone in this thread is arguing that. Noone is even really discussing that. I'm just not sure what you are responding to here.

[Tammarion]

One of the men who is in the inital pictures was found and interviewed by a New Zeland T.V. crew.

You won't see this man's interview in the mainstream U.S. media.

He says,

Yes, I was humilated by the guards.
Yes, I feel ashamed at what happened.
I want to leave Iraq and move to America.

Yup, despite the abuse in the prision, he wants to move to America. They should compare the abuse that the U.S. did vs Saddam, and lets see who really suffered.

Swifty

Oh no - what you'd see in the mainstream U.S.:

He says,

Yes, I was humilated by the guards.
Yes, I feel ashamed at what happened.
<snip>

Yah for Micheal Moore editing :D

[Allison]

To me, it seems that a president always ends up fighting a war with the previous president's army. Bush Sr. took Reagan's army to Iraq and kicked ass. Bush Jr. is trying to hold down Iraq with Clinton's army. If that doesn't give you cold chills...
So you think our military is doing a bad job in Iraq? I think, with the obvious exception of these few abuse cases, they've done an outstanding job of it, given their resources.

Let's not forget the nature of these two wars you're comparing. The Gulf War was a simple "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait" campaign that lasted a couple of months, utilizing over half a million U.S. troops and wide international support. By contrast, the current war has attempted to occupy the entire nation of Iraq with less than a third of the troops used in the Gulf War.

Don't kid yourself. This lighter, faster, "do it with fewer numbers" approach is not "Clinton's military." It's Rumsfeld's.

[Tammarion]

Then why are we stuck with national guard and reusing the same troops? If the U.S. had the GWI force levels then witht the Rumsfeld force level means 1/3 in Afganistan (way more than needed), 1/3 in Iraq, and 1/3 on R&R and rotate as necessary. That isn't happening.

I think the people there are doing awesome work. But it shouldn't be despite the higher ups.

[Allison]

Yup, despite the abuse in the prision, he wants to move to America. They should compare the abuse that the U.S. did vs Saddam, and lets see who really suffered.


I couldn't disagree with this more. I see some people starting to make this comparison, and it really irks me.

"Hey, we're better than Saddam Hussein!" Well give yourself a cookie.

Seriously, everyone knows this. Even Muslims in Iraq who want us out, who are resentful of a continued occupation and distrustful of Americans, even they know this. But, making the comparison is insulting and irrelevent. We hold ourselves to a higher standard than Hussein, do we not? We failed to live up to that standard, did we not? The abuses under Hussein's rule were a million times worse, yes. But does that mean that we are beyond criticism?

Comparing ourselves with Saddam Hussein is insulting to the Iraqi people who know full well what happened under Saddam's rule ... insulting because they have the right to expect a higher standard from us, and insulting because they have the right to object at our small abuses, even though they have been accustomed to worse. And the comparison is irrelevant because, as I've said, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. The abuses that occurred stand on their own merit, right or wrong, based on OUR standards and not on Saddam's.

I don't know, maybe some people out there need the press to tell them that the U.S. is a better place to live than Iraq. Maybe they need to hear one of these prisoners say, "Yes I was abused. But, I want to live in America." But the fact that he'd rather live in the U.S. doesn't negate the fact that he was abused at the hands of American soldiers. So, what's the point?

[Swifty_Johnson]

But the fact that he'd rather live in the U.S. doesn't negate the fact that he was abused at the hands of American soldiers. So, what's the point?

What's the point?

Where was the arab anger over Saddam's abuse?
Where was the arab anger over 4 americans killed, dragged though the street and hung from a bridge?
Where is the arab anger of an American beheaded by terrorists?

You show a picture of an Iraqi male with women's panties on his head and the Arabs scream "OMG THEY PUT FEMALE PANTIES ON A MALE!!! JIHAD!!! JIAHD!!!"

Yet they cheered as 4 americans were killed and dragged though the street.

So yes, you shove it in their face, remind them that it could have been worse. Those men are still alive, ours are dead. Ours are never comming back, yet their is no arab outrage over the killing of Americans.

Swifty

[Allison]

Yes, what's the point? What is your conclusion here? Are you saying it's okay for us to abuse people as long as we're not as bad as what Saddam did?

[Cavan]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040511/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_2

If this is how the radicals wish to be treated... fine... Kill 'em all... let their "God" sort them out....

...not civilians.. but anyone found to be helping or harboring these people... ..show no mercy.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Yes, what's the point? What is your conclusion here? Are you saying it's okay for us to abuse people as long as we're not as bad as what Saddam did?

No, the point is where is the outrage for the killing of Americans? Not there? Than why in the hell are we spending so much time covering this? Really, the morons in congress are going to piss a bunch of money away "invesgating" this, and all it needs is for the military to handle it.

Compared to what went before, this was NOTHING. We are wasting too much time and energy and if the arab world wants to cry about it, we should than start focusing on all the evil arabs do and run that 24x7 and see what public thinks of arab countires after that. If the arabs want my sympathy, than they shure as hell better start showing it when arabs slaughter innocent americans. I have a hard time feeling pity for those who danced and cheered as the World Trade Center burned.

Swifty

[Boom]

Yeah, but it still sucks that we did that stuff.

No matter how much worse Saddam was, no matter how undeserving they may be of fair treatment, we are better than that. That's what makes us the good guys.

Fact is it is UnAmerican to treat prisoners like that. I don't care if they hate us more or if they already hated us as much as possible. Its not even about them. Its about being American.

