AggieDave 6 #51 January 18, 2005 QuoteWhat do you think I'm saying? Was Bush criminally negligent in ignoring that warning? No. That's honestly what I thought you were implying with your post. I even read it twice to make sure. Quote It said "Bin Laden may attack the US" and it listed the use of commercial airlines to target buildings That sort of warning has been issued more times then I think you realize over the course of the past 4 presidents. With named targets and people.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 January 18, 2005 Quote(obligatory Clinton slam is now out of the way . . .) When it's a well-known fact that he gutted the intelligence community, how is it a slam?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #53 January 18, 2005 Here you go - replies in bold. Would be nice if those defending these actions actually would do some research before presenting their oppinions as facts. QuoteQuoteReading some of the stuff here - looks like quite a few posters really think the soldiers only made one mistake and that was taking pictures. BTW the prison was not a POW camp - all kinds of Quotepeople were held there - also people arrested for minor offenses and were not convicted or charged at the time of abuse. They were also not the ones being "abused" if thats the word you want to use. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4165627.stm QuoteHussein Mutar, an Iraqi sent to Abu Ghraib for stealing a car, was forced to masturbate in public and piled onto a pyramid of naked men QuoteSo how can posters who all the time say that the Iraq war was justified because it got rid of Saddam and his methods, promote this type of treatment of prisoners? So the US can and should do what ever it pleases and behave like the worst human rights offenders? or at least if it is against muslims? So aren't you becoming what you supposedly are fighting against? Quite disturbing stuff IMHO. It's called scale. How can you equate humiliation, with the cutting off fingers, arms and legs, poking out eyes, and worse, that occured under SH? QuoteBTW - the insurgency in Iraq is now believed to have up to 200 thousand participants. And there are not many foreign terrorists amongst them - they are nearly all locals. Ever wondered why the insurgency seems to be growing? Got a link from a credible source? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4145585.stm QuoteThe head of Iraq's intelligence service Gen Muhammad Shahwani now puts the number of insurgents at 200,000, of which 40,000 are said to be the hard core and the rest active supporters. QuoteAnd forget about the latest BS that Iraq is like a flypaper and if they were not in Iraq they would be bombing your local cinema. These people would not be attacking coalition targets if it wasn't for the occupation. Yeah, they would probably be sitting around singing "Give Peace a Chance" and "Kumbya." Terrorists do what terrorists do. They use any means and justification they can to recruit. They blame everything on someone or something else. Try reading a little about methods of psychological persuasion used by brutal dictators and regimes throughout history. SH was nothing but a terrorist who made it big. Big enough to have control of all the assets of Iraq at his disposal. I have absolutely no doubt, given what we now know, that the criminal elements within the U.N. would have demanded sanctions be ended and it would have been back to business as usual for Saddam. Given also that the Duelfer Report specifically found that procuring WMD's was a main priority for SH after the sanctions ended, that down the road we would have been faced with an even worse dilemma than we now face with N. Korea. I also have no doubt that Iran would be even less cooperative than they now are if there weren't over 100,000 US troops sitting next door. How anyone can sit there and so blindly believe that if we just don't upset terrorist they will become passive and learn to love us is beyond me. Look at how Israel tried to pacify Arafat. He was asked what it would take to end the terrorists attacks and then walked away from the negotiations when it became clear he was going to get 95% of what he asked for. When will people finally understand that these people want to kill you and your family because you aren't a Muslim? When will people understand the terrorists are brain-washing the young Muslims in the Mosques to hate Western Civilization? When will people finally understand this is a Cultural and Religious War? How many more dead Americans do you think we should have found acceptable? How many more terrorists attacks should we have suffered until we did something? Does anyone honestly believe that just by going into Afghanistan, that the terrorist attacks would have ended? Tell us what we should have done? The biggest mistake you make is to say that the insurgency and Al Qaeda type terrorists are the same. The insurgency is mainly based on local resistance to the occupation. These people are not killing Americans because they are not Muslims. The insurgency has been created by the occupation. Iraq was no terrorist threat. That has been proven again and again - no matter what the Administration and Fox are telling you.