General discussion


US Soldier Murders Injured and Unarmed

By Bucky Kaufman (MCSD) ·
Did y'all see the video of that US soldier murdering an unarmed, injured freedom fighter?

Knowing that he was most likely NOT al Quaeda, and knowing that he definitely didn't have any nuclear missiles - can ya really keep supporting the US war against the people of Iraq?

I mean, it's just not right to have US kids getting their minds so shattered, and their morality so compromised that they're murdering unarmed, injured people.

What did he do to deserve being shot? According to the soldier who shot him, his crime was "playing dead".

What choice do we leave these people, if playing dead is a capital crime, but to become suicide bombers, and to band together with Americas enemies like al Quaeda?

Is this really the way to spread Democracy - American style?

"If you wanna leave, take good care.
I hope you find a lot of nice friends out there.
Just remember there's a lot of bad and beware"
- Cat Stevens (banned from the US as a terrorist)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Wow we know where your morals lie you communist

by Garion11 In reply to Unjustified

You are defending terrorists, the same people who are beheading civlians (not the US military personnel) in a cowardly way behind masks and kidnaps. That soldier was defending himself and you are passing judgement when you are not even there? Did you know his platoon had one soldier killed because an insurgent's body was booby trapped? He won't be a smart soldier if he didn't do that, he will be a dead soldier.

Hehe there is a saying about war. War doesn't care who is right or wrong, only who is left.

Collapse -

What's a Terrorist?

You are defending terrorists, the same people who are beheading civlians (not the US military personnel) in a cowardly way behind masks and kidnaps.
--- --- --- --- ---

What makes naplaming civillians any less terroristic than a simple, quick beheading.

Collapse -


by Garion11 In reply to What's a Terrorist?

they do it on purpose, we (most countries) do our best to avoid them. Thats the difference. When Abu Gharib broke out, look how we court martialed our own soldiers, did you see "their" community put on trial any terrorists?? Of course not!!!

Collapse -

Blaming the Soldiers

by Bucky Kaufman (MCSD) In reply to Because

When Abu Gharib broke out, look how we court martialed our own soldiers, did you see "their" community put on trial any terrorists??
----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The real shame in that is that their authority to torture prisoners came from the Republican Leadership - and they have NOT been put on trial for their crimes.

"Clearly the fault lies with the troops in the field, and NOT with the President" - Giuliani

Collapse -

The U.S. knew about Abu Ghraib at least 4 months before the story broke

by Aldanatech In reply to Blaming the Soldiers

I just found out on Reuters that senior U.S. Army generals in Iraq were told in December 2003 that special operations troops and CIA personnel were suspected of abusing Iraqi prisoners -- four months before the scale of prisoner abuse became public in television photos that shocked the world.

The December 2003 report on suspected prisoner abuse, confirmed by U.S. officials on Wednesday, also showed the U.S. leadership in Iraq had clues about prisoner treatment before photographs of detainees being abused at Abu Ghraib jail emerged within the military in the middle of January. But officials disputed the notion that the warning had been ignored.

"It's indicative that there were some troubling signs, and actions were taken early on. It got overcome by other investigations (after the Abu Ghraib abuse became known). But it was not ignored," an Army official said.

When the abuse photographs, including ones showing a U.S. female soldier holding a naked prisoner on a leash, were shown on U.S. television, they prompted calls by political opponents and human rights activists for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign. The Pentagon said it was investigating but the existence of the 2003 report was not revealed.

The report by retired Col. Stuart Herrington, requested by the senior U.S. military intelligence officer in Iraq, found that some prisoners turned over to the U.S. military by members of an elite task force had injuries suggesting they may have been beaten while in custody, said the defense officials, who asked not to be named. The suspected abuse detailed in the Herrington report did not take place in Abu Ghraib.

The report also provided an early warning about the practice by some U.S. forces of keeping "ghost detainees" -- prisoners kept off the books and hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Herrington found that the task force, a mixture of Army and Navy special operations troops and CIA personnel searching for high-ranking Iraqi fugitives and weapons of mass destruction, had taken prisoners to an undisclosed interrogation facility in order to keep their actions secret, officials said.

The report also found some of the detention activities at the time may have been "technically" unlawful, officials said.

A defense official said Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, intelligence chief for the U.S. military command in Iraq, asked Herrington, already retired from the military, to examine the situation at Abu Ghraib, which at the time was crowded with prisoners and facing attacks from insurgents.

The official said that while looking into Abu Ghraib in December, Herrington learned that U.S. medical personnel were seeing prisoners arriving with injuries that suggested they had been beaten. The official said neither Herrington nor witnesses he interviewed personally had seen task force members beating a prisoner.


Another official said Fast notified Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq, who asked U.S. Central Command, responsible for military operations in the region, to investigate. The official said an investigation was done, but was unable to provide the findings.

The Navy said in September the military had charged members of an elite Navy SEAL unit with abusing prisoners in Iraq, including a man who died in November 2003 at Abu Ghraib after arriving with severe head injuries.

Additional official reports on U.S. military detention operations were expected soon.

One examining detainee treatment by elite U.S. special forces in Iraq conducted by Army Brig. Gen. Richard Formica could be released sometime after Jan. 1, an official said.

A preliminary draft of a broad assessment of U.S. military detention and interrogation practices conducted by Vice Adm. Tom Church, the Navy's inspector general, is being reviewed, and could be finalized within weeks, the official said.


Collapse -


by ProtiusX In reply to Blaming the Soldiers

So what is your point here?

Collapse -


by Black Panther In reply to Unjustified

How is be-heading an innocent civilian Aid Worker defending your homeland???

Defending means defending against an attack does it not???

Collapse -

Hypocritical NeoCons

by Bucky Kaufman (MCSD) In reply to Defending

How is be-heading an innocent civilian Aid Worker defending your homeland???
----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The same way raping, beating and torturing prisoners to death "liberates" the Iraqis people.

Compared to what the US is doing to the Iraqi people - beheading is downright kind.

Collapse -

Terrorists are not defending their homeland

by Montgomery Gator In reply to Unjustified

Al-Zarqawi (from Jordan) and the other terrorists are not defending their homeland, they are trying to restore Saddam Hussein to power. The ones defending their homeland are the Iraqi soldiers fighting alongside the US and other coalition soldiers to bring the terrorists to justice. Many brave Iraqis have fought alongside our troops to liberate Fallujah from the terrorist grip to bring them freedom. Those who oppose Saddam and the terrorists in Iraq are the ones fighting for their homeland.

Collapse -

Not so simple

by JamesRL In reply to Terrorists are not defend ...

The Sunnis, the minority in Iraq, may long for Saddam's return, but the Shia majority would never allow it. If the US suddenly withdrew there would be a power vacuum, and these two groups would likely have a civil war(which could be bloodier than the current conflict). Opposition to the US is the only thing that unites these groups.


Related Discussions

Related Forums