In WWII the Japanese treated us horribly. They were freakin inhuman. When they boarded our battleship (the Alabama??) to surrender they were terrified. They thought we would humilate them. They thought we would strip them and beat them. That is what they would have done to us. Those Japanese delegates where shaking in their tuxedo's and tophats and the Emperor was sweating it out waiting to hear what was happening. Douglas McCarther sat them down to sign the surrender papers. Then he gave an incredibly moving speech about human dignity, and respect, and peace, and humanity. He made it clear that the Japanese would be treated well in surrender. When the delegates returned to the Emperor and told him what happened he broke down in tears. That is one of the episodes in our history that makes me sooooo proud to be an American. That is one of the episodes in our history that proves that our country is the greatest country in the history of mankind. With the way the Japanese treated our prisoners, we would have been justified if we dropped 100 nukes on them and enslaved any survivors. They were that bad. But we didn't. We treated them with honor and respect and made them our friends. We rock.

That is why this Iraq prisoner deal makes me sad. It was UnAmerican. We should do whatever we can to try and stop stuff like that from ever happening.

I think it was an anomoly. I don't think our soldiers are bad. I don't think that fairly represents our military. I am still very very proud of our soldiers and very very proud of my country. But this was icky and we are better than this.

[Grundy]

I watched Taguba's testimony today on CNN (Taguba wrote the report on the abuse). Looks like the abuse was limited to just that one prison, and limited to 6 or 7 MPs. He found no evidence of any direct order but he did find "influence" by the Military Intelligence at that facility.

The investigation went up the chain to the commander in charge of the facility and found that there was confusion and friction about who was really in charge during the months that the abuse happened. Apparently the Military Intelligence commander also had some form of control over the facility or the MPs.

Taguba also found the MPs had no training in the basic rules for handling prisoners, and no supervision. Even simple stuff like head counts were not done.

So either those couple MPs turned the faclitiy into Marque de Sade's Lord of the Flies (Badger's theory) or the Military Intelligence folks eliminated their tracks.

There is also an another investigation on the role of the Military Intelligence folks which involves a different 6 or 7 people.

[Allison]

No, the point is where is the outrage for the killing of Americans? Not there?
Honestly, you're comparing apples to oranges. For one thing, you'll never see outrage from anyone, Arab or American, at the expected or the norm. There was condemnation from some in the Arab world when Americans were killed and dragged through the streets of Fallujah ... but no outrage, you're right. Why? One reason is because everyone knew that sort of thing would happen. It's a war. There are some radicals out there who do horrible things. It's expected of them. No surprise = no outrage. But I think people were surprised that Americans would be foolish enough to engage in the sort of behavior that we've seen captured for all eternity in living color. We came into Iraq saying, "I know you don't trust us, but just wait. You'll see. We're the good guys." Then the pictures came. Surprise!

Another thing, I could just as easily ask where your outrage is when innocent Arab civilians are killed. Why don't you come here criticizing the army when that happens? Is it because you know they do the best they can to avoid civilian casualties, but that these things are to be expected in a war? Tell that to the mother whose child is dead at the hands of an occupying force. Try to explain to her the difference between the necessary, but unwanted affects of civilized fighting and a retalitory mob scene on the streets. I'm sure she'll understand why you have no outrage, either.

People can't very well expect outrage from Arabs when American military contractors are killed, and then make excuses why they themselves have no outrage when Arab civilians are killed.

We are wasting too much time and energy
Well, you can take that up with Congress. I agree this issue, in practical terms, is nothing but a small blemish on the face of war. People everywhere, even Arabs, know this sort of thing happens, and worse. But, part of the cost of doing business in the world is that when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you have to put on a nice, public dog and pony show to prove how much you detest the stealing of cookies.

I have a hard time feeling pity for those who danced and cheered as the World Trade Center burned
I can at least agree with you here.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Fact is it is UnAmerican to treat prisoners like that. I don't care if they hate us more or if they already hated us as much as possible. Its not even about them. Its about being American.

This has happened in every major war,from all sides all the way back to the dawn of mankind. While it's UnAmerican, it's human nature. What happened in that prision in Iraq was tame compared to stuff that has gone on before.

BUT we need to assult the Arab world, esp after the totally inhumane treatement of the American beheaded by muslim scum. You don't think there is going to be payback at the prison now? The guards are going to be smarter this time and there won't be any camera when revenge is extracted vs a few Iraqi in retalation.

In war, this stuff happens. It will happen in the future, all we are doing is fueling more American hatered, and it's time we started to toss this crap back into their faces.

If the Arab world wants to start getting respect from America, than they damn well better start showing us more repsect.

Swifty

[Grundy]

Pretty good summary from today's testimony: Lack of leadership (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=afxIpD3QvwZk&refer=us)

[Allison]

BUT we need to assult the Arab world ... and it's time we started to toss this crap back into their faces.

This demonstrates a fundamental difference between you and I. I can't even begin to fathom how an assault on the Arab world could produce any good result for anyone.

Yes, terrorism needs to be dealt with. Yes, some people can't be reasoned with. Yes, there are people out there who want America destroyed. No matter what we do, this will always be the case. The questions are, to what degree will these things exist, what is our ultimate goal, and what actions will best achieve that goal?

It's very tempting for me, when I see atrocities committed by radicals, to throw my hands up in the air and say , "Fuck it. They want a war? We'll show them a war." But, if you ask me, we have to be smarter than that. These problems won't be diminished with payback or revenge, though we are capable of those things on a grand scale. From my view, the only way to win this war is with "hearts and minds" campaigns, not military ones. Allowing our cowboy egos and need for revenge to form our foreign policies will have disasterous effects, in the end .... if you ask me, anyway.

[Rooster]

I agree Alli... but.. disasterous effects, like what? They yell at us some more?

It's like Bobbies in the UK... STOP OR I'LL YELL STOP AGAIN!

[Allison]

Upon reflection, I may have mistook Swifty's remark, "We need to assault the Arab world," as a call for more military action. Anyhoo, in that context, the disasterous affects I was referring to was an increase in the rise of radicals in the Arab world. Increased terrorism against the West; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. being besieged, possibly overtaken and replaced with radical fundamentalist governments. These governments getting their hands on nukes. World War III. You know, just your usual, everyday Armageddon. ;)

[Rooster]

Not like we haven't averted that TWICE already. :)

[Allison]

Yeah, but averting requires perfection on our part. They just have to get lucky once. :/

[Rooster]

I wouldn't call 300,000 soldiers deaths perfection. :( But it got the job done.