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #54 January 18, 2005 QuoteHussein Mutar, an Iraqi sent to Abu Ghraib for stealing a car, was forced to masturbate in public and piled onto a pyramid of naked men OK I'll concede. They made a mistake and hurt ones feelings by making him feel bad. I'll even go along with the US paying for pschological counciling to help him deal with his trauma. QuoteThe head of Iraq's intelligence service Gen Muhammad Shahwani now puts the number of insurgents at 200,000, of which 40,000 are said to be the hard core and the rest active supporters. So by your measure, the US Army is 200 million strong because it has a core in Iraq of over 100,000 with 200 million supporters. I guess we don't need to increase the troop size, then. Glad you aren't President. QuoteThe biggest mistake you make is to say that the insurgency and Al Qaeda type terrorists are the same. The insurgency is mainly based on local resistance to the occupation. These people are not killing Americans because they are not Muslims. The insurgency has been created by the occupation. Iraq was no terrorist threat. That has been proven again and again - no matter what the Administration and Fox are telling you. The biggest mistake you make is by not reading what I said and then ass-u-ming I was talkin about the insurgency when it's pretty clear I only said "Terrorists". Then as-u-ming I only watch Fox News, which I rarely do. You then go on to cite one case as evidence and stretch the facts to prove another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #55 January 18, 2005 QuoteWhen it's a well-known fact that he gutted the intelligence community, how is it a slam? Since, it was so well known and the intelligence community was broken and everybody knew about it. How come Bush didn't change anything? At least not until after 9/11? So, either it wasn't that bad... Or, he didn't know....... Or, he was/is incompentent..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #56 January 18, 2005 QuoteHow come Bush didn't change anything? At least not until after 9/11? He'd been in office for less than a year at that point. Unless there's a state of national emergency the government doesn't do a good job at getting things done quickly. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #57 January 18, 2005 QuoteHe'd been in office for less than a year at that point. Unless there's a state of national emergency the government doesn't do a good job at getting things done quickly. Fair enough. So, had he at least introduced a bill to change anything? How about voiced the opinion to introduce a bill? Overturned any executive decisioins? Indicated he agreed the intelligence community was in shambles and he intended to better it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #58 January 18, 2005 >When it's a well-known fact that he gutted the intelligence community . . Hmm. I assume the conservative community now considers two unrelated Clinton slams per thread a requirement. OK, I'll play that game - At least Clinton didn't kill 1300 US servicemen like Bush did! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #59 January 18, 2005 QuoteHow do you know we haven't caught them trying to sneak in? How do you know we haven't foiled attacks? Do you think everything that happens in the world end up on the front page of the NY Times? You think there actually have been terrorist attacks on US soil but they've all been thwarted and not only that but it has happened in total secrecy, maybe several times? Is that really your explanation for there being no explosions in the USA since 9/11 and no explosive devices found in the USA since 9/11 and no terrorists convicted in the USA since 9/11? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #60 January 18, 2005 Quote When it's a well-known fact that he gutted the intelligence community, how is it a slam? What's that got to do with him getting sucked off in the Oval Office? I'm confused. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #61 January 18, 2005 >It's always the little guy that gets killed/put in prison. Yep. The big guys, of course, get medals and new contracts. It's all for the good of the country, of course. If you punish companies that torture people, it could negatively affect someone's 401k. ------------------------------------------------- Abu Ghraib abuse firms are rewarded As prison ringleader awaits sentence, defence contractors win multi-million Pentagon contracts Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday January 16, 2005 The Observer Two US defence contractors being sued over allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison have been awarded valuable new contracts by the Pentagon, despite demands that they should be barred from any new government work. Three employees of CACI International and Titan - working at Abu Ghraib as civilian contractors - were separately accused of abusive behaviour. The report on the Abu Ghraib scandal implicated three civilian contractors in the abuses: Steven Stefanowicz from CACI International and John Israel and Adel Nakhla from Titan. Stefanowicz was charged with giving orders that 'equated to physical abuse', Israel of lying under oath and Naklha of raping an Iraqi boy. It was also alleged that CACI interrogators used dogs to scare prisoners, placed detainees in unauthorised 'stress positions' and encouraged soldiers to abuse prisoners. Titan employees, it has been alleged, hit detainees and stood by while soldiers physically abused prisoners. Investigators also discovered systemic problems of management and training - including the fact that a third of CACI International's staff at Abu Ghraib had never received formal military interrogation training. Despite demands by human rights groups in the US that the two companies be barred from further contracts in Iraq - where CACI alone employed almost half of all interrogators and analysts at Abu Ghraib - CACI International has been awarded a $16 million renewal of its contract. Titan, meanwhile, has been awarded a new contract worth $164m. