From The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17271863%255E2703,00.html):




UP to 200 half-starved Iraqi detainees bearing signs of torture have been found in an apparently secret jail in Baghdad in circumstances reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Many of the mostly Sunni prisoners had been severely beaten. Some had been paralysed. Many others had skin peeling off their bodies. The Sunni-based Islamic Party last night called for an international investigation into the abuse of the prisoners, suggesting the Shi'ite-dominated Government might be responsible, "or at least accomplices".

The group also blamed US-led coalition forces for the abuse, saying it could not happen without "their green light".

[more (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17271863%255E2703,00.html)]


U.S. officials deny responsiblity, of course; but, then again, they've never lied to us before.

Same treatment, different regime.

Maybe you didn't read the whole article or maybe you simply chose to ignore this:
The discovery came after US troops surrounded and took control of an Interior Ministry building in the Jadriya neighbourhood of Baghdad on Sunday night.

The raid was carried out after reports that detainees were being illegally held and tortured there.

When US forces arrived, officials said that only 40 detainees were being held. But as troops moved through the building, opening door after door, they found at least 200 prisoners, many in very poor health.

The Americans had apparently been tipped off to the prison's existence by relatives of those being detained there.
So, we initiated the raid that rescued these people...and it was our fault?
Thanks for showing both sides and giving our troops the benefit of the doubt Mr. Free Thinking Independent. :fighting2

I did read the entire article, Mr. "I Can't Stomach Others' Viewpoints." I did not blame the troops. I noted U.S. officials denied responsibility, as well as rightfully noting that we've not always been given the "straight poop" (like U.S. officials' denial of using phosphorous weapons in Fallujah and then being forced to acknowledge they did).

But it becomes our responsibility because we are the occupying force and ultimately it's our mess, not to mention the wonderful example we provided at Abu Ghraib.

In effect you are blaming the troops. By omitting the relevant section that I posted you were giving the impression that our troops were comming those acts.

Not everything that happens in Iraq is our responsibility. By your statement you can infer that every Iraqi citizen that commits a crime in Iraq is our responsibility.

As for not always getting the "straight poop", there are very good reasons for not always revealing what you are doing in a time of war. For some reason many of the Bush-bashing crowd fail to understand this and argue that we should always have full disclosure of everything that goes on - operational security be damned.

Operational security or operational cover-up?

As far as blaming the troops, you are putting words into my mouth. Using your logic, by not supporting an amendment banning torture (another thread, I know), you are in effect condoning torture. Only blame troops for acts they commit. I place the responsibility and blame on those in charge, including this administration.

And I hardly compare the systematic torture of 200 Iraqis with the individual crime of an individual Iraqi system. Be clear: you decided to take the leap to infer; it's not implied.

As far as blaming the troops, you are putting words into my mouth.
That's a cop-out and you know it.


Using your logic, by not supporting an amendment banning torture (another thread, I know), you are in effect condoning torture.
I don't see how that correlates. You omit part of a story to skew the reader's perceptions and you see that as me putting words in your mouth. I don't support an unnecessary (to me at least) addition to a piece of legislation and you think that that implies I support torture? Trying to warp my logic to suit your other posts doesn't reinforce your point.



Only blame troops for acts they commit. I place the responsibility and blame on those in charge, including this administration.

And I hardly compare the systematic torture of 200 Iraqis with the individual crime of an individual Iraqi system. Be clear: you decided to take the leap to infer; it's not implied.
Fine, fine...I'll let you back out on this. I think this thread has run its course anyway.

That's a cop-out and you know it.
It's not a cop-out. I did not blame the troops. You put words into my mouth and you know it.


I don't see how that correlates. You omit part of a story to skew the reader's perceptions and you see that as me putting words in your mouth.
Of course you wouldn't see how it correlates because you choose not to.

I typically do not include entire articles because of copyright restrictions. I admit that I mistakenly included the entire text of the Afghanistan article in another thread because I did not take the time to edit it down and provide the jump. I noticed that you intentionally only quoted the portion of the article that you wanted others to read. Pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?


Trying to warp my logic to suit your other posts doesn't reinforce your point.
Your logic needs no help in being warped.


Fine, fine...I'll let you back out on this. I think this thread has run its course anyway.
Let me back out? How arrogantly condescending and presumptuous. I'll presume that's your way of saying that you're backing out.

Of course you wouldn't see how it correlates because you choose not to.
Forgive me for not participating in your fantasy world. :rolleyes:



I typically do not include entire articles because of copyright restrictions. I admit that I mistakenly included the entire text of the Afghanistan article in another thread because I did not take the time to edit it down and provide the jump. I noticed that you intentionally only quoted the portion of the article that you wanted others to read. Pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?
Copyright restrictions? Heh...how thoughtful of you. I included the parts relative to balancing your view. There was no need to re-quote the pieces you included. The rest was irrelevant.



Your logic needs no help in being warped.

Oooooh...nice retort. Maybe you should copyright that one. :yourock:



Let me back out? How arrogantly condescending and presumptuous. I'll presume that's your way of saying that you're backing out.
You're too easy Scribe. Calm down or you're going have an aneurism :LolLolLol

That's all you ever resort to... personal attacks. Because your arguments fall flat, you make it personal, like your idol, Mr. Rove.

If that's what makes you feel better, be my guest.

