On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and what
Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild by
comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

"Lionel" wrote in message news:414f285a$0$17693

RAO is such a ****ed politic tribune that I appreciate to read a Democrat.
It's a very hard job to be obliged to brutalize the verb and the common
sens to force the apprentices fanatic to reveal what they really have
inside. Hard but interesting.

"At least" you brutalize verbs, adjectives, nouns, prepositions,
and pronouns with equal fervor.

Art wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message news:414f285a$0$17693

RAO is such a ****ed politic tribune that I appreciate to read a Democrat.
It's a very hard job to be obliged to brutalize the verb and the common
sens to force the apprentices fanatic to reveal what they really have
inside. Hard but interesting.

"At least" you brutalize verbs, adjectives, nouns, prepositions,
and pronouns with equal fervor.









In many cases, even the most delusional babblers are at least coherent, if out
of touch with reality. But the anti-Semetic, pathological liar, Lionel, has
managed to enhance his delusional nonsense by making it illiterate as well.
Perhaps he'll explain that he was simply "speaking in tongues".



Bruce J. Richman

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and what
Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild by
comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more than a
2 on a 10 scale.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 9/20/2004 6:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and what
Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild by
comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more than a
2 on a 10 scale.









What those prisoners went through was worse than death for most of them. So I
guess that makes death a 1 or 1.5 on that scale. What is a 10?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


S888Wheel said:

By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and
what
Saddam has done,

Why the **** do you continue to bring up Saddam? Does his vile history
set the
standard for you on acceptable behavior? As long as it isn't as bad as
what
Saddam did it isn't that bad?

Mickey does the same thing when he makes his feeble attempts to defend
the Bushies' corruption and criminality -- it's always "the Dems would
be worse, loT"s!"

Hey, I'm wondering something. How come you guys never invite Mickey to
your barbecue parties? He's right there in L.A.



He's only a poor substitute for Arny.
I want the real deal.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and what
Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild by
comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more than a
2 on a 10 scale.

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.

This is a good question, and I think you need to be a Muslem male to
properly answer it. As I suggested, and as has been documented, the
torturers or whoever advised them familiarised themselves with Muslem
belief just enough to ensure what they did to the prisoners would
shame them in their own and their people's eyes for all time. For
instance, I don't think it's acidental that they were led around on a
leash by FEMALE guards. To the Muslem mind this is extremely
significant. So too is the homosexual element explicit in many of the
photos. To properly understand all this one needs to look at it from
the Muslem male point of view, and the national and religious pride
that that suggests. College hazing just doesn't come into it. Indeed
the mere comparison only shows how little the women's lib influenced
western mind understands the Arab male.


These guys werre hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.
I think they acted out of common meanness; they are
waaaay to unsophisticated to understand anything
about Muslim culture. I live fairly close to that
area and have had work assigneetns up there,
so I know what its like up there in the mountains
of Western Maryland.


Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
instructed them.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 9/20/2004 6:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and what
Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild by
comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more than
a
2 on a 10 scale.









What those prisoners went through was worse than death for most of them.
So I
guess that makes death a 1 or 1.5 on that scale. What is a 10?

The Nazi holocaust.
The Khmer Rouge holocaust.
The starving to death of millions under Stalin.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and what
Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild by
comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more than
a
2 on a 10 scale.

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.

From a historical perspective it was minor.

Hamas, the PLO, and so on do not represent any legitimate government.

N. Korea Kim Jong very ****ing Ill is a terrorist who heads up a
government.

He is a terrorist?


He sells weapons to terrorists.

In the 80s the USA were training and supplying weapons to Bin Laden &
Cie in order he fight against the Afghan communist government and their
allies, the Soviets.
At this time the Soviets were saying "Bin Laden is a terrorist" and USA
were saying "Bin Laden is an ally".
Do you think that at this time USA were a terrotist nation since it was
supporting a "terrorist" ?

At this time Bin Laden wasn't representing any government.
Would you say that he was an illegitimate ally of USA ? :-)

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and what
Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild by
comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more than
a
2 on a 10 scale.

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.


From a historical perspective it was minor.

