Those non-existent Saddam/al Qaeda links

[quote=gilliam]There are some pretty good examples of Saddam’s terrorist connectios on this web site as well:Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror
[/quote]

Woah, just went to that website. Very powerful, thanks for the link! :thumbsup:

[quote=gilliam]It is too easy to throw out phrases like this but if one thinks for a minute before writing, one would realize how silly the statement is. The vast majority of the populations of all nations in the mid-East do not have al-Qaeda links and many of the governments in the mid-East are the sworn enemy of al-Qaeda.
[/quote]

  1. Wabrams didn’t say “the vast majority of the populations.” Nor did he specify governments.

He said, “Who in the middle east, besides Israel, doesn’t have connections with Al Qaida?”

So, “exactly” is quite applicable.

[quote=Richardols]1. Wabrams didn’t say “the vast majority of the populations.” Nor did he specify governments.

He said, “Who in the middle east, besides Israel, doesn’t have connections with Al Qaida?”

So, “exactly” is quite applicable.
[/quote]

Well, I guess the answer is many governments and the vast majority of people :smiley:

[quote=Richardols]Not one incident happened. Right.

Not one prisoner was abused. Right.

All are lies. Right.
[/quote]

I believe that, to date, there has not been confirmation that any intentional abuses have occured. There is also the issue of the definition of abuse and if these prisoners qualify for Geneva Convention rights.
What is coming to light, and being confirmed, is the abusive treatment and personal threats (threats aimed at soldiers and their families) that the guards have had to endure, all the while not being able to defend themselves.
Couple these facts with the reality of the actual treatment the prisoners are receiving - the protocol that is followed in handling the Koran, the fact that we provide the Koran at all, the scheduling of almost gourmet meals around their prayer needs, air conditioned cells, their permission to play soccer, and many other amenities - and the effort of the left in this country to paint Bush as a war criminal is revealed as a laughable attempt to bring down a president.
Ask a US soldier how all of those provisions compare to their time spent in basic training, nevermind the conditions of the battlefield and the lives they lead while “in country.”

[quote=Jersey Jeepster]I believe that, to date, there has not been confirmation that any intentional abuses have occured.
[/quote]

I’m not so sure that there haven’t been Article 32 investigations into the charges. And now, you’ve changed it to “intentional,” eh?

What is coming to light, and being confirmed, is the abusive treatment and personal threats (threats aimed at soldiers and their families) that the guards have had to endure, all the while not being able to defend themselves.

TS. Even in American prisons, guards have to endure abuse without a right to retaliate.

Ask a US soldier how all of those provisions compare to their time spent in basic training, nevermind the conditions of the battlefield and the lives they lead while “in country.”

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

[quote=gilliam]Well one group is the vast majority of the Iraqi people.

If you are really interested in this topic, read: Profiles of Saudi Terrorists. 55% of the al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia.
[/quote]

Saudi terrorists in Iraq: there’s a shocker. Saudi Arabia is almost another Afghanistan.

[quote=Richardols]I’m not so sure that there haven’t been Article 32 investigations into the charges. And now, you’ve changed it to “intentional,” eh?
[/quote]

Just because there is an investigation, doesn’t mean that someone is guilty of a crime. You would be one of the 1st people to point that out if it would support your political view.

[quote=Richardols]I’m not so sure that there haven’t been Article 32 investigations into the charges. And now, you’ve changed it to “intentional,” eh?

TS. Even in American prisons, guards have to endure abuse without a right to retaliate.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.
[/quote]

Of course the issue is “intentional” abuse. That type of abuse is malicious. Do you mean to insinuate that if an accident occurs, without the intention to cause harm, that the guards should be seen as abusers and be compared to Hitler and Pol Pot and the like?

I am glad that investigations are underway, if they are. There is no better way to clear up an issue. But to say that “two wrongs don’t make a right” is simply dismissive. Do you see the irony in the fact that the guards are being made to look like criminal human rights abusers, while it is they who are actually being abused more. And, not surprisingly, the treatment they have had to endure was not written about in our slanted media until the media felt it had to try to separate itself from the seed of exaggeration they planted, that was taken by our left-wing players in congress and turned into hyperbole and out and out lies.

[quote=gilliam]Just because there is an investigation, doesn’t mean that someone is guilty of a crime. You would be one of the 1st people to point that out if it would support your political view.
[/quote]

Quite right. But, absent an investigation, no conclusion can be made as to whether there are grounds to proceed further or to drop the matter. An investigation by itself proves nothing.

Notice how the thread has shifted from the thread title to supposed American troop abuses. Too funny. One has zip to do with the other.

[quote=thestickman]Notice how the thread has shifted from the thread title to supposed American troop abuses. Too funny. One has zip to do with the other.
[/quote]

I was noticing that as I was answering posts. People use varying examples in their posts to prove a particular point. I think that posts start to drift away from their original subject matter when someone answers to one of the varying examples. I don’t think that, in this case, anyone was trying to move the goal posts, as the old saying goes. It is funny how that happens so often, though.

[quote=Richardols]Quite right. But, absent an investigation, no conclusion can be made as to whether there are grounds to proceed further or to drop the matter. An investigation by itself proves nothing.
[/quote]

The investigations have turned up what? not much

anyway, as has been pointed out, we are off topic from the original thread

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.