[Rooster]

Good article (imho):




The Abu Ghraib photos
NEW YORK (http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articlesearch.tmpl&dt=articleLocation&location=NEW YORK)So now we think we know who took some of the photographs at Abu Ghraib. The works attributed to U.S. Army Specialist Jeremy Sivits are fated to remain among the indelible images of our time. They will have changed the course of history; just how much we do not yet know. .

It is arguable that without them, news of what happened within the walls of that prison would never have emerged from the fog of classified internal memos. We owe their circulation and perhaps their existence to the popular technology of our day, to digital cameras and JPEG files and e-mail. Leaving aside the question of how anyone could have perpetrated the horrors depicted in those pictures, you can't help but wonder why American soldiers would incriminate themselves by posing next to their handiwork. Americans don't seem to have a long tradition of that sort of thing. .

There have been many atrocity photographs over the years, of course - the worst I've ever seen were taken in Algeria in 1961, and once when I was a child another kid found and showed off his father's cache of pictures from the Pacific Theater in World War II, which shook me so badly that I can't remember with any certainty what they depicted. .

I'm pretty sure, though, that they did not show anyone grinning and making self-congratulatory gestures. .

The pictures from Abu Ghraib are trophy shots. The American soldiers included in them look exactly as if they were standing next to a gutted buck or a 10-foot marlin. That incongruity is not the least striking aspect of the pictures. .

The first shot I saw, of Specialist Charles A. Graner and Private Lynndie R. England flashing thumbs up behind a pile of their naked victims, was so jarring that for a few seconds I took it for a montage. When I registered what I was seeing, I was reminded of something. There was something familiar about that jaunty insouciance, that unabashed triumph at having inflicted misery upon other humans. And then I remembered: the last time I had seen that conjunction of elements was in photographs of lynchings. In photographs that were taken and often printed as postcards in the American heartland in the first four decades of the 20th century, black men are shown hanging from trees or light fixtures or maybe being burned alive, while below them white people are laughing and pointing for the benefit of the camera. The mood is giddy, often verging on hysterical, with a distinct sexual undercurrent. .

Like the lynching crowds, the Americans at Abu Ghraib felt free to parade their triumph and glee not because they were psychopaths but because the thought of censure never crossed their minds. In both cases a contagious collective frenzy perhaps overruled the scruples of some people otherwise known for their gentleness and sympathy. But isn't the abandonment of such scruples possible only if the victims are considered less than human? .

The Americans in the photographs are not enacting hatred; hatred can coexist with respect, however strained. What they display, instead, is contempt: their victims are merely objects. It is conceivable that such events might have occurred in a war in which the enemy looked like us. Still, it is striking how, in wartime, a fundamental lack of respect for the enemy's body becomes an issue only when the enemy is perceived as being of another race. .

You might have heard about the strings of human ears collected by some soldiers in Vietnam, or read the story, reported in Life during World War II, about the GI who blithely mailed his girlfriend in Brooklyn a Japanese skull as a Christmas present. .

Of course the violence at Abu Ghraib was primarily psychological - only a few people were killed - and the trophies were pictorial, like the results of a photo safari. Some commentators have made a point of noting this very relative nonviolence, contrasting it with the lynching of the four American military contractors in Fallujah last month. .

This line of argument is notable for what it leaves out: there is a difference between the rage of a people who feel themselves invaded and the contempt of a victorious nation for a civilian population whom it has ostensibly liberated. .

That prison guards would pose captives - primarily noncombatants, low-level riffraff - in re-enactments of cable TV smut for the benefit of their friends back home emerges from the mode of thinking that has prevented an accounting of civilian deaths in Iraq since the beginning of the war. If civilian deaths are not recorded, let alone published, it must be because they do not matter, and if they do not matter it must be because the Iraqis are beneath notice. And that must mean that anything done to them is permissible, as long as it does not create publicity that would embarrass the Bush administration. .

The possible consequences of the Abu Ghraib archive are numerous, many of them horrifying. Perhaps, though, the digital camera will haunt the future career of President George W. Bush the way the tape recorder sealed the fate of Richard Nixon. .

Luc Sante, who teaches creative writing and the history of photography at Bard College, is the author of "Low Life," "Evidence" and "The Factory of Facts."




(bold emphasis mine)

[Allison]

Ah, my "averting" comment was referring to averting terrorists with nukes, not world wars. :)

And that is defnitely a thought-provoking article. It has a few problems, but I think its core statement, the one you bolded (is bolded a word?), is correct.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I meant a media assult. Flood their airwaves of Saddam's and the terrorist's acts and make them start to feel really really horrible about being an Arab. Basically get them mad at the terrorists for runing their image in the world.

Swifty

[Mulletious]

swifty-not all arabs were under saddams rule-you really have to stop bunching all the arabs together because theres many of them in other countries...

[Rooster]

swifty-not all arabs were under saddams rule-you really have to stop bunching all the arabs together because theres many of them in other countries...that hate us.

[Swifty_Johnson]

swifty-not all arabs were under saddams rule-you really have to stop bunching all the arabs together because theres many of them in other countries...

No, but all arabs accepted Saddam's rule. (well most of them outside of Iraq.)

Arabs danced in the street on 9/11.

Arabs are dancing over the beheading of the innocent American.

Arabs need to know the real enemies are the leaders like Saddam and Bin Laden. We need to have them see the cruelity that is being done in the name of Islam. We need to equate Islam = Terrorism so the normals arabs get sick of being treated like terrorist so they get off their lazy asses and start helping to remove terrorists from the face of the earth. As long as mainstream Islam ignores the terrorists as a problem for the west to deal with, this war will never be over.

In case you don't get it, the terrorists want a totally islamic world. No Cristians, no jews, nothing but Muslims. If you don't convert, you die.