The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
a minor fact of the WWII".
This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
....You have a friend in France Michael.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
This is a good question, and I think you need to be a Muslem male to
properly answer it. As I suggested, and as has been documented, the
torturers or whoever advised them familiarised themselves with Muslem
belief just enough to ensure what they did to the prisoners would
shame them in their own and their people's eyes for all time. For
instance, I don't think it's acidental that they were led around on a
leash by FEMALE guards. To the Muslem mind this is extremely
significant. So too is the homosexual element explicit in many of the
photos. To properly understand all this one needs to look at it from
the Muslem male point of view, and the national and religious pride
that that suggests. College hazing just doesn't come into it. Indeed
the mere comparison only shows how little the women's lib influenced
western mind understands the Arab male.


These guys werre hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.
I think they acted out of common meanness; they are
waaaay to unsophisticated to understand anything
about Muslim culture. I live fairly close to that
area and have had work assigneetns up there,
so I know what its like up there in the mountains
of Western Maryland.


Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
instructed them.

These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
it a documentary.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


paul packer said:

These guys werre hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland.
I think they acted out of common meanness; they are
waaaay to unsophisticated to understand anything
about Muslim culture. I live fairly close to that
area and have had work assigneetns up there,
so I know what its like up there in the mountains
of Western Maryland.


Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
instructed them.

I heard something like that... Supposedly the soldiers got the "soften
them up" orders from "Army intelligence officers". They probably had a
brand-new handbook with guidelines like "Don't make them dance around
naked because it's humiliating for them."


This problem was confined to one shift, the nighshift.
The other two shifts didn't do this. I don't think
they were directed.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and
what
Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild
by
comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more
than
a
2 on a 10 scale.

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.


From a historical perspective it was minor.

The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
a minor fact of the WWII".
This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
...You have a friend in France Michael.

Meaning exactly what?
Can you clarify your drivel and
demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

I heard something like that... Supposedly the soldiers got the "soften
them up" orders from "Army intelligence officers". They probably had a
brand-new handbook with guidelines like "Don't make them dance around
naked because it's humiliating for them."

This problem was confined to one shift, the nighshift.
The other two shifts didn't do this. I don't think
they were directed.

Now explain the murders and torture in Afghanistan, and the torture in
Guantanamo.



Huh?

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...


On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:



"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:



By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and

what

Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild

by

comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more

than

a
2 on a 10 scale.

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.


From a historical perspective it was minor.

The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
a minor fact of the WWII".
This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
...You have a friend in France Michael.


Meaning exactly what?
Can you clarify your drivel and
demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?

It's clear both of these 2 *******s (you are also belong to this
category) are minimizing people suffering watching it from a pseudo
"historic point of view".
I don't know why you are asking explanation since in so many cases you
have insidiously and hypocritely done the same kinds of statement.
Your only difference with Mickey and Jean Marie LePen is that you are a
coward. In a war context, with the protection of an authority, I am sure
that you would have sold your mother in exchange of your safety. This is
what Middius is saying by "you belong to the soft side".

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.

From a historical perspective it was minor.


What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.

Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
instructed them.

These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
it a documentary.



The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
their heads up in their own society ever again.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...


On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:



"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:



By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and

what

Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild

by

comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more

than

a
2 on a 10 scale.

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.


From a historical perspective it was minor.

The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
a minor fact of the WWII".
This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
...You have a friend in France Michael.


Meaning exactly what?
Can you clarify your drivel and
demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?

It's clear both of these 2 *******s (you are also belong to this
category) are minimizing people suffering watching it from a pseudo
"historic point of view".
I don't know why you are asking explanation since in so many cases you
have insidiously and hypocritely done the same kinds of statement.
Your only difference with Mickey and Jean Marie LePen is that you are a
coward. In a war context, with the protection of an authority, I am sure
that you would have sold your mother in exchange of your safety. This is
what Middius is saying by "you belong to the soft side".

Your "minimizing people suffereing" is s trictly limited to
only one side of the equation.

As far as '"the soft side", I'll defer to the
expertise and experience of RAO's favorite French weasel.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.

From a historical perspective it was minor.


What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.

It makes me cry.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
instructed them.

These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
it a documentary.



The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
their heads up in their own society ever again.

Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
considered a sign of honor?

Clyde Slick wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.

From a historical perspective it was minor.


What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.


It makes me cry.

It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message
.. .


Michael McKelvy wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...



On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:




"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
newsjnuk0p69su6c0924jivv8ptvurcimg50e@4ax .com...



On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:




By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable of and

what


Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong, mild

by


comparison.

That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.

It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't more

than


a
2 on a 10 scale.

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.


From a historical perspective it was minor.

The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned because he
has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps were
a minor fact of the WWII".
This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
...You have a friend in France Michael.


