Iraqi Soldier Who Killed U.S. Troops is a Hero in Iraq

dlowan wrote:

I guess this is just an agree to disagree one.

Aren't most of them, Deb?

In this case, I tend to agree with you.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I guess this is just an agree to disagree one.

Aren't most of them, Deb?

In this case, I tend to agree with you.

There goes my reputation.

0 Replies

From the article...

Independent sources have since told IPS that Kaissar was captured by a special joint Iraqi-U.S. force, and he is now being held and tortured at the al-Ghizlany military camp in Mosul.

I understand Kaissar being held, but what are they accomplishing by torturing him? Is it just for the hell of it?

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

From the article...

Independent sources have since told IPS that Kaissar was captured by a special joint Iraqi-U.S. force, and he is now being held and tortured at the al-Ghizlany military camp in Mosul.

I understand Kaissar being held, but what are they accomplishing by torturing him? Is it just for the hell of it?

If that is true, it is also wrong.

I note in the article that one explanation for Kaisser's (spelling?) actions is that he was always loyal to the insurgents, and was with the US forces in order to gather intelligence for the insurgents. If that explanation is believed by the US authorities, I assume they would be using the same techniques on him as they do on other alleged insurgents who they believe can give them information.

Sigh.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

There goes my reputation.

It was already gone, but I know what you meant.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

From the article...

Independent sources have since told IPS that Kaissar was captured by a special joint Iraqi-U.S. force, and he is now being held and tortured at the al-Ghizlany military camp in Mosul.

I understand Kaissar being held, but what are they accomplishing by torturing him? Is it just for the hell of it?

Bear in mind the article is on Alternet, so there is a strong chance it isn't at all accurate.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I note in the article that one explanation for Kaisser's (spelling?) actions is that he was always loyal to the insurgents, and was with the US forces in order to gather intelligence for the insurgents. If that explanation is believed by the US authorities, I assume they would be using the same techniques on him as they do on other alleged insurgents who they believe can give them information.

Sigh.

Sigh indeed.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Bear in mind the article is on Alternet, so there is a strong chance it isn't at all accurate.

I agree that is is difficult to glean truth from various sources, but it is buried in there somewhere and we must keep digging.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

gustavratzenhofer wrote:
From the article...

Independent sources have since told IPS that Kaissar was captured by a special joint Iraqi-U.S. force, and he is now being held and tortured at the al-Ghizlany military camp in Mosul.

I understand Kaissar being held, but what are they accomplishing by torturing him? Is it just for the hell of it?

Bear in mind the article is on Alternett, so there is a strong chance it isn't at all accurate.

Why is their a "strong chance" the article is not true because it is on Alternet.

You use notoriously bad sources of information, or I should say dis-information, namely newsmax and FOX. So by your record you are wrong.

Two of the most proven accruate news sources are Pacifica and NPR.

http://www.pacifica.org/program-guide/op,segment-page/station_id,1/segment_id,468/

Find it in your area and listen. You'll be hooked.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Bear in mind the article is on Alternett, so there is a strong chance it isn't at all accurate.
Why is their a "strong chance" the article is not true because it is on Alternet.

You use notoriously bad sources of information, or I should say dis-information, namely newsmax and FOX. So by your record you are wrong.

The author of the article is very anti-American in his views ... certainly anti-American with regard to the Iraq war. I have zero confidence in the accuracy of his views, and believe Alternet would post any story so long as it fits its agenda. You can believe the same about Newsmax, and feel free to do so. Your position with regard to Fox is erroneous, but I suspect that may be because you swallow what you've heard on the subject from other left-leaning folks.

When's the last time I posted a Newsmax story, btw? More than that, when's the last time I defended a Newsmax story?

Quote:

Two of the most proven accruate news sources are Pacifica and NPR.

According to whom?

0 Replies

Ok, lets check the record.