Swifty

[Boom]

I like the idea of media assault.

[Cavan]

The problem I see.. is that the Arab Media does not show the horrible things people are doing to Arabs... they only should what the American's are doing to the Arabs...
I believe that 95% of all Arabs would see the video of the beheading of the American Citizen and be disgusted and outraged...

Another thing I don't quite understand... the abuse in the Iraq Prison happened back in January.. over a 6-7 day period... nothing has happened since... and no harm was done to the prisoners... gratned... one could say the humiliation is harm... but no physical harm came to the prisoners...

[Rooster]

Uhh, there are some cases where deaths were involved.. due to blunt trauma force. (isn't that a little redundant?)

[Cavan]

Actually the deaths were not at the American (Iraq) Prison... they were at the British (Iraq) Prison...

[Allison]

Arabs danced in the street on 9/11.
Some did. And others denounced it and offered us their support.

Arabs are dancing over the beheading of the innocent American.
Haven't seen it, but I wouldn't be surprised if some had. But again, others have denounced it. I just saw an interview 5 minutes ago of some Iraqi men on Baghdad streets. They were saying things like, "This was terrible and wrong; This is not Islam." The worst I heard was from a young man who said, "It is true Americans are occupying us. It is okay to kill them in battle. But this was wrong. It is a stain on the Iraqi people."

We need to equate Islam = Terrorism so the normals arabs get sick of being treated like terrorist so they get off their lazy asses and start helping to remove terrorists from the face of the earth.
So, you want the world to hate all Muslims? You want to persecute them all, including peace-loving civilians whose only crime is to be born an Arab and a Muslim? Hmmm... that philosophy sounds familiar ... where have I heard that before? I'm curious, do you want to apply this policy to all Muslims in the world? Or just the 20-30% of them that are Arab?

In case you don't get it, the terrorists want a totally islamic world. No Cristians, no jews, nothing but Muslims. If you don't convert, you die.

And we shouldn't allow that to happen. But, I don't think we need to demonize over a billion people to prevent it. On the contrary, I think your suggestion would be an excellent way to facilitate it.

[Swifty_Johnson]

So, you want the world to hate all Muslims? You want to persecute them all, including peace-loving civilians whose only crime is to be born an Arab and a Muslim?

Yup, becasue as long as those "peace-loving" muslims (I'd like to really know if there is such a thing) sit back and remain silent about what the others are doing, whine to no end when we remove arab threats to the free world, than we will never stop this war. As long as the "peace-loving" muslims sit on their ass and let the terrorist run their relegion we are stuck at war.

Lets put it to you this way, if the Cathloic Church didn't start to do something about child abusing priests, I would be doing more than I am now to handle the situation. As long as these muslims tolerate Islamic clerics who support terrorism, they are just as guilty as the terrorists.

And we shouldn't allow that to happen. But, I don't think we need to demonize over a billion people to prevent it. On the contrary, I think your suggestion would be an excellent way to facilitate it.

Nope, not at all. I'm not talking about killing people at all. I'm talking about media pressure.

Swifty

[Allison]

Ah... I see. Tell me, for those Muslims who do actively fight terrorism to your satisfaction, can they get a card to carry, or something they can wear on their sleeve so people know not to persecute them?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Ah... I see. Tell me, for those Muslims who do actively fight terrorism to your satisfaction, can they get a card to carry, or something they can wear on their sleeve so people know not to persecute them?

When that happens, you than highlight all the good that those who are fighting the terrorist and stop teh negative ads.

Swifty

[Allison]

I'm all for hearts and minds campaigns around the world to promote centrist views and tolerance; making less biased media available to those who currently only see one side; and promoting an appealing, conservative alternative philosophy in the ARab world for people to cling to. As is it, a lot of them have only two opposing extremist philosophies from which to choose.

If those are the things you're suggesting, Swifty, then we agree. But you seem to be talking about the same kind of hate-mongering that terrorists use. Demonizing them all will only lead to more hate and more violence. Honestly, I can't believe you'd even suggest this.

[spyder913]

that hate us.
and some don't! some hate rock and roll and SOME DON'T!!!

wow!

[Kegg OBeer]

If you really insist on making this a muslim vs. christianity thing, don't forget the "eye for an eye" thing christians supposedly believe in. (according to the bible at least)

If they see fit to kill thousands of our civilians, then we should see fit to target thousands of their civilians as well. That's the christian way.

Now for the rest of us living in reality, the only thing that will stop these people is them killing us or us killing them. If civilians want to hide them and protect them, then they are just facilitating these people to do the cowardly things they do, and that makes them every bit as guilty. Personally, I would rather we killed them first before they find a way to carry out their objectives. (killing us)

[Rooster]

While Eye for an Eye is in the Bible, pretty sure it's the muslims that practice it.

[Noleader]

Rooster & Swifty,

Do you guys really not see how much you sound like the people we are fighting? They to group us all up and try to blame the actions of a hand full of americans on the whole. They call for a Jihad and you two are calling for the next set of Crusades.

Really guys from my side of the screen you sound like bigots...

[Rooster]

I have?

But in response anyway: No, just tired of rolling over for people that even today, have a word for holy war, and practice it.


Christians (& Jews & Buddhists) don't.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Do you guys really not see how much you sound like the people we are fighting? They to group us all up and try to blame the actions of a hand full of americans on the whole. They call for a Jihad and you two are calling for the next set of Crusades.

You just disgust me. Where have I called for the slaughter of innocent arabs? Where have I called for Christians to hijack airplanes and slam them into arab buildings? Where have I called for the beheading of arabs?

Calling for an all out MEDIA asssult is NON-VIOLENT action. If this this extent of your debating skills? Make unfounded accusations and comparisions that are extreamly derogatory to the people who don't agree with?

Swifty

[Canidae]

You know NL, for a guy that on another post tried to say that you were just chatting and debating and not making personal attacks, you sure do have a way of making it sound as if you are calling people names....

