Insurgents claim to have killed missing U.S. troops.
By on Jun 4th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Insurgents claim to have killed missing U.S. troops.
“An Iraqi insurgent group says it has killed two missing American soldiers who they said had been captured alive…The group Islamic State of Iraq posted the videotape on the Internet today showing what it said were the military ID cards and other personal items of the two U.S. soldiers believed to have been captured last month in Iraq.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
God rest their souls. They gave their lives in the service of the public.
They deserved better than they got.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:26 pmOn the same day that a U.S. military judge has dismissed charges against a captured enemy combatant, we learn that Al Qaeda has proudly claimed to have summarily executed two of our soldiers they had captured.
The juxtaposition of news of Al Qaeda’s savagery and of our respect for human rights and the rule of law is striking evidence of the moral clarity of this conflict.
God bless those troops and prayers for their families.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:31 pmThis really sucks.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pmTragic.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:34 pmWe still have farther to go Exley, I think you know that. I didn’t ever think that the chances of finding these men alive were very good. The insurgent groups, and Al Qaidi groups are extremely violent, and unstable. I pray that their families are able to find peace.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pmDo you really think Chimpy, Darth Cheney, Kinda-Sleezy-Rice, Gates ‘O Hell, Rummy, Colon Bowel, Turd Blossom, Wolfoshitz ETC give a rat’s ass about this?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pmBeing the good guys sure does Suck some times. Lets hope they went quickly if these bottom feeders did indeed kill them. Another day in the success we call Iraq.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pmExley, #2 it is precisely that juxtiposition that we used to hold out as one of our finer points.
Unfortunately for these young men the andwriting was on the wall as soon as they were captured. I feel a tremendous amount of sadness for thie families and the other troops in their unit.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:38 pmSorry to bring up the question: What were those soldiers were doing in Iraq, instead of being in the US with their families?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:39 pmoh, c’mon Exley, are you claiming for America the high moral ground for human rights and the rule of law after holding in detention a juvenile for over 5 years without charge? Not to mention some 300 others on dubious grounds?
June 4th, 2007 at 1:39 pmNote that I am not defending the barbarism of the Islamist terrorists, but neither am I going to hold up American behavior as some holy grail of truth.
#1,
So did the 600,000 plus innocent Iraqi children, women, and men that have been murdered in this travesty.
But, you’re right, the death of a couple of lower-middle class farm boys who we sent on a mission of murder and pillaging is a tragedy.
But then what does that make an event that is 300,000 times worse? In America, it makes it “yesterday’s news”.
Progressive indeed.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:41 pm“I didn’t ever think that the chances of finding these men alive were very good.”
Sadly, neither did I, Krazny. The tape offered no proof of their claims, but I suppose there is a sliver of hope. But, as you said, given Al Qaeda’s history and propensities, it is hard to remain hopeful.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:42 pmI’m guessing it didn’t take long for them to wish they’d fought to the death. I’m also guessing their brothers in arms might have learned something from this.
This really does suck.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:44 pmHeyzeus,
What I am saying is that while America is clearly capable of making mistakes and moral missteps, at least we have a tradition of respect for rule of law and systems in place (note that the charges against the detainee in question were dismissed pursuant to the much-criticized (unjustly) and much misunderstood Military Commissions Act) that allow for us to refect and correct our errors.
Al Qaeda has no such procedures and no such tradition. Instead, they summarily execute and slaughter without mercy or access to any type of legal process whatsoever.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:47 pm#11
Well said. I don’t think the butchering of those 3 soldiers is ANY worse than the butchering of the hundreds of thousands our country has slaughtered in Iraq.
When American’s value all life as their own, then we’ll have matured enough to deserve a proper place among civilization. I don’t put value on American lives any more than I do on the lives of each Iraqi. But that’s just me, I”m one of those Christian psychos I guess.