Meaning exactly what?
Can you clarify your drivel and
demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?

It's clear both of these 2 *******s (you are also belong to this
category) are minimizing people suffering watching it from a pseudo
"historic point of view".
I don't know why you are asking explanation since in so many cases you
have insidiously and hypocritely done the same kinds of statement.
Your only difference with Mickey and Jean Marie LePen is that you are a
coward. In a war context, with the protection of an authority, I am sure
that you would have sold your mother in exchange of your safety. This is
what Middius is saying by "you belong to the soft side".


Your "minimizing people suffereing" is s trictly limited to
only one side of the equation.

As far as '"the soft side", I'll defer to the
expertise and experience of RAO's favorite French weasel.

I am the French weasel and you are the RAO's hyena.

From a historical perspective it was minor.


What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.

It makes me cry.

No. Lightly squeezing your genitals would make you cry. What we're
talking about would make you wish you'd been a little more sympathetic
to other people's suffering.

Lionel wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message
...


Michael McKelvy wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...



On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:17:53 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:




"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news


On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:02:16 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:




By the standards of what kinds of torture humans are capable
of and


what


Saddam has done, what they did at Abu Grahib was, while wrong,
mild


by


comparison.


That is because Saddam is the WRONG comparison. The correct
comparison is to a standard of human rights like the Geneva
Conventions.


It's mild by any comparison. I'm not minimizing it just wasn't
more


than


a
2 on a 10 scale.


It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.



From a historical perspective it was minor.


The above remember me our national French anti-semite : Jean Marie Le
Pen (an ultra-liberal right wing politic) has been condamned
because he
has said that "from an historical point of view concentration camps
were
a minor fact of the WWII".
This guy is an officer, veteran of Algeria war...
...You have a friend in France Michael.



Meaning exactly what?
Can you clarify your drivel and
demonstrate its relevance to Mikey's previous comment?


It's clear both of these 2 *******s (you are also belong to this
category) are minimizing people suffering watching it from a pseudo
"historic point of view".
I don't know why you are asking explanation since in so many cases you
have insidiously and hypocritely done the same kinds of statement.
Your only difference with Mickey and Jean Marie LePen is that you are a
coward. In a war context, with the protection of an authority, I am sure
that you would have sold your mother in exchange of your safety. This is
what Middius is saying by "you belong to the soft side".



Your "minimizing people suffereing" is s trictly limited to
only one side of the equation.

As far as '"the soft side", I'll defer to the
expertise and experience of RAO's favorite French weasel.


I am the French weasel and you are the RAO's hyena.

Oooops, should read the RAO's Jewish hyena.

The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
their heads up in their own society ever again.

Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
considered a sign of honor?

That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
for something others did to you?

(S888Wheel) said:

That is bull****.A punch in the face is mild compared to the torture those
prisoners endured. Is it OK to punch people in the face?

Depends on who's in front of you :-)

We also sold weapons to Iran, remember? One need look no further than South
America to realize we have supplied terrorists with weapons. Does that make us
terrorists?

You don't want to know the answer to that question.
The old dog "guns don't kill, people do" has lost its merit long ago.

In my humble opinion, that is.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.

From a historical perspective it was minor.


What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.


It makes me cry.

It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)

These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
of others. You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
is complain about the rights of the perps.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
From a historical perspective it was minor.


What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.

It makes me cry.

No. Lightly squeezing your genitals would make you cry. What we're
talking about would make you wish you'd been a little more sympathetic
to other people's suffering.

oh, you mean the suffering the terrorist perps.
Sorry, I am not overly concerned. Not that they should be tortured,
but we have more important things over which to wring our hands.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


paul packer said:

What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening
to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.

It makes me cry.

No. Lightly squeezing your genitals would make you cry. What we're
talking about would make you wish you'd been a little more sympathetic
to other people's suffering.

Sacky has completely swallowed the "conservative" viewpoint about
justice. That viewpoint boils down to this: "They might have been guilty
of something, because according to the information we probably had, they
resembled our best guess about the perpetrators of past or future
terrorist attacks. So we are fully justified in taking preventive action
against them, as well as other individuals we assume they are acquainted
with. This is war!"



Right, in that this is war, not an exercise in criminal justice.
Handling this as a matter of criminal justice will not work.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sacky said:

The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
their heads up in their own society ever again.

Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
considered a sign of honor?

Congratulations, your journey is complete. You are now a "debating
trade" master.