Really guys from my side of the screen you sound like bigots...

[Allison]

You just disgust me. Where have I called for the slaughter of innocent arabs?
In all fairness, he never said you did. He said you propose lumping all Muslims into the category of "terrorist," just as they do to Americans. If this was not your intent, then you should clarify your statements, because "Muslim = terrorist" certainly sounds a lot like "American = terrorist."

[Swifty_Johnson]

Nope, that's not what he said, he said we were like the people we are fighting, which means Al Quida.

Swifty

[Allison]

Nope, that's not what he said, he said we were like the people we are fighting, which means Al Quida.
You crack me up, Swifty. You quoted Noleader: "Do you guys really not see how much you sound like the people we are fighting? "

He's talking about the language you're using. If you're going to criticise his remarks, do so. But don't claim he said things he never said.

[Noleader]

You know NL, for a guy that on another post tried to say that you were just chatting and debating and not making personal attacks, you sure do have a way of making it sound as if you are calling people names....
I have very little reason to restrain myself. If the practice of mass descrimanation can go all over this thread I should beable to call them out.

Anyways look up the word some time. You will find the meaning is not a personal attack, it is a description to how Swifty and Roo are acting.

[Noleader]

You just disgust me. Where have I called for the slaughter of innocent arabs? Where have I called for Christians to hijack airplanes and slam them into arab buildings? Where have I called for the beheading of arabs?

Calling for an all out MEDIA asssult is NON-VIOLENT action. If this this extent of your debating skills? Make unfounded accusations and comparisions that are extreamly derogatory to the people who don't agree with?

Swifty
Na swifty you just asked that we punish them all for the acts of a few. I been trying not to insult you since you first started posting but I have reached my point.

The fact is you make ME sick, Get you dumb ass head out of Bushs ass and wake up to the real world. There is no flowers and everything is not black and white. People that have to reduce themselves to calling other people names tend to hold very little fact and a lot of BS.

When you can paint a whole region of the world as evil and hold them all responsible for the actions of a few it shows more deep issues. I wish I had a time machine. I would send you ass back to the 1950's and drop you right in the middle of the southern US. Something tells me you would do well there.

Asshole

[Rooster]

I have very little reason to restrain myself. If the practice of mass descrimanation can go all over this thread I should beable to call them out.

Anyways look up the word some time. You will find the meaning is not a personal attack, it is a description to how Swifty and Roo are acting.And Roo? Squeeze me?

[Rooster]

And you two can take the name calling to PM.

[Allison]

My last thoughts on this:

First, I don't know if "bigoted" would be the right word to describe Swifty's remarks because that word is more of a description of obstinent devotion to one's own ideals. And Swifty's remarks seem, if anything, to be directed at the faith of Muslims, not his own. And in fairness, Swifty never said he believed all Muslims were like terrorists. If he had, I would have described that remark as the religious equivalent of racism. However, he has said that he doubts if there really are any peace-loving Muslims, but the thrust of his argument hasn't been the reality of what Muslims are like, but how we should treat them.

I don't know how much of a distinction can be made there, though. If I were to say that there are too many black people on welfare, and even though there are a lot who are not, we should treat them all as if they were, so as to encourage the "good ones" to pressure the "bad ones" into being more productive ... if I were to say that, am I not being racist? I don't know. I may not truly have disdain for all black people, but the result is the same as if I did.

I don't know what's in Swifty's heart, but his assertion that we should treat all Muslims like terrorists does, on the surface, sound like religious persecution.

Second, Noleader, I think you went too far. I know you feel you have the right, but your argument loses credibility when you "fight fire with fire." And while it's true that making inflammatory statements to force someone into stating their true feelings will sometimes work, more often than not you will only put them on the defensive, angering them to the point that they will never give you an inch, and all chance of logical debate flies out the window. Then the name-calling starts; it gets ugly; and you're no closer to a resolution than when you started. You don't have to go there. People's motivations and "true feelings" are usually apparant without backing them into a corner to prove it.

Third, Noleader, I looked over this and the other thread, and I didn't see any remarks by Rooster that would warrant lumping him in with Swifty. Their comments were very different.

Last, Rooster, you've been very restrained. :)

[Canidae]

Calling anyone a bigot is a personal attack.

[Noleader]

And Roo? Squeeze me?
Roo you were calling for the same items as Swifty... Maybe not to the same extreme but you were.

[Noleader]

Calling anyone a bigot is a personal attack.
Maybe your thoughts are a Bigot is a bad thing but it fits well and is by its meaning not a bad thing...

Here is what it means:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=bigots

[Noleader]

My last thoughts on this:

First, I don't know if "bigoted" would be the right word to describe Swifty's remarks because that word is more of a description of obstinent devotion to one's own ideals. And Swifty's remarks seem, if anything, to be directed at the faith of Muslims, not his own. And in fairness, Swifty never said he believed all Muslims were like terrorists. If he had, I would have described that remark as the religious equivalent of racism. However, he has said that he doubts if there really are any peace-loving Muslims, but the thrust of his argument hasn't been the reality of what Muslims are like, but how we should treat them.
It fits... People seem to get hung up on the word and not the meaning. Also I get railed by swifty in almost every damn thread and not many people tell him to lay off. I go on the offensive for 3 days and all of the sudden I am the devil. If everyone wants me to lay off the harsh language they need to activily call out other people that perpetrate the same activity.


I don't know how much of a distinction can be made there, though. If I were to say that there are too many black people on welfare, and even though there are a lot who are not, we should treat them all as if they were, so as to encourage the "good ones" to pressure the "bad ones" into being more productive ... if I were to say that, am I not being racist? I don't know. I may not truly have disdain for all black people, but the result is the same as if I did.

I don't know what's in Swifty's heart, but his assertion that we should treat all Muslims like terrorists does, on the surface, sound like religious persecution.
See other posts on this item.