What is a good direction for any anger at ANY loss of life over there is that ALL of those deaths, EVERY ONE, is blood on the hands of George Bush, period. He WILL account for every needless death in that country and that’s the only hope I have out of all this mess.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:48 pmAmusing. Exley seems to think that dismissing charges against a minor that has already been imprisoned for 5 years without benefit of a trial is evidence of our “moral superiority”.
The bar has been set pretty low.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:50 pm#14,
What I am saying is that while America is clearly capable of making mistakes and moral missteps, at least we have a tradition of respect for rule of law and systems in place
That’s the funniest fcuking thing yet!
So, is that what you tell the parents of the 100,000 plus murdered Iraqi children?!? Go ahead, I want to see that one.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:52 pmI understand, Exley, and I respect the fact that we both see the differences.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:54 pmHowever, I firmly believe that the tradition America has had for the rule of law, and human rights, has been seriously eroded, and misrepresented as of late.
And as of not so lately as well.
America’s brutality and exploitation is just not so viscerally visual.
What is more sinister, that which is plain and violent, or that which is hidden and gangrenous?
The end result is the same.
at least we have a tradition of respect for rule of law and systems in place
Comment by Exley
Except in Vietnam, East Timor, Nicaragua, Grenada, Cambodia, Korea, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, Iraq, Iran, etc. etc.
Al Qaeda has no such procedures and no such tradition. Instead, they summarily execute and slaughter without mercy or access to any type of legal process whatsoever.
Comment by Exley
Agreed.
Now, I am remebering someone said something about some LAST THROES.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:56 pm#15,
I agree with what you say with one serious exception, the blood stains are not limited to Bush. Consider these two things when you are so quick to excuse all us “good” Americans:
- AUMF
- A Democratic (anti-war) majority congress just a week ago voted to both indefinitely continue and escalate the Iraq Genocide Project.
The blood is flowing like a river and it is all across this nation, not just with one party or one petulant child.
The longer we keep excusing ourselves, the longer this will go on.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:57 pmOn the same day that a U.S. military judge has dismissed charges against a captured enemy combatant, we learn that Al Qaeda has proudly claimed to have summarily executed two of our soldiers they had captured.
The juxtaposition of news of Al Qaeda’s savagery and of our respect for human rights and the rule of law is striking evidence of the moral clarity of this conflict.
God bless those troops and prayers for their families.
Comment by Exley — June 4, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
And Exley does his best NeoCon job of confusing al Qaida and insurgents. Good job. Your masters will be proud.
These troops were killed by insurgents, not terrorists.
There is a difference.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:10 pmSadly, neither did I, Krazny. The tape offered no proof of their claims, but I suppose there is a sliver of hope. But, as you said, given Al Qaeda’s history and propensities, it is hard to remain hopeful.
Comment by Exley — June 4, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
And then he did it again and is wrong again.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:12 pmAl Qaeda has no such procedures and no such tradition. Instead, they summarily execute and slaughter without mercy or access to any type of legal process whatsoever.
Comment by Exley — June 4, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
And then he did it again.
How come nobody is calling Exley on this bullsh!t. Has he fooled everybody into thinking he is normal. He does the same bullsh!t that Fox News does and nobody calls him on it. Sad.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:13 pm“A Democratic (anti-war) majority congress”
And this would be your very first mistake. It has become quite clear that the Democratic leadership is not as anti-war as they would have you believe. The reason Hillary refuses to admit that signing the original AUMF was a mistake is because she doesn’t think it was a mistake.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:17 pmThese troops were killed by insurgents, not terrorists.
There is a difference.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I think you are right, Spudge. But, seriously, how can you tell in the midst of a civil war that those same guys that killed these poor soldiers, wont detonate a bomb in a market place?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:18 pm#24,
Exactly my point my friend. So why is it that virtually EVERYONE here has pinned their hopes on what the “Democrats” will do?
We are being deceived and the longer that we refuse to acknowledge it the worse it’s going to get.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:22 pmWhy does the Iraqi insurgent group hate their freedom? Isn’t that what Emperor Bush gave them? Freedom?