:tiphat:

Ahhh...love is in the air..I say we bring all our troops back home and let them ( Iraq) fend for themselves..and if your going to continually put down our troops and our government go live elsewhere..no it's not perfect here but it's better than anywhere else on earth..the whole world wants to blame us for their problems but they sure as f...ing hell want us to clean up their f...ing mess..and they all want to come and live here and change our ways..America is slowly losing it's identity as we have to conform to everyone elses ways of doing things..does no one have any balls anymore?..If you dont like it..leave it.

That's all you ever resort to... personal attacks. Because your arguments fall flat, you make it personal, like your idol, Mr. Rove.

If that's what makes you feel better, be my guest.

:tiphat:
:Lies:
That's a laugh. When did I ever "personally attack" you? My arguments haven't fallen flat except on your "open-minded" ears. Face it Scribe, you're in the wrong on this one. Just "move on" and find some more Huffington Post articles for us all to ignore. Karl Rove, my idol? :LolLolLol That was a good one. You really crack me up funny-man. Go ahead...say something funny again. :D

In any case I'll try to take it easy on you next time. I don't want to hurt you're wittle feewings again. You get all snippy and irrational when that happens. :rolleyes:

Face it Scribe, you're in the wrong on this one.
Wrong again.


Just "move on" and find some more Huffington Post articles for us all to ignore.
Except you didn't ignore it. You commented on it.


Karl Rove, my idol? :LolLolLol That was a good one.
I'm glad you agree that I hit the nail on the head.


In any case I'll try to take it easy on you next time. I don't want to hurt you're wittle feewings again. You get all snippy and irrational when that happens. :rolleyes:
That's making it personal. Instead of continuing to debate the issue, you drag it down to making it personal: "I don't want to hurt you're wittle feewings again" and "You get all snippy and irrational" and "You're too easy Scribe. Calm down or you're going have an aneurism."

I honestly couldn't care less about what you think about me, so you can't hurt my feelings. If making it personal is what makes you happy, by all means allow me to be the object of your happiness.

Now, feel free to "move on" as you keep suggesting to me. I'm content to continue this discussion. We can either discuss the issues or you can continue your tit-for-tat making it personal.


Oh, by the way, regarding this comment:

"Copyright restrictions? Heh...how thoughtful of you."
Thoughtful or not, it's part of the TOS.

That's making it personal. Instead of continuing to debate the issue, you drag it down to making it personal: "I don't want to hurt you're wittle feewings again" and "You get all snippy and irrational" and "You're too easy Scribe. Calm down or you're going have an aneurism."

You still didn't answer the question as to when did I made it personal prior to you accusing me of it. It didn't get personal until you started accusing me of putting words in your mouth. Remember this?
Let me back out? How arrogantly condescending and presumptuous. I'll presume that's your way of saying that you're backing out.Now who's getting personal? At that point you quit arguing your point and started slinging mud. But whatever makes you feel better...



Thoughtful or not, it's part of the TOS.
I'm not usually a big stickler on holding you to the rules but, since you keep bringing it up this is from the rules for this forum:

Unless your post is the first one (in other words, you started the thread), please don’t post entire articles.

If you are referring to the copyright restrictions from the source there is this:

4. Users may download and view the material or print a copy of material on this site for personal, non-commercial use provided you do not modify the copy from how it appears on this site (including any copyright notice). All rights not expressly granted under these terms of use are reserved.
So, I think you can feel safer now about posting more of the article in the interest of presenting a more accurate representation of what the article says.

You still didn't answer the question as to when did I made it personal prior to you accusing me of it.
I answered the question in my last post.


It didn't get personal until you started accusing me of putting words in your mouth.
Saying "you're putting words in my mouth" is neither a personal attack or mudslinging; even if you believe it is, it hardly is on the same plane as ""I don't want to hurt you're wittle feewings again" and "You get all snippy and irrational" and "You're too easy Scribe. Calm down or you're going have an aneurism."

But whatever makes you feel better...



I'm not usually a big stickler on holding you to the rules…
That may be, but you also don't have discipline/banning powers. But here was the rule I was referring to:



No Copyrighted Material

Information copyrighted or owned by any individual or entity other than the member should not be posted on the discussion forums or software libraries without the consent of the owner. If such an event occurs, the individual posting the information shall be held solely responsible. OKCTALK shall not be held responsible for member-posted information that may violate copyright law.

You cannot legally post entire articles or news in the forum without permission from the copyright holder. Even if you attribute the article correctly it’s still copyright infringement. Copyright law does not care if you make any money off of the work or not, what matters is if you hurt the potential income of the copyright holder. In this case you would be depriving them of ad revenue and it is illegal. Under Fair Use provisions you can legally post a small abstract of an article - or perhaps the opening paragraph. So if you want to post an article you should do this and include a link, or just post the link. The exception to this rule is press releases; press releases are meant for distribution and can be copied and distributed as much as you want. If you are not sure if you can copy something then always err on the side of caution and simply post a link to the material.




If you are referring to the copyright restrictions from the source there is this…
I readily admit that I did not read this specific sources specific copyright restrictions; I was deferring to the general principles of quoting copyrighted material. Next time I quote this source, I'll make sure to include the entire article for your benefit.


So, I think you can feel safer now about posting more of the article in the interest of presenting a more accurate representation of what the article says.
What's interesting is that I did not try to mask the source of the article. Any reader, just like you did, can click on the link and read the entire article.