1. I said Plame was exposed by The Bush administration for her and her husband speaking out against the war a couple of days after it happened. (I can show you the thread)

This was true not anti-American

2. I said they would find no WMDs

Right again

3. I said The Iraq war would be a disaster in every way, A big con job.

Right again.

In fact I've been right the whole time i've been here. I am right because of the sources I use. I cross check them and I use publically funded sources. My sources have a very good and time tested record for telling the truth. I knew your bull$hit would catch up to you and the rest of the right wing. I also know the right wing will find new ways to misslead and misinform the public as they dig a whole deeper and deeper intill they can't even remember who or what it was they set out to be. That is their purpose as my purpose is to tell the truth.

Here is another truth:

Occupations are ALWAYS to take control over a countries resources under the guise of some bull$hit (WMDs and finding the Boogieman).

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Amigo wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Bear in mind the article is on Alternett, so there is a strong chance it isn't at all accurate.
Why is their a "strong chance" the article is not true because it is on Alternet.

You use notoriously bad sources of information, or I should say dis-information, namely newsmax and FOX. So by your record you are wrong.

The author of the article is very anti-American in his views ... certainly anti-American with regard to the Iraq war. I have zero confidence in the accuracy of his views, and believe Alternet would post any story so long as it fits its agenda. You can believe the same about Newsmax, and feel free to do so. Your position with regard to Fox is erroneous, but I suspect that may be because you swallow what you've heard on the subject from other left-leaning folks.

When's the last time I posted a Newsmax story, btw? More than that, when's the last time I defended a Newsmax story?

Quote:
Two of the most proven accruate news sources are Pacifica and NPR.

According to whom?

According to these people.

PIPA program for International Policy Attitudes.

Scan the whole thing. Look at the graphs.

http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_article.cgi?byear=2003&bmonth=winter&a=02free&format=view

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, you could try by noting that the fella who killed the US soldier (s?) was, in fact, working with them as an ally.

This is quite true - and complication to the moral side of things - yet in the end, I think that any invading soldier is a legitimate target to the citizens of the invaded country. If no country invades another, then there is no issue at all.

Every country has the right to defend themselves from an invader - that some choose to help the invader, then decide it's not worth it when the invaders treat their women like dirt in front of them...that to me is rather understandable.

It is not about whether an assault was worth a shooting, it is about whether an invader can be abided to be in ones country.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

It is not about whether an assault was worth a shooting, it is about whether an invader can be abided to be in ones country.

Even if the invaders are desired in the country at the time by the majority of the country's population and by its democratically-elected government?

At this stage it's no longer an invasion. It's not even an occupation if one gets technical with the term. This makes it also about what is an acceptable form of dissent in a democracy.

It's not as black and white as you are making it out to be.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

My sources have a very good and time tested record for telling the truth.

Your source, in this case, is demonstrably EXTREMELY biased.

It certainly does not have a "very good and time tested record for telling the truth."

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Tico wrote:
According to whom?
According to these people.

PIPA program for International Policy Attitudes.

Scan the whole thing. Look at the graphs.

Okay, I did. Interesting article.

However, I don't find support for your statement that Pacifica and NPR are "two of the most proven accurate news sources."

0 Replies

You didn't see anything in there that showed NPR as being more accurate?

I lost the one on Pacifica. But that is where I got all my info. That is why I am always right and ahead of the curve. The next thing that happens in the Iraq war is the troops won't want to fight anymore (the Vietnam syndrome).

0 Replies

I don't know about Pacifica ... is there someone in particular you listen to there whom you believe gives the infallible predictions of the future?

0 Replies

Oh, I like this "News" heading on the Pacifica site: "Bush Administration Scandal" with subtopics.

Very nice. I can see why you are such a rapt listener. It, along with alternet, fits your worldview.

0 Replies

Is it true? And is it a scandal? I'd be willing to bet yes. I don't see it.

Even Bush loving conservative should listen to selected shows on Pacifica and they will be far my informed with inside and direct source interveiws.

0 Replies

Iraqi Soldier Who Killed U.S. Troops is a Hero in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know