Maybe the Iraqi insurgent group wants the US to leave. Maybe it’s that simple.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:22 pmNews Flash: To Shiteaters Made Up Some Shit In Monkey Town Today
June 4th, 2007 at 2:22 pmExley knows exactly what he’s doing. As a water-carrier for republican propaganda, he seeks to blur the differences between al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents. In making a political propaganda statement regarding this tragic situation, he sinks to a new low even for him. One of the main challenges for progressives is that we are arguing with sociopaths. Sociopaths, by definition, are not interested in fair play and decency.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI think you are right, Spudge. But, seriously, how can you tell in the midst of a civil war that those same guys that killed these poor soldiers, wont detonate a bomb in a market place?
Comment by Juan C — June 4, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
You see Jaun, that is the whole point. The republicans like to use the loose term “terrorist” then call anybody a terrorist, then they link them to al Qaida. It is all bullsh!t.
The insurgents are the one blowing up markets. They are trying to kill as many Shia as possible. It is the only way to take down the nummbers of Shia. Does that include women and children? Yes it does. Women can make babies and children can grow up and use weapons.
They are fighting a friggin’ civil war for Christ sake. Doesn’t anybody know what is involved in a civil war? The Sunni who had power want it back they will kill as many Shia as possible to get that power back.
The republicans throw in “terrorist” to confuse the issue. Al Qaida is a very small group who is getting credit for all of the death and destruction being waged by the Sunni insurgents.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:25 pmAnd Spudge does his best “progressive” job of trying to romanticize (or, at least, legitimize) the Iraq “insurgency” as some type of secular resistance movement and to distance it completely from Al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations.
The “insurgents” who claimed to have executed their captives in cold blood is the “Islamic State of Iraq,” described by the BBC thusly:
“The Islamic State in Iraq, formed in 2006 by a number of Sunni militant groups including al-Qaeda in Iraq.”
Moreover, legitimate resistance movements (e.g., insurgents) must treat their captives in accordance with the international law of war. Summarily executing captive soldiers is a war crime.
Those who slaughtered these captured U.S. soldiers were not “insurgents,” legally or morally. They are terrorists.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:25 pmSpudge, last night when Wolf asked Hillary what her first official act as president would be, she said she would get the troops out of Iraq. The crowd gave her an ovation. How much more clear can a candidate get on her intentions? Obama then basically said “what she said.” Look, if she says she will remove troops from Iraq, then becomes President and doesn’t, it’s fair to call her a liar. Until then, it’s just mindless Hillary-hating.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:27 pmSorry to bring up the question: What were those soldiers were doing in Iraq, instead of being in the US with their families?
Comment by Juan C
Cold hearted MFer!
June 4th, 2007 at 2:29 pm#23 Spudge,
You are mistaken. See posting #31. The Islamic State of Iraq is an Al Qaeda-affiliated Islamist terrorist organization.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:30 pmExactly my point my friend. So why is it that virtually EVERYONE here has pinned their hopes on what the “Democrats†will do?
We are being deceived and the longer that we refuse to acknowledge it the worse it’s going to get.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 4, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
We have bumped heads in the past and I thinkn the reason being is that we feel the same way just didn’t know it.
The biggest problem for Democrats in Washington is the Democrats in Washington. The Democratic leadership particularly.
There is a reason why there is a DNC (good) and a DLC (bad). The DLC is made up of republican lites who profit from the war just as much as the republicans do. These people need to be driven out of the part along with any of the DNC that don’t have the ba||s to stand up to the republicans.
The Democrats don’t want to be critized for being weak, so they vote against our will, all the while being critized for being weak. Can’t they see that they are being played? America wants out of Iraq. Get us the fu*k out of there already. If it means not more funding, then so be it.
Take the critizism from the traitorous republicans then stand up in front of a mic and state “It doesn’t matter what the republicans say, we did the will of the people and got America out of Iraq.”
June 4th, 2007 at 2:32 pm#23 Spudge,
You are mistaken. See posting #31. The Islamic State of Iraq is an Al Qaeda-affiliated Islamist terrorist organization.
