Posted on 01/27/2006 10:58:26 AM PST by NormsRevenge
While the author emphasized the "detention to get at the husband" angle, I would bet my right arm the U.S. had reason to believe these women were in cahoots with their husbands/terrorists.
In fact, (buried in the article) it does say that.
And remember, the U.S. version of detention is a WHOLE lot different that the Muslim one, where you get your head cut off.
That nursing mother should have thought more of her baby than to have it living in a den of murderous terrorists don't you think? She probably was treated better than she had been her entire life.
I can see right through this author's agenda.
"Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units..."
Well that settles it then.
The irrefutable almighty Hind al-Salhi has alleged!
Thanks Normie.
Don't you understand? It is among the highest outrages for muslims to have their wives taken into custody by an infidel man.
Doesn't matter the charge. Islamic law puts muslims above all others.
And taking their photo at time of booking is also an outrage.
"Don't even look at her!"
Hey this is war!!! Americans are putting their lives on the line and deserve our never-ending support.
I think Jill Carroll is dead.
Taking the wife of a suspected terrorist into custody for questioning is NOT terrorism.
Killing or torturing the wife or child of a suspect in front of the husband or father IS terrorism. A tactic used by Saddam and many other Islamic thugs.
Let's keep this discussion real.
Page 146: By August 2003, Charles J. Handley of the Associated Press had completed a detailed analysis of Colin Powell's United Nations speech with the hindsight of six months -- and eviscerated it. Every key contention Powell had made was shown to be without basis, but because of Powell's high standing and stature, very few newspapers prominently featured or even carried the devastating report by the Associated Press. Nor was there any real concern other than by a few commentators that the administration's case for war was completely bogus.
Next week; I'm sure it's next week's.
Certainly is less horrific than the disembowling of wives that went on at Iraqi prisons under Saddam to get men to break.
GO ARMY! Good move. This of course will be the next "big issue" when "impeach Bush now" fails and the "abu grab torture" stories can't go any further. This ranks up there with all our "selective bombing of weddings"...
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
The term "a$$ clowns" comes to mind...
Thanks! I'm relieved to know I wasn't behind with the latest scandal du jour.
I remember during the Beslan siege, the Russians took the entire families of the terrorists. Did anyone raise a fuss about that?
"Thw[e] wives should have just been taken into "Protective Custody"."
Exactly--they were probably treated far better by US troops, that is if it is true.
How many wives did Uday Hussein seize? And what ended up happening to them?
Dogs? Nah. Get their goat! I'd bet that's their most prized obsession, er, possession.
How many of the wives did we decapitate?
excellent tactic.... bravo Army!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.