Have a great Independence Day and remember our troops who have fought and sacrificed for our freedom.
Posted on 07/03/2006 3:46:35 PM PDT by motife
The Army officially looks at race and gender on all boards (promotion, schooling and command) but only at the margins. It began in ernest under Carter's SECARMY Alexander. Presidents may get involved in the promotion of 3 and 4-stars but below that, it would become common knowledge and probably a scandal.
Bingo. This is not some epidemic. This is not new stuff. It has always happened in war zones. The difference is, today we have a media conglomerate that is on a mission to bring down a President and they are more than willing to use the mistakes of our troops in harm's way to do just that. We will continue to hear the most minute details of every negative story in Iraq, while not hearing so much as a brief overview of anything positive.
You've also just accused three more soldiers of lying under oath. Perhaps you could explain to us exactly why they would lie to get someone who's already out of the Army in trouble...
I had no need to respond to that post, Taquita.
What do you know about any of this except what you read in the media, i.e., the communist enemy of the U.S.A.???
Here is what I question about this thread.
The original poster only came back into the discussion once, to post a New York Times article (e.g., a smear).
And the original poster edited out certain comments from the AOL source without placing ellipses in the edited version.
A very similar type of poster has posted terrorist propaganda in #118.
My motto: Question the source. It's more relevant than discussing the allegations.
how about putting the comment into context?? exactly which "they" was i refering to?? are you deliberately being obtuse?? wonder why you are using the old msm trick of taking part of a quote and using it in a different context?? after all, this is the second time you've done it with my posting. pull your head out of your bullocks.
But since this guy is a civilian now, it looks like he'll be tried by a civilian court, not by the Army. Civilian lawyers could delay this case for years or get him off for his "personaility disorder" even if he's guilty. I fear this is just going to fuel more anti-Americanism. The tragedy is that these guys had been talking about this for a week or more. Why didn't someone report them?
Okay, I'll go real slow for you (as it appears I have to).
1) the former soldier was arrested based on a sworn affadavit by the other soldiers in the group. Logic would dictate the other soldiers either
A) actually saw something of which they are attesting toOne can make this claim as there would be no reason to give a statement to investigators claiming a crime was committed otherwise. I imagine if you wanted to claim they had some vendetta against their former colleague to the point that they were willing to lie under oath you could. However this is simply unrealistic (and tells us we have consummate liars serving in the Armed Forces)
B) were involved in a crime (possibly worse) in which they are laying this crime at the feet of a former colleague to divert attention from them.
2) I know about this because I have studied many of the wars in the world's history. Granted I have not published a book reconfirming the state's view of 'history' as some have, but I look at history with as little as bias as possible. This has not only allowed me to recognize the successes, as well as missteps and faults, of all governments, but I also understand that in the fog of war many things happen that the state's army's leadership would not necessarily condone. This is a historical fact in every war in history. Hence, things are happening over there those of you that accept government versions only do not want to hear. I can also, without a doubt, tell you there is a very good chance a black market of US equipment is thriving in Iraq. With inside help (i.e. members of the Armed Forces)
3) As the United States Armed Forces is a microcosm of society as a whole, statistical data will tell us there is a percentage of members of the Armed Forces that are active in what we would call criminal activity.
Again these are facts and statistics that cannot be argued against. It has nothing to do with the media (I really wish you 'conservatives' would quit throwing around misnomers (i.e. communists) that don't necessarily apply) but rather historical data and simple numerical information.
Have a great Independence Day and remember our troops who have fought and sacrificed for our freedom.
They probably did it since they're implicating themselves so who am I to argue with that, but I'm not so sure about the one guys account. Perhaps he was the killer and rapist and wants to finger the other two. The other 2 soldiers claim Green did just about everything while they just sat back and watched or was a lookout. Sounds a little too convenient. The one guy who confessed to involvement but doesn't implicate himself in the rape or murders admits to getting rid of the AK-47 too.
I think they better get physical evidence to prove who did what because I'm sure Green might have a very different version of events.
You are a sick puppy.
You are a sick puppy.
I'm not the one sitting in a jail cell charged with murder and rape with a sworn affadavit by my fellow soldiers saying I did it am I? Oh sorry I forgot. Going against
statistical data
logic and
historical fact
it never happened did it?
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.