Comment by Exley — June 4, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Yay the administration with the help of the mass media have blurred the line for you. Yippy fu*king yehooo. Way to fu*king go traitor.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm#31,
Moreover, legitimate resistance movements (e.g., insurgents) must treat their captives in accordance with the international law of war. Summarily executing captive soldiers is a war crime.
You betcha! Like, let’s say we have it on video where an insurgent walked up to a wounded soldier and once he determined he was still alive then just shot him in the head splattering his brain matter all over the place.
Yup, that’s wrong and if such a video were to exist the nation would be outraged. So outraged, I’m sure, that we would have to bomb Paraguay or something just to feel a little better.
Oh, but such a video does exist. Only problem, it’s the American soldier murdering a wounded Iraqi. On video. With sound. With a reporter standing right there.
Where’s the outrage? At the reporter, of course.
Fcuk Amerika!
June 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pmThe Islamic State of Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on our country. Exley, you have no decency, no honor and no right to cast judgement on anyone’s morals sense you obviously have none yourself. To try to make political points in support of this war out of this tragedy is just about as low as an American can get.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:34 pmCold hearted MFer!
Comment by Flaco — June 4, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
There is nothing cold about Jaun C’s question. Only a cold hearted mother fu*ker would want America troops dying in a foriegn country for a war they support but are too chicken sh!t to sign up for. Chicken sh!t.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:34 pmCold hearted MFer!
Comment by Flaco
So, I want your soldiers to live a good life around their families instead of being blown up in Iraq for rich people`s benefit…and I am the cold guy here?
But then again, this comes from the guy who thinks evolution is not proven.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:36 pmFcuk Amerika!
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 4, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Hey monkeyf*cker, don’t you know Michael will report you for this type of shit?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:37 pmJuan, that’s the way these projecting sociopaths’ minds work. He wants them in harm’s way and you don’t. So, he calls YOU cold-hearted. Absurd, ridiculous, pathetic and totally without the ability to critically think.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:39 pmThe republicans throw in “terrorist†to confuse the issue. Al Qaida is a very small group who is getting credit for all of the death and destruction being waged by the Sunni insurgents.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Thank you. I was thinking unidimensionally. You are correct, Al-Qaeda meddling in Iraq is about 5%.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:43 pmJuan, that’s the way these projecting sociopaths’ minds work. He wants them in harm’s way and you don’t.
Comment by Bluedog49 —
For example, Exley. He would rather praise the loss of soldiers in a unjustified conflict, than provide those same people the opportunity to improve their living standards: education and health care. In my opinion thats the core of the war sanctification propaganda: send soldiers to die, praise and make a touching ceremony out of their deaths, but never, ever, provide low income people education so they realize that they are dying for few people´s pockets. It is a crime.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:48 pm#41,
Report away. True Americans fear only one thing, fear.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:50 pmThank you. I was thinking unidimensionally. You are correct, Al-Qaeda meddling in Iraq is about 5%.
Comment by Juan C — June 4, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
The problem I think is that Exley has lulled people into thinking he is okay. He is not. He still does his masters bidding, but in a more sutble way. He just isn’t in-your-face with his NeoCon talking points. I will give him credit. He is very good at what he does, but he still does it every chance he can.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pmbut never, ever, provide low income people education so they realize that they are dying for few people´s pockets. It is a crime.
Comment by Juan C — June 4, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Right on the mark.
This is the same it has been throu out history. The rich decide they want something from another rich group or poor group, then use their own poor to get what they want from the other rich group or poor group.
That is how every war starts.
Right now the American rich group want to control oil. We went to Iraq to make sure their rich group couldn’t sell their anymore, so the price of the American rich groups oil prices would go up. We are leaving troops in Iraq for 50 years, so that when the American rich group oil runs out, we can start selling the Iraqi oil.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:55 pm#41,
Report away. True Americans fear only one thing, fear.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — June 4, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Wha’d you say ta me???
I ain’t no snitch!!!