Second, Noleader, I think you went too far. I know you feel you have the right, but your argument loses credibility when you "fight fire with fire." And while it's true that making inflammatory statements to force someone into stating their true feelings will sometimes work, more often than not you will only put them on the defensive, angering them to the point that they will never give you an inch, and all chance of logical debate flies out the window. Then the name-calling starts; it gets ugly; and you're no closer to a resolution than when you started. You don't have to go there. People's motivations and "true feelings" are usually apparant without backing them into a corner to prove it.
I am not here to change peoples minds. I am here to argue my view point in hopes that it might give me a better understanding on issues and also I enjoy it.

I don't back people into corners until they leave me no other recourse. I try to reason with people till my fingers are sore from typing but with some people the only way you can prove your point is to take their legs out. Like I said before I do not think I was in the wrong. If you open a full blown personal assult on me please expect the same treatment back.


Third, Noleader, I looked over this and the other thread, and I didn't see any remarks by Rooster that would warrant lumping him in with Swifty. Their comments were very different.
As I said in the post above, although Roo did not take the extreme in the issue he did agree on some points that are concerning to me.

I typed the last 2 posts when I was extremely pist. I know I took the other extreme and may have overstepped my bounds when it comes to Roo but that is the only place I overstepped.

I have no respect for people that can so easily paint a large region of the world as the problem, and want to administor any form of punishment just based on religon, color, sex, etc. There are very few items that get me going and this is one of them.

[PoxTheSmall]

Here's a difference in how the Arab world and ours differ. Recall if you will, the day of the Sept 11th bombings...they showed what was alluded to as a "Live boardcast from Iraq of the people's reactions", where people were dancing in the streets and celebrating. It turned out, that broadcast was from the car bombings, several years prior, on the WTC, but similar sentiments, whereas folks were happy about the deaths of civilians in a horrible manner.

If the US started nuking Iraq without regard to the citizens, we'd be harshly regarded by the world and I doubt anyone would celebrate it from America or anywhere else.

[Allison]

If the US started nuking Iraq without regard to the citizens ... I doubt anyone would celebrate it from America ...
I hope that would be true. But, I wonder, sometimes.

[Rooster]

As I said in the post above, although Roo did not take the extreme in the issue he did agree on some points that are concerning to me.

I typed the last 2 posts when I was extremely pist. I know I took the other extreme and may have overstepped my bounds when it comes to Roo but that is the only place I overstepped.

I have no respect for people that can so easily paint a large region of the world as the problem, and want to administor any form of punishment just based on religon, color, sex, etc. There are very few items that get me going and this is one of them.I'm not going to go back and defend myself against this lumping attack, because he's just doing what he's accusing (and hating) Swifty for doing. I generally will qualify my statements with some moderation. I am, as everyone is, prejudiced - we would not be human if we weren't. But I am not a bigot. Bigot = a strong/extreme prejudice. Prejudice just means you have some experience with a small sampling of a certain group of people and you have formed thoughts on how you feel about them. ie., I have a prejudice regarding Swedish swimsuit models. So what! That doesn't make me a bigot.

Think on this though: When culture A wants to exterminate culture B, shouldn't culture B, be a little concerned about it's welfare and adjust how they treat culture A (ie, with more concern, caution, skepticism)?

I'm not saying A=Islam and B=America. It's clearly not that cut & dried.

[Eiru]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-jag14may14,1,5550109.story

[Rooster]

cut & paste? subscriber only

[Noleader]

that hate us.
Roo you did some big grouping in this thread... You may have not been extreme on the issue like swifty but you did use some strong statments when describing a group of people.

And no I am not doing the same thing Swifty is doing. I am forming a opinion based on information presented to me. I doubt you have traveled to the middle east and checked with every single person there to make sure that they hate us. You formed your opinion before you received all the facts. Like I said though I used strong words that do not completely apply to you when I am looking in retrospect.

The fact that I can admit I am in error is the thing that differs between Swifty and I.

[Rooster]

Actually, I have been to the middle-east. And you make assumptions based on people you haven't met every day. You make them because you are informed through various means.

And you're taking my post out of context. So, again, it counts for nothing.

[Allison]

I think you're reading too much into Rooster's "that hate us" remark. He didn't specify how many Arabs, all, some, or three. You assumed he meant "all." :p

[Eiru]

U.S. Military Lawyers Felt 'Shut Out' of Prison Policy
They said civilian political lawyers were deciding how prisoners could be questioned. At issue is how to interpret the Geneva Convention.
By Ken Silverstein
Times Staff Writer

May 14, 2004

WASHINGTON — A group of senior military lawyers were so concerned about changes in the rules designed to safeguard prisoners during interrogation that they sought help outside the Defense Department, according to a New York lawyer who headed a recent study of how prisoners have been treated in the war on terrorism.

The military lawyers were part of the Army Judge Advocate General's office, which in the past has played a role in ensuring that interrogators did not violate prisoners' rights.

"They were extremely upset. They said they were being shut out of the process, and that the civilian political lawyers, not the military lawyers, were writing these new rules of engagement," said Scott Horton, who was chairman of the New York City Bar Assn. committee that filed a report this month on the interrogation of detainees by the U.S.

The report was released just days before the first photos were broadcast showing naked Iraqi detainees being abused at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

The Pentagon's "interrogation rules of engagement" became a focus of controversy in the Senate this week because they permitted the use of techniques such as "stress positions" and "sensory deprivation" and the presence of military dogs.

Some international law experts, as well as some Senate Democrats, said the loosened rules violated the Geneva Convention, which forbids soldiers to use physical force to obtain information from detainees.

But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the rules had been examined and approved by lawyers for the administration.

On Tuesday, Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, said Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy, "issued any number of statements and directives to the effect that detainees in Iraq, civilian or military, were to be treated under the provisions of the Geneva Convention."

The military lawyers complained that the Pentagon was creating "an atmosphere of legal ambiguity," Horton said. "What's happened is not an accident. It is exactly what they were warning about a year ago," he said.