What I did was destroy Paul's stupid argument.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
their heads up in their own society ever again.

Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
considered a sign of honor?

That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
for something others did to you?

The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.

Art wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.

From a historical perspective it was minor.


What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.


It makes me cry.

It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)

These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
of others. You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
is complain about the rights of the perps.










Lionel, being an antisemitic Hamas sympathizer, is in denial and lies
constantly about what is really happening.



Bruce J. Richman

Clyde Slick wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.

From a historical perspective it was minor.


What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.


It makes me cry.

It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)

These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
of others.

Can you prove it ? Did they received any judgment ? Do you believe their
jailors now ?

You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
is complain about the rights of the perps.

Wrong, this is coming from your twisted mind of frustrated saddist only.
The discussion is about the torture that those prisonners have received. Not
about the family of their alleged victims.
Anyway do you mean that they desserve torture even if they were terrorists
or murderers ?

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Art wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.

From a historical perspective it was minor.


What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.


It makes me cry.

It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)

These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
of others. You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
is complain about the rights of the perps.


Lionel, being an antisemitic Hamas sympathizer, is in denial and lies
constantly about what is really happening.


It is interesting to see that our savant, intelligent, music lover
Psychologist jump on every stupidity written by Sackman to insult me.
The prisoners who have been tortured haven't received any judgment so their
culpability hasn't been proved but for richman they desserve the torture
they have received.
Justice doesn't count for the Doctor when he needs to exprime his
hatred. :-(



Bruce J. Richman
Limited Psychologist (lol)

Art said:

The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.

I'll bet they were *thoroughly* instructed.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Clyde Slick wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
their heads up in their own society ever again.

Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
considered a sign of honor?

That's abtuse. You know as well as I do that in certain cultures being
shamed and degraded in certain ways, even against your will, makes you
ineligible to re-enter that society. And what worse torture is there
than being excluded from your own culture, or being shunned within it,
for something others did to you?

The point is, that is abusive and degrading in ANY culture, and
that the yahoos who did it would not necessary be purposefully
debasing them because of the inherencies of Arab culture, nor
would it constitute any particular indication that the guards were
even aware of the detailed inherencies of Arab culture.

LOL, this argument is one of the most grotesque that you have never written.
this obviously prove the contrary, they were perfectly aware of the details
of the Arab culture.
They were specialists of the job they were doing...
Ask your friend McKelvy if a marine cannot make the difference between a
M-16 and a AKA-47

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
Fair enough, but I saw a documentary that went into the details of the
humiliation and strongly suggested that someone had taken the trouble
to find out what would most demean and shame an Arab male. The case
for such careful research was very strong. The suggestion was not that
the guards knew what they were doing, but that Special Forces had
instructed them.

These days, you can take anyone's suppositions, and call
it a documentary.



The real authority here is the fact that what was done to the
prisoners accords so well with the most degrading and shameful things
that could possible have been done. In other words, it's too perfect
to be a coincidence. They wanted to break these men, and what was
worse, do so in a way that would prevent them ever being able to hold
their heads up in their own society ever again.

Tell me, in what culture is being walked around naked on a leash
considered a sign of honor?


Lionel's?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

It was not mild according to the internal investigations of the
military.

From a historical perspective it was minor.


What a pity that when you're sitting blinfolded in a cell listening
to
dogs barking and guards laughing and your fellow prisoners crying for
mercy, it's so difficult to keep the historical perspective in mind.


It makes me cry.

It make you cry of laugh, saddist... ;-)

These are the people involved with the terrorisitic death
of others.

Can you prove it ? Did they received any judgment ? Do you believe their
jailors now ?

You don't give a **** about the vicitims,
or vicitms' families. All I hear you do
is complain about the rights of the perps.

Wrong, this is coming from your twisted mind of frustrated saddist only.
The discussion is about the torture that those prisonners have received.

It's all you want to talk about. You don't
want to diuscuss the Islamists' terror. And you talk about it as an argument
against the War on Terror.
As far as I care, its a minor point amidst a much
bigger issue, how to eliminate the Islamist terrorists and
stop their terror attacks

Not
about the family of their alleged victims.
Anyway do you mean that they desserve torture even if they were terrorists
or murderers ?

Whether ot not they deserve it, the US
shouldn't be handing it out. And I'm talking about torture,
not mealy mouth minor incidents. But ist not high
on my list of priorities. I care more about the future victims.