June 4th, 2007 at 2:59 pm“I will give him credit. He is very good at what he does.”
Thank you, Spudge.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pm“Yay the administration with the help of the mass media have blurred the line for you.”
Yes, Spudge, the very pro-Bush administration BBC is towing the administration line in pointing out that the Islamic State of Iraq was co-founded by Al Qaeda….
Come on, Spudge. I have seen you debate coherently and intelligently. But when you claim that the BBC is doing the Bush administration’s bidding you lose some credibility.
The fact is that the Islamic State of Iraq i– the group claiming to have summarily executed our soldiers — is a radical fundamentalist Islamist terrorist organization that has been affiliated with Al Qaeda….It is NOT the secular resistance movement you attempted to protray it as.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:06 pm“The Islamic State of Iraq is an Islamist umbrella organization established in 2006 “to protect the Sunni Iraqi people and defend Islam, by the Pact of the Scented People”. It is composed of a variety of insurgency groups, including the Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq, Conquering Army (Jeish al-Fatiheen), Soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad (Jund al-Sahaba), Brigades of Al-Tawhid Wal Sunnah, and Sunni tribes. It aims to establish a caliphate in the Sunni Arab dominated regions of Iraq.”
I don’t see anywhere where it says al Qiada was involved in its formation.
Also, you didn’t say that this group was co-founded by al Qaida. You just imediately started calling them al Qaida to try and blur the line.
From post #2
“On the same day that a U.S. military judge has dismissed charges against a captured enemy combatant, we learn that Al Qaeda has proudly claimed to have summarily executed two of our soldiers they had captured.”
Sorry, you are wrong.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:22 pmSpudge,
Here is an article from two weeks ago, when the troops were first captured, from The Guardian….Now, I know you will not try to argue that the Guardian is pro-Bush or pro-Iraq War:
Al-Qaida says it has captured three US soldiers
Thousands of US troops supported by helicopters and planes were last night searching for three soldiers captured by al-Qaida near Baghdad as violence again hit dozens of ordinary Iraqis across the country.
The Islamic State in Iraq – an al-Qaida affiliate – said on its website that it was holding “crusader” soldiers after four others and an interpreter were confirmed killed in fighting on Saturday in the Mahmudiya area in the Sunni “triangle of death” south of the capital.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2078966,00.html
Moreover, your first paragraph above is from Wikipedia, which is not always the most reliable or thoroughly fact-checked.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:29 pmSpudge,
This one from Reuters:
Al Qaeda says holding U.S. soldiers in Iraq
By Ibon Villelabeitia and Mariam Karouny
Sun May 13, 12:57 PM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Thousands of American troops searched on Sunday for three U.S. soldiers missing in Iraq after an ambush in which al Qaeda said it seized “crusader” forces, while a suicide bomber killed 50 people in the Kurdish north.
The self-styled Islamic State in Iraq, a group led by al Qaeda, said in an Internet posting it was holding soldiers who survived an attack south of Baghdad in which the U.S. military said four U.S. troops and an Iraqi army translator were killed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070513/ts_nm/iraq_dc
Again, “The self-styled Islamic State in Iraq, a group led by al Qaeda.”
June 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pmMoreover, your first paragraph above is from Wikipedia, which is not always the most reliable or thoroughly fact-checked.
Comment by Exley — June 4, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
And your information comes from a newspaper that got its information from the US government, which is run by “loyal bushies”
Sorry bud, but you will never ever get me to agree that the insurgents are the same as the “terrorists” for one because al Qaida is not as big as the Bush admin has made you believe. They do not run everything in the Middle East as Bush would have you believe. The insurgents are not terrorists and the terrorists are for the most part a figment of your imagination. It is amazing that a little band of CIA trained operatives can scare you so bad from around the world. It shows that propaganda works.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pmExley, you can post your propaganda all day long and it will still only be propaganda.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:37 pmIn other words, Spudge, don’t bother you with the facts, your mind is made up????
June 4th, 2007 at 3:40 pmIn other words, Spudge, don’t bother you with the facts, your mind is made up????