None of the military lawyers would agree to speak publicly, he said, because to do so would threaten their careers.

All sides agree that the abusive treatment of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib violates international law and is far out of bounds. They disagree, however, on whether the Bush administration's legal policy toward interrogating prisoners caused or contributed to the abuses.

Administration officials say that a small group of reservists committed crimes by abusing Iraqis, and that they will be swiftly punished.

Critics, including Horton, say the administration itself bears part of the blame for having approved more aggressive interrogation techniques.

The Geneva Convention of 1949 extended protections to civilians in occupied territories as well as prisoners of war. The standards came in response to the brutal treatment of civilians during World War II.

The fourth treaty of the convention says former fighters and detained civilians must be treated humanely.

"Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment shall remain prohibited at any time," it says.

Another provision forbids "physical or mental coercion" or the use of force to obtain information.

The United States has been the occupying power in Iraq since American troops took control in Baghdad last April.

By last fall, when attacks against U.S. troops were increasing, American commanders sought to learn who was behind the insurgency. And they stepped up efforts to question the thousands of Iraqis who were being held at Abu Ghraib.

The Pentagon's interrogation rules say the Geneva Convention must be followed, and that "approaches [to detainees] must always be humane and lawful…. Detainees will NEVER be touched in a malicious or unwanted manner."

But they also permit, with the commander's approval, the use of "sleep management," military dogs and "stress positions no longer than 45 minutes."

"The most problematic in my opinion is the presence of military dogs," said University of Houston law professor Jordan Paust, a former Army lawyer. "Even if the dogs are muzzled, they are there to strike terror or intense fear. That is intimidation," he said.

Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who also worked on the interrogation study, said he was surprised the Pentagon had authorized sleep deprivation and the use of painful stress positions.

Horton said the military lawyers told him that Feith pressed for looser interrogation rules and won approval for them from the administration's civilian lawyers earlier in the U.S. war on terrorism.

Horton said the administration was following rules that had been approved for suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who are considered "enemy combatants," not prisoners of war. Indeed, the report by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba on the abuse at Abu Ghraib referred to a recommendation by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then the commander of the Guantanamo detention facility, that the military "Gitmo-ize" the prisons in Iraq. Miller visited the prisons last summer and now commands them.

But the situation in Iraq is different and the higher Geneva standards apply, Horton said.

"It's one thing when violations occur in the heat of battle, the fog of war. It's something else when violations of Geneva occur when it is a deliberate policy cast at the highest levels of the Pentagon — and I think it's at the highest levels of the administration," Horton said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer David Savage contributed to this story.

[Swifty_Johnson]

The fact is you make ME sick,

Wow, I am happy now.

Get you dumb ass head out of Bushs ass and wake up to the real world.

AAAhhhh, always got to tie Bush into this? I think some of my views would even make Bush weep. The only person showing ignorance here is you.

People that have to reduce themselves to calling other people names tend to hold very little fact and a lot of BS.

Describes you to a T, you started with the personal attacks, that just goes to show you how weak you are.

When you can paint a whole region of the world as evil and hold them all responsible for the actions of a few it shows more deep issues.

Yes, it shows that you cannot see right from wrong. Or are you to caught up in removing Bush from office that you are willing to see thousands of Americans die so it can happen?

I am not painting a whole region of the world as evil. But you know, when Arabs are running around killing thousands of Americans, than to protect them you watch the arabs. Not all Arabs are terrorists, but all the Hijackers on 9/11 were arabs. And darn those silly terrorists for not wearing "I hate America" T-Shirts so we can tell them apart from the others.

And darn those other Arabs who give money to them so they can blow us up.

I wish I had a time machine. I would send you ass back to the 1950's and drop you right in the middle of the southern US. Something tells me you would do well there.

This just shows the depth of your ignorance. Please show me anyplace where I call for VIOLENCE aginst anyone, really, please show it. Also, my girlfriend is from the Dominican Republic, so please stop trying to paint me as a racist.

Swifty

[Figtoria]

Swifty - if you read what you write and substitute the word "blacks" for "Arabs" maybe you will see why it reads as bigoted to some of us.

You are painting too wide a swathe with your "evil" brush.

[Rooster]

That doesn't work well in Swifty's case either...

Because blacks never blew up buildings, killed hundreds of people, or used their religion as an excuse to do brutal things to innocents. Blacks in America were relegated to 2nd class citizens for no other reason than skin color.

This is different, like it or not.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Actually Fig, in the 50s down south you'd be using Whites instead of Arabs.

Whites lynched people.

Whites blew up churchs.

Whites murdered people in the civil rights movement.

You know what, their actions so shamed the rest of the white population we had an admendment to the Constitution on civil rights. Amazing how that works.

Swifty

[Kegg OBeer]

Don't forget that white ran the crusades, slaughtered the american indians, slaughtered the jews, enslaved half of africa... we could go on all day.

It's no secret that a large portion of the middle east hates america. Oh well, too bad. Let them hate us. Now when they show aggression towards us and slaughter thousands of innocent citizens, the gloves come off.

What I don't understand, is why this is even under debate by anyone?

From where I stand, it looks to me like they've brought it on themselves.

[Allison]

From where I stand, it looks to me like they've brought it on themselves.
They say the same of us. And that's the point.

[Rooster]

Yeah, we're to be hated for being a prosperous country that treats females with respect and have positions of power.

Yeah, we brought it on ourselves.

Wanna talk about ignorance breeding hatred, it's the "general" arab/muslim society they have. Makes even Billy-Bob Redneck Rebel look enlightened.

[Figtoria]

Don't forget that white ran the crusades, slaughtered the american indians, slaughtered the jews, enslaved half of africa... we could go on all day.


Some days I think you guys are purposely missing the point.


The point is that SOME whites ran the crusades, slaughtered indians, etc. - BUT NOT ALL.

You can't paint a whole RACE or CREED or RELIGION with the same brush!!