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gravitymaster 0 #54 January 18, 2005 QuoteHussein Mutar, an Iraqi sent to Abu Ghraib for stealing a car, was forced to masturbate in public and piled onto a pyramid of naked men OK I'll concede. They made a mistake and hurt ones feelings by making him feel bad. I'll even go along with the US paying for pschological counciling to help him deal with his trauma. QuoteThe head of Iraq's intelligence service Gen Muhammad Shahwani now puts the number of insurgents at 200,000, of which 40,000 are said to be the hard core and the rest active supporters. So by your measure, the US Army is 200 million strong because it has a core in Iraq of over 100,000 with 200 million supporters. I guess we don't need to increase the troop size, then. Glad you aren't President. QuoteThe biggest mistake you make is to say that the insurgency and Al Qaeda type terrorists are the same. The insurgency is mainly based on local resistance to the occupation. These people are not killing Americans because they are not Muslims. The insurgency has been created by the occupation. Iraq was no terrorist threat. That has been proven again and again - no matter what the Administration and Fox are telling you. The biggest mistake you make is by not reading what I said and then ass-u-ming I was talkin about the insurgency when it's pretty clear I only said "Terrorists". Then as-u-ming I only watch Fox News, which I rarely do. You then go on to cite one case as evidence and stretch the facts to prove another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #55 January 18, 2005 QuoteWhen it's a well-known fact that he gutted the intelligence community, how is it a slam? Since, it was so well known and the intelligence community was broken and everybody knew about it. How come Bush didn't change anything? At least not until after 9/11? So, either it wasn't that bad... Or, he didn't know....... Or, he was/is incompentent..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #56 January 18, 2005 QuoteHow come Bush didn't change anything? At least not until after 9/11? He'd been in office for less than a year at that point. Unless there's a state of national emergency the government doesn't do a good job at getting things done quickly. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #57 January 18, 2005 QuoteHe'd been in office for less than a year at that point. Unless there's a state of national emergency the government doesn't do a good job at getting things done quickly. Fair enough. So, had he at least introduced a bill to change anything? How about voiced the opinion to introduce a bill? Overturned any executive decisioins? Indicated he agreed the intelligence community was in shambles and he intended to better it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #58 January 18, 2005 >When it's a well-known fact that he gutted the intelligence community . . Hmm. I assume the conservative community now considers two unrelated Clinton slams per thread a requirement. OK, I'll play that game - At least Clinton didn't kill 1300 US servicemen like Bush did! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #59 January 18, 2005 QuoteHow do you know we haven't caught them trying to sneak in? How do you know we haven't foiled attacks? Do you think everything that happens in the world end up on the front page of the NY Times? You think there actually have been terrorist attacks on US soil but they've all been thwarted and not only that but it has happened in total secrecy, maybe several times? Is that really your explanation for there being no explosions in the USA since 9/11 and no explosive devices found in the USA since 9/11 and no terrorists convicted in the USA since 9/11? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #60 January 18, 2005 Quote When it's a well-known fact that he gutted the intelligence community, how is it a slam? What's that got to do with him getting sucked off in the Oval Office? I'm confused. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #61 January 18, 2005 >It's always the little guy that gets killed/put in prison. Yep. The big guys, of course, get medals and new contracts. It's all for the good of the country, of course. If you punish companies that torture people, it could negatively affect someone's 401k. ------------------------------------------------- Abu Ghraib abuse firms are rewarded As prison ringleader awaits sentence, defence contractors win multi-million Pentagon contracts Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday January 16, 2005 The Observer Two US defence contractors being sued over allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison have been awarded valuable new contracts by the Pentagon, despite demands that they should be barred from any new government work. Three employees of CACI International and Titan - working at Abu Ghraib as civilian contractors - were separately accused of abusive behaviour. The report on the Abu Ghraib scandal implicated three civilian contractors in the abuses: Steven Stefanowicz from CACI International and John Israel and Adel Nakhla from Titan. Stefanowicz was charged with giving orders that 'equated to physical abuse', Israel of lying under oath and Naklha of raping an Iraqi boy. It was also alleged that CACI interrogators used dogs to scare prisoners, placed detainees in unauthorised 'stress positions' and encouraged soldiers to abuse prisoners. Titan employees, it has been alleged, hit detainees and stood by while soldiers physically abused prisoners. Investigators also discovered systemic problems of management and training - including the fact that a third of CACI International's staff at Abu Ghraib had never received formal military interrogation training. Despite demands by human rights groups in the US that the two companies be barred from further contracts in Iraq - where CACI alone employed almost half of all interrogators and analysts at Abu Ghraib - CACI International has been awarded a $16 million renewal of its contract. Titan, meanwhile, has been awarded a new contract worth $164m. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