Comment by Exley — June 4, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
I could pose the same exact question to you.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:41 pmSpudge,
I have been more than willing to admit when I have been wrong.
For you to deny that Islamic State in Iraq is affiliated with Al Qaeda despited all the reporting and information available is like me trying to claim that there were indeed still WMDs in Iraq in 2003.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:46 pm“Spudge,
I have been more than willing to admit when I have been wrong.”
And I would be willing to admit that they may have a small affiliation, but that is not what you presented in post #2. You said al Qaida this and al Qaida that. This is not al Qaida. This is the Islamic State of Iraq.
It is like saying that the Boy Scouts of America and Major League Baseball are one in the same because the Boy Scouts have been to a baseball game.
My problem is with you trying to make this out to be al Qaida when it was not. You like bluring that line and it is bullsh!t and you know it, but you do it anyway.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:53 pmOkay, Spudge,
Let us set aside the argument over whether Islamic State in Iraq is synonymous with Al Qaeda or not (I think the information shows they are, you do not).
Don’t you think that the very fact that these “insurgents” summarily executed these three captive soldiers — in contravention of the international law of war, which even resistance movements are obliged to follow — makes them “terrorists?”
Legitimate resistance groups may capture and detain enemy combatants. But they may not legally execute them summarily.
Even assuming for arguments’ sake that those who captured these three soldiers were not terrorists before this incident, once they summarily executed their captives — and then bragged about it on video — makes them criminals and terrorists.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:00 pmSpudge, I have been more than willing to admit when I have been wrong.
For you to deny that Islamic State in Iraq is affiliated with Al Qaeda despited all the reporting and information available is like me trying to claim that there were indeed still WMDs in Iraq in 2003.
Comment by Exley — June 4, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
BAHAHA, you admitting when you’re WRONG? BAHAHA, now THAT is a FUNNY JOKE!!! You whiny, lying little b!tch!!!
June 4th, 2007 at 4:01 pm#6 kay – you are right – they don’t give a rat’s ass – and who knows what kind of horrors these kids were subjected to – and they were just kids – one of them was 19 for crying out loud – i think it is pointless arguing about whether it was a terrorist or an insurgent (their actions seem very similar – kidnappings and executions etc) who took these precious lives – and mccain thinks it’s a great idea to continue this insanity for the next 50 years? (….and beyond) – god help us all
June 4th, 2007 at 4:08 pmDon’t you think that the very fact that these “insurgents†summarily executed these three captive soldiers — in contravention of the international law of war, which even resistance movements are obliged to follow — makes them “terrorists?â€
Now, using your logic, the United Staes of America is a terrorist group. We took “enemy combatants” and locked the up. At which point we started torturing them, at which point some of them died.
The only difference between the US and the “terrorists” (as you call them) is that we haven’t heard of the “terrorist” torturing these soldiers before they were killed.
Now, if it is found out that they were tortured, then we are exactly the same. If they weren’t then who is the bad guy?
This is why we have been so against the treatment we have given to the “enemy combatants” the US has in custody. With the way we have treated them, we no longer have the moral high ground and have no right to call others terrorists.
Does this make me anti-American? No. Because I know that Bush and his cabal will be gone sonner than later and American will right the ship Bush is trying to sink.
We will be the good guys again. But first it will take people like you to admit we are/were wrong, apologize to the world community and then get to the job of solving the real terrorist issue. Which is mainly jobs and poverty.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:11 pm“i think it is pointless arguing about whether it was a terrorist or an insurgent”
And that would be playing right into Bush’s hand.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:12 pm“Now, using your logic, the United Staes of America is a terrorist group. We took “enemy combatants†and locked the up.”
Incorrect, Spudge. Under international law, we are permitted to detain combatants captured on the battlefield or those captured in the U.S. planning to carry out acts of sabotage.
“At which point we started torturing them, at which point some of them died.”
