 |
- Chas wrote: -
> You allude to some photos for which I have no referent; sorry.
> Were any of them ear-cropped, branded or tattooed, sent to slave
labor or
> publicly defiled?
> Do you count *any* treatment other than as an honored guest to be
> inappropriate?
Absolutely. I count on treatment that abides by the GC and our own
domestic laws, as well as DOD regulations. I noticed you were unwilling
or unable to answer the question I put to you regarding how you would
judge the treatment dipicted in the photographs if you were one of the
prisoners subjected to this "treatment."
> The most basic tenets of the religion are founded in a spiritual
battle
> between Islam and anything else; anything. The most basic tenet is to
> 'Submit' to Islam, and Recite the oath of allegiance to their leader.
> That's not a common ideological stand, and your 'slice of pie' theory
> doesn't apply.
What? So how is your claim about Islam different from say the
historical tenants of Christianity? Clearly you have a very difficult
time seperating Islamic Extremisn from the much larger moderate and
liberal Islamic positions.
> > The propaganda we use to effect our objectives is different for
each
> > slice. Does that make sense to you, or are you suggesting that
PsyOps
> > only works for the enemy?
>
> I think that playing into their idea of ritual defilement *is*
'psyops'. The
> whole idea is their superstition, by your standards. There is no
actual harm
> except in their minds; right?
> Or do you think we should schedule our troops to make sure they don't
come
> in contact with menstruating women?
One persons superstition is another persons fact. You continue to try
and find the least offensive or harmful objection by a given Muslim POW
to dance around completely different acts such as attaching wire leads
to hooded prisoners fingertips while chained to metal prison cell bars.
Again, I refer you back to international treaties reagrding such
treatment. I'll leave the "defilement by woman guards having periods to
the International Red Cross who's job by agreement is to resolve such
matters.
> No.
> Of the twenty-five million population in Iraq, the numbers of people
who
> wouldn't approve of the methods at abu Graib are minuscule. They know
what
> would happen to them if taken by their own, much less the previous
regime.
> They think we're sissies for thinking that wearing funny hats and
doing
> naked gymnastics constitutes 'torture'- hilarious.
They do? I would be more than willing to see some evidence of the
greater thinking of entire population of Iraq as to your claim? Really,
I would be very happy if you could point me to some source on this.
> You use the word 'abuse' very freely at this point.
> The standard of treatment is not based on that given to civilian
criminals,
> it's based on war; killed from a distance indiscriminately in large
groups
> as a preference.
> There is no presumption of innocence as there would be in a civilian
model.
Yes, I call what I saw in the photographs and from what the IG
investigation produced abuse, as did the IG, as did the President, as
did the SecDef, as did virtually every senior member of Congress, and
on and on and on. Moreover, I never attempted to compare the civilian
model to the military one.
> Who do you release them to? How do you trust that they won't return
to their
> spiritual practice? What assurances can they give that would override
their
> allegiance to their religion?
You can't. But I was not necessarily suggesting that they be relesed
since I have no idea what each individual is being held for. I was
merely pointing out the obvious, that prisoners want their freedom
restored.
JT
|
|
