Let me give you an example of how most of our major news organizations are trying to smear our military. Abu Ghraib.
First they breathlessly reported that American troops were raping detainees in AB, using certain photographs as proof. Turned out, though, that the photographs were not taken at Abu Ghraib, but were stills from a porno flick.
Claims were made that children were raped and people were murdered. Evidence of those claims has never been provided.
Months before the press came out with their Abu Ghraib coverage, which conveniently coincided with the initial press conference given by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the Pentagon issued a press release stating that some troops were under investigation for mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
When Lyndie England was first arrested and before she lawyered up, she admitted that the seven or eight guards who mistreated the prisonsers did it FOR FUN.
To this day, the media ignores the obvious, that the perpetrators were a small group from ONE SHIFT who used their victims as props in their games. They were a bunch of cretins who were partying. They've been held accountable for their actions as well.
Yet, the left and their cohorts in the mainstream media to this day pretend that the Abu Ghraib incident was part of the Pentagon's policies in prisoner interrogation.
Alneck, I apologize; this post will have to be a reply not only to you, but to several other posters above.
First, rlmorel, thanks for the reply about what a troll is. I never engaged in any of that activity so I don't think I am one!! I really don't think I did anything to get kicked off except write a few thoughtful posts. Anyway, no use continuing that discussion . . .
To the above posters: Of course I read the entire article. I am just much more skeptical than apparently everyone else is that A) Abu Ghraib did not extend further up the chain of command OR reflect a general attitude or policy of the commanders toward prisoners and B) the Gitmo incidents that we have heard about were accidental and also were isolated. I have been to MEPs and sat with 20-year-old future marines who "just want to go kill some Iraqis man"--so I have seen the intolerance that can be bred among young soldiers. The question, of course, is whether this is a recurring pattern that represents something systemmatic. Skepticism is normally a good thing, especially in murky situations like those involved here.
My basic thesis is:
A) The administration and to some extent the military believes that we are in a type of conflict that is more serious than any before and which has never occurred before--THIS IS TRUE, BUT LESS SO THAN THE ADMIN. THINKS
B) The administration and to some extent the military feels that this justifies abandoning many old safeguards such as portions of the Geneva Convention--I THINK THEY ARE WRONG
C) That this attitude has seeped down into the ranks of the military, either through direct commands or a lax attitude [it is the responsibility of commanders to maintain discipline among their troops]
I have to vehemently agree with the suggestion above that because I am willing to offer and opposing viewpoint that I am "treasonous" (I know you didn't actually call me treasonous, but the implication was obvious). Labeling dissenting opinion as treason is the quickest way to fascism and groupthink. I suspect that the majority of posters on this board would agree since this board is dedicated to free individuals and free thoughts. Anyway, I will be off the site for several days; I have a weekend to fill up. Adios
Alneck, I apologize; this post will have to be a reply not only to you, but to several other posters above.
First, rlmorel, thanks for the reply about what a troll is. I never engaged in any of that activity so I don't think I am one!! I really don't think I did anything to get kicked off except write a few thoughtful posts. Anyway, no use continuing that discussion . . .
To the above posters: Of course I read the entire article. I am just much more skeptical than apparently everyone else is that A) Abu Ghraib did not extend further up the chain of command OR reflect a general attitude or policy of the commanders toward prisoners and B) the Gitmo incidents that we have heard about were accidental and also were isolated. I have been to MEPs and sat with 20-year-old future marines who "just want to go kill some Iraqis man"--so I have seen the intolerance that can be bred among young soldiers. The question, of course, is whether this is a recurring pattern that represents something systemmatic. Skepticism is normally a good thing, especially in murky situations like those involved here.
My basic thesis is:
A) The administration and to some extent the military believes that we are in a type of conflict that is more serious than any before and which has never occurred before--THIS IS TRUE, BUT LESS SO THAN THE ADMIN. THINKS
B) The administration and to some extent the military feels that this justifies abandoning many old safeguards such as portions of the Geneva Convention--I THINK THEY ARE WRONG
C) That this attitude has seeped down into the ranks of the military, either through direct commands or a lax attitude [it is the responsibility of commanders to maintain discipline among their troops]
I have to vehemently agree with the suggestion above that because I am willing to offer and opposing viewpoint that I am "treasonous" (I know you didn't actually call me treasonous, but the implication was obvious). Labeling dissenting opinion as treason is the quickest way to fascism and groupthink. I suspect that the majority of posters on this board would agree since this board is dedicated to free individuals and free thoughts. Anyway, I will be off the site for several days; I have a weekend to fill up. Adios