No one was tortured as a matter of policy. There have been a handful of prisoner abuse cases by U.S. military personnel. The difference between us and them is that the U.S. military personnel who abused and killed prisoners have been tried, convicted and are being punished for violating the law. By contrast, this terrorists who killed these three soldiers do not try or punish their members who carry out these atrocities. The atrocities are the very policies by which they conduct themselves. It is their weapon.
“we haven’t heard of the “terrorist†torturing these soldiers before they were killed”
Incorrect. Actually, the body that was discovered in the river last week was described as showing signs of torture.
Moreover, the same organization that claimed to have kidnapped and killed these three soldiers also claimed responsibility for the torture, murder, and mutilation of two U.S. soldier last year. Additionally, the bodies of those soldiers were booby-trapped in an effort to kill those who went to recover the bodies.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/20/soldiers.missing/index.html
Your attempt to equate how the United States treats its captives and how the radical Islamists treat theirs is shameful and you should apologize.
“Which is mainly jobs and poverty.”
yeah..Bin Laden became a terrorist because of poverty….Oh, wait, he’s a multi-millionaire? Never mind.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:34 pmGramma’s on the roof…..
Seoul Times had still last week from a purported video of their deaths. It was quite gruesome, and will be infuriating to many, many people. I was surprised at the time to not see any other news about it, but now I’m pretty sure the military must have a copy of the video and be waiting for the right time to release it. Seeing these slow leaks coming out is setting everyone up for its release.
I’m sure they’ll find just the right moment to gin up American revulsion at how horrible “the terrorists” are, probably around an election or a bad news cycle. And about this particular group, they will be right. It’s the timing of how they release information and use the media to achieve political aims that is infuriating, as well as how our poor kids have been sent to a useless war for oil and meet their deaths.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:40 pmExley: “No one was tortured as a matter of policy.”
Oh, go to hell, you pig. Every sane person knows by now that we’ve been abducting people and shipping them off to torture chambers. You make me sick, you unamerican, fascist pig.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:42 pmEx, I dont know whats the problem. The other you were cheering the dead of some Islam terrorist, whether it was true or not, and you now complain about Insurgent´s rejoice for executing US soldiers? Why? Isnt that the exact thing you were doing, except you were not in tape?
June 4th, 2007 at 4:48 pmJuan,
Are you telling me you don’t understand the difference between killing a terrorist in combat and capturing a soldier live and then cold-bloodedly and summarily executing them?
You may not understand the difference, but international law does. The former is permitted. The latter is a crime.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:57 pmExley, you are a hypocritical lying sack of crap. Abu Graib was policy. Alberto Gonzales signed off on torture policy.
You are the problem with America. You can’t see the reality in front of your face. That reality is that America HAS ingaged in torture as policy.
Don’t fu*king coem here and lie. Because I know that you know it is a lie.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:11 pm“Abu Graib [sic] was policy”
False.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:16 pm“Abu Graib [sic] was policyâ€
False.
Comment by Exley — June 4, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
It was policy and you can say all day long that is wasn’t and it doesn’t make you right. If Abu Graib wasn’t policy then why did Ablert Gonzales sign off on its legality.
And don’t correct my spelling stupid fu*k, it makes you look petty.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:20 pmYou may not understand the difference, but international law does. The former is permitted. The latter is a crime.
Comment by Exley — June 4, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
And that is why the murders that took place in Abu Graib were against the law and the whole administration should be held for war crimes. Because it was policy.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:21 pm“And don’t correct my spelling stupid fu*k, it makes you look petty.”
I was trying to show that it was not my spelling error. But you are right. I shouldn’t have done it. I apologize.
But then again, you referring to me as “a hypocritical lying sack of crap” is hardly a paragon of civil discourse.
As for the rest of your posting, there is simply no evidence that the criminal abuses that went on at Abu Ghraib were sanctioned by the administration. The military personnel who carried out the worst abuses were tried, convicted, and are now sitting in prison — and deservedly so.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:29 pmAs for the rest of your posting, there is simply no evidence that the criminal abuses that went on at Abu Ghraib were sanctioned by the administration. The military personnel who carried out the worst abuses were tried, convicted, and are now sitting in prison — and deservedly so.