[Allison]

You have some valid points, Rooster.

I'm not arguing that there don't exist ignorant people in the Arab/Muslim world who hate all Americans for the wrong reasons. My only point is that we shouldn't do the same.

Let's not forget that a good portion of the world we're talking about is barely out of 9th century. While we were progressing socially and politically over the last few hundred years, fascillitated by industrialization, wealth and a free press, they were living by tribal rule. Oil was found, and they've been progressing rapidly ever since. But, the wheels of social change move slowly. Tribal influences are still strong. But I think we have an opportunity here to promote tolerant and centrist ideals to help them along, as long as we can maintain those ideals ourselves.

[Noleader]

Some days I think you guys are purposely missing the point.


The point is that SOME whites ran the crusades, slaughtered indians, etc. - BUT NOT ALL.

You can't paint a whole RACE or CREED or RELIGION with the same brush!!Figgy I have started talking to my wall because talking to some people on these boards is pointless. No one wants to hear anything that does not mesh with their views. If you do counter their view it becomes a personal attack because that is the only way they can discredit you in their mind. I am just going to ignore Swifty's posts from now on because I am only interested in talking to people that want to debate. I have no time for people that just want to call me names and distort my replys into personal attacks.

[Noleader]

Yeah, we're to be hated for being a prosperous country that treats females with respect and have positions of power.

Yeah, we brought it on ourselves.

Wanna talk about ignorance breeding hatred, it's the "general" arab/muslim society they have. Makes even Billy-Bob Redneck Rebel look enlightened.
A lot of this is true but the matter to handle this is the issue. I do not see why we should discriminate them and just reaffirm what the 'evil' ones have been preaching.

[Rooster]

We shouldn't, but we shouldn't expect to just roll over for barbarism either.

How are you going to retrain or even TEACH an entire society that women are perfectly capable of holding positions of authority as men? That's a social thing. America in general was skeptical, and laws prevent the discrimination, but the social aspect is STILL developing. We expect the entire Arab world to turn around in a shorter time?

They are not going to come around in our life time. We have to plant the seeds of education, democracy, and give them a government (because we can't give them a society) that they can express their views without fear of persecution. Which has been the case for the last .. oh... FOREVER in their society. They've been bred (not really the right word, but it works) to feel they can NOT have free thinkers in their society. They put bounties on free-thinkers heads!

If they do not have a government created FOR them, they will never build one themselves - it's not possible in their society. This will continue the trend of living in fear, constricting free speech and it will never ever develop into even a shadow of what we have here.

So...

In light of that, what do we do?

[Kegg OBeer]

Some days I think you guys are purposely missing the point.


The point is that SOME whites ran the crusades, slaughtered indians, etc. - BUT NOT ALL.

You can't paint a whole RACE or CREED or RELIGION with the same brush!!

Actually Fig, I think you were missing MY point...

You're criticizing us for generalizing people by their race, creed or religion. At the same time you're defending them because not "all" of them are like that. (Which I never actually said by the way...) So in effect you're saying it's ok for them to generalize us and attack our innocent civilians based on their nationality, yet at the same time we're bad people for retaliating on them based on their nationality.

First of all, unless there's some horribly bad misinformation going on, we actually ousted an evil tyrant in Iraq. We are not slaughtering innocent Iraqi citizens to find the remaining resistance cells, and our soldiers are dying to protect those innocent civilians. How exactly are we painting too broad a stroke here?

Secondly, we only have one advantage in this war on terrorism. They nearly exclusively recruit from their own race/religion. No, they do not recruit EVERYONE from their race or religion, but others of their race and religion actively help them by hiding them and/or their equipment, funding them, etc. As far as I'm concerned, those that help them are as guilty as those who actually kill innocent people. If, in fact, we hunt these people down and kill them like the dogs we can all pretty much agree they are, then a lot of these so called "innocent" civilians will die in the process. It's unavoidable. Unfortunately you will see in the news how many "innocent" civilians were killed, and the terrorists will broadcast how evil America is for killing "innocents" so they can spread their hatred of us even further.

My point of what I was trying to say before is that nobody's really innocent if you look at it from the right perspective. Every race/religion/nationality can be portrayed as evil in the correct light. Sometimes you just have to pick who's side you're going to be on and that's it.

You can't afford to be politically correct in war. Vietnam should have taught all of us that.

[Rooster]

/me cheers Keg.

[Eiru]

What? What does Vietnam have to do with anything?

[Kegg OBeer]

In Vietnam, we tried to fight a war on "politically correct" terms. As a result, we lost.

It was an example, that's all.

If you insist on fighting a war on politically correct terms, rather than fighting to win it, you'd better start brushing up on your arabic. It'll come in handy.

[Allison]

Geez, you guys always gotta take things to the extreme. There is a world of territory between "All Muslims are terrorists," and "All Muslims are peace-loving innocents." This has nothing to do with being PC, Kegg. It's about acknowledging the reality of what lies between those two extremes.

[Kegg OBeer]

It's a war. People are dying every day. How extreme do we need to get before we just go kick ass?

[Rooster]

3000 dead? Hmmm... it was enough then, but not now I guess

[Allison]

It's a war. People are dying every day. How extreme do we need to get before we just go kick ass?I ask you to acknowlege that all Muslims are not terrorists and this is your response? I don't understand the question.

[Noleader]

I ask you to acknowlege that all Muslims are not terrorists and this is your response? I don't understand the question.
You answered your own question Allison... If they admit that all Muslims are not terrorists then they will have to come to grips with the fact that they are doing the same thing to the general Muslim population as the terrorists do to us.

Promoting hate is easy to do. Everyone wants someone to blame for issues in their life. Stoping the hate is a lot harder to do. No one likes to hear that their hate effects how the rest of the world views us.

We can spend the next 20 years 'at war' with terror, but we will never win till we can extend the olive branch to the Muslims and show them that America is not the evil country they have become accustom to hate.