THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Revel writes

Quote:

I do not believe you read the article with an open mind to come to your thoughts

Really? I thought I was very open minded. However, I don't believe you read my thoughts with an open mind.

American military officials in Afghanistan initially said the deaths of Mr. Habibullah, in an isolation cell on Dec. 4, 2002, and Mr. Dilawar, in another such cell six days later, were from natural causes. Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, the American commander of allied forces in Afghanistan at the time, denied then that prisoners had been chained to the ceiling or that conditions at Bagram endangered the lives of prisoners.


But after an investigation by The New York Times, the Army acknowledged that the deaths were homicides. Last fall, Army investigators implicated 28 soldiers and reservists and recommended that they face criminal charges, including negligent homicide.

But so far only Private Brand, a military policeman from the 377th Military Police Company, an Army Reserve unit based in Cincinnati, and Sgt. James P. Boland, from the same unit, have been charged.

Mcg....paranoid? care to explain?

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Obill wrote

Quote:

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

I am major impressed.

McG, I rarely serously disagree with you, but is paranoia the proper term here re the Dems? In various cases I think ad hominem, delusional, sociopathic, and, in a few cases, brainwashed, but.....well...okay, I'll think of paranoia.

Nice sounding insights, but do you really know the truth of it?
My experience of life is that nearly all people in all situations use lies in various forms to prop up their self-images, the perceptions of others and other more objective goals. Do you really know how "the elite" behave, compared to others?

One fact and difficulty that people of all persuasions face when they are in positions of power or responsibility, large or small, is that, within their domains, their actions will likely be interpreted and broadcast by others with distortions and unjustified presumptions of knowledge of intent by people doing this in pursuit of their own motives, goals and lies. For example, McTag often presumes to know the inner motives and intent of an American President he has never met, and of whose actions he is not particularly well informed.

Gelisgesti wrote:

Mcg....paranoid? care to explain?

No matter what happens, the right appears so desperately paranoid that they will listen to a single person that says something positive about the current administration.

You seem so wanting to believe it to be true that it no longer matters if it is or not.

Then, you turn around and blame the actions of individuals acting like barbarians on the administration as though they were standing behind them acting in unison.

It's paranoia and it runs deep in the republican party.

Funny how changing the labels renders both as personal bullshiit.
You got anthing substantial?

Foxfyre wrote:

McG, I rarely serously disagree with you, but is paranoia the proper term here re the Dems? In various cases I think ad hominem, delusional, sociopathic, and, in a few cases, brainwashed, but.....well...okay, I'll think of paranoia.

When you resort to labels it says 'thats all I can think of'. Like Pee Wee Herman's 'I know you are but what am I'.

Paranoia:
When a person feels distrustful of others. He may believe someone is out to get him or hurt him in some way.

McG, I rarely serously disagree with you, but is paranoia the proper term here re the Dems? In various cases I think ad hominem, delusional, sociopathic, and, in a few cases, brainwashed, but.....well...okay, I'll think of paranoia.

Report: Afghans died in US custody

Saturday 12 March 2005, 16:27 Makka Time, 13:27 GMT

The New York Times said reports tell of abuse in Afghanistan
Related:
Rumsfeld sued over prisoner abuse
Documents detail US abuse inquiries
Rights group says US killed detainees
US Afghan prisoner treatment decried
UN: Afghanistan rights record poor
Troops in Afghan abuse probe


Two Afghan prisoners in US custody in Afghanistan in 2002 died after being chained up, kicked and beaten by American soldiers, The New York Times reported.

The newspaper on Saturday cited army criminal investigative reports obtained by Human Rights Watch that have not been made public.



They follow revelations of abuse of prisoners by US forces in Iraq and allegations of torture at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that have drawn widespread international criticism.



One soldier, Private First Class Willie Brand, was charged with manslaughter in a closed hearing last month in Texas in connection with one of the deaths in Afghanistan, another army document showed.



Brand, who acknowledged striking a detainee named Dilawar 37 times, was accused of killing him after maiming him over a five-day period by "destroying his leg muscle tissue with repeated unlawful knee strikes", according to the Times.



The reports provide the first official account of events that led to the death of Dilawar and another detainee, Mullah Habibullah, at the Bagram Control Point near Kabul.


The deaths happened nearly a year before the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.


Additional abuse



The reports, from the Army Criminal Investigation Command, also make clear that the abuse at Bagram went far beyond the two killings, the newspaper said.



Among those recommended for prosecution is an army military interrogator who is said to have "placed his penis along the face" of one Afghan detainee and later to have "simulated anally sodomising him".



The treatment of prisoners at the
US base in Cuba has been criticised
The army reports cited "credible information" that four military interrogators assaulted Dilawar and another Afghan prisoner with "kicks to the groin and leg, shoving or slamming him into walls/table, forcing the detainee to maintain painful, contorted body positions during interview and forcing water into his mouth until he could not breathe".



US military officials in Afghanistan initially said the deaths of Habibullah, in an isolation cell on 4 December 2002, and Dilawar, in another such cell six days later, were from natural causes.

But after an investigation, the army acknowledged the deaths were murders, The New York Times said.

Reuters

Okay Revel, show me where the Army investigation is not thorough, still underway, and being handled properly. I do have an open mind and will sincerely review any supportable information you provide.

Or we can wait to let the investigation proceed as it apparently is proceeding. Whatever you might think, the Army is not obligated to provide the press a blow by blow account of its investigation.

I have yet to see anybody investigated and proved to be guilty in one of these things NOT feel the full force of law and consequences. Have you?

Or do you just wish to believe the Army does condone this kind of thing? I find that insulting to every person in uniform that I know.

The point in which you refuse to see is that at first they denied the deaths was even homicides. It was only after the NYT investigated they admited that the deaths were homicides. How could you miss that?

revel wrote:

The point in which you refuse to see is that at first they denied the deaths was even homicides. It was only after the NYT investigated they admited that the deaths were homicides. How could you miss that?

She didn't miss it, Revel... It's a fallacious point. Without proof of cause the statement is meaningless. Here, I'll do your homework for you since I need to find that fallacy page on this computer anyway...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).--This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women." The conclusion is invalid, because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other. Often, this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. In the example given, it is possible that some psychological factor -- say, a frustrated sex drive -- might cause both a tendency toward sexual violence and a desire for pornographic material, in which case the pornography would not be the true cause of the violence.

Read the thread with your BAF glasses off and it should be very clear, Gel.