Comment by Exley — June 4, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
You are wrong. A bunch of low level guys did not give the order. You would know this if you had any military experience. Low level enlisted folks are not left alone all night long to do things like this. In fact low level enlisted people aren’t left alone without superiors to tell them what to do for longer than 15 minutes. Are you gonna tell me that everything at Abu Graib was done in 15 minute chunks with no supervision?
Wrong.
And when you are quoting somebody, nobody in their right mind atributes the misspellings to the person who is quoting.
My calling you a lying sack of crap is not the same a pointing out spelling errors.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:34 pm“My calling you a lying sack of crap is not the same a pointing out spelling errors.”
Well, no…I would say that name-calling is more egregious (and pointless). But I already apologized for the “sic.” Let’s move on.
Spudge, It has been three years since the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public. There have been numerous courts martial and other investigations. And there has been no indication that the abuses were ordered by the administration.
Your party is in control of Congress now. Contact the House and Senate leadership and ask that they investigate the Abu Ghraib abuse some more. If they uncover any evidence that the abuses were at the administration’s calling, I will be the first to join with you in calling for resignations, trials, and punishment.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:42 pmJuan, they were doing their duty; their job. And I bet they would have rather been home with their families. Not political spin, this is a sad event….
June 4th, 2007 at 5:51 pmBy the way, here is a bit of an AP story posted about one minute ago:
Al-Qaida: Captured U.S. troops killed
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago
“BAGHDAD – Insurgents linked to al-Qaida issued a video Monday claiming they killed all three U.S. soldiers captured in an ambush last month. “They were alive and then dead,” a voice said during a sequence of images that included the military IDs of two Americans still missing.
The nearly 11-minute video by an al-Qaida front group, the Islamic State of Iraq, offered no proof that the soldiers were killed and buried. The U.S. military insisted the massive manhunt south of Baghdad will go”
What was that about Al Qaeda not being involved again????
June 4th, 2007 at 6:22 pm“There have been numerous courts martial and other investigations. And there has been no indication that the abuses were ordered by the administration.”
Have you ever heard the term “cover-up” I know you have. Don Rumsfeld was responsible for what happpened at Abu Graib. He had permission from Bush with the legal backing of Alberto Gonzales.
“Your party is in control of Congress now. Contact the House and Senate leadership and ask that they investigate the Abu Ghraib abuse some more.”
I don’t have a party in control. If you mean ask the Democrats to investigate something else, I say waste of time. We need to start impeachment hearings, but that won’t happen, because the Democrats are chicken sh!ts.
It also has to do with not enough votes.
I know you guys like to pretend that the Democrats now hold as much power as the Republicans have for the last 12 years and you know for a fact that it just isn’t true. 2008 can’t come soon enough.
And to round things off, there is plenty of evidence to show that what happened at Abu Graib came from directions right from the top. If you choose to ignore that information, then that is your problem, not mine.
June 4th, 2007 at 6:23 pmThere are a lot of a-hole trolls on this site, but for my money, the most weasly, lying, intellectually dishonest fascist apologist has to be this unbelievable punk who calls himself Exley. They guy defends torture. He’s a blight on our society. He represents the sociopathic wing of the remaining pathetic 28 percenters. Just disgusting. If I believed in Hell, I would hope there would be a special ring for people like Exley.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:07 pmsomebody’s little boy is never coming home again—
—————–over and over and over again…
June 4th, 2007 at 9:56 pm#79,
Spudge,
As the one claiming that the handful of prisoner abuses were undertaken as part of official U.S.administration policy, it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence and citations to support your assertion.
See how I demonstrated with citations to numerous to news sources that Al Qaeda was responsible for the summary execution of these three soldiers???? (See postings # 31, 52, 53 and 78) That is who you need to demonstrate your claims — not just by claiming there was a “cover-up” and providing absolutely no cites or links in support of your claims whatsoever.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:45 pm