"American forces were yesterday accused of violating international law by taking two Iraqi women hostage in a bungled effort to persuade fugitive male relatives to surrender.
"US soldiers seized a mother and daughter from their home in Baghdad two weeks ago and allegedly left a note on the gate: "Be a man Muhammad Mukhlif and give yourself up and then we will release your sisters. Otherwise they will spend a long time in detention." "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1456774,00.html
Rob
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Not only do we not torture, we don't kidnap either.
Discussion is locked
31 - 60 of 44 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
So let's wait and find out one way or the other. My guess is that they were detained legitimately and are claiming they were held hostage. There's littke evidence of that, as Marcia pointed out. People can and do claim anything.
- Collapse -
All of the "alleged" and "accused," etc. makes me wonder what actual weight (truth) is with this article.
Some questions that come to me off the top of my head, however are:
1. We already know that these people seem to have no regard for human life in general, much less that of the "lesser" members of their society; women and children. Why would anyone use women and children to attempt to acquire important information and/or individuals if it was known that this was a fruitless tactic? Doesn't make much sense to me.
2. This is also a group that has been known to utilize ANYONE to get what they want; e.g., children with bombs strapped to them is something I have heard of. It mentioned in the article that these women may have been involved in some way in regard to attacks against coalition forces. Could very well be that we had a darn good reason to take these women captive.
3. It also is VERY POSSIBLE that this article was another attempt by the media to blow things out of proportion. This quote from the story: "Back home yesterday, Mrs Batawi said Americans threatened to hold her until her sons surrendered but treated her and her daughter with respect. "They carried out a professional investigation. We found beds with clean sheets and copies of the Koran and bottles of water in a big room." That, to me, doesn't sound like someone that was treated horribly.
4. If our own people bungled this and did something that was inappropriate and out of compliance with our own "rules of war," then it should be dealt with like the other incidents' have been.
IMHO, I feel we have to be WAY to PC these days in regard to dealing with the scum of the earth. NO!, I do not advocate being inhumane, BUT, war is war - this is a time that the PC stool needs to be placed where it belongs, which is not right smack dab in the middle, creating a "walk-on-eggshells" atmosphere. I have seen and heard too many comments that hoot-n-hollar, yell-n-blame if there is a "casualty of war" on the "enemy" side, but consider it a "fault" of the United States if there is a "casualty of war" on our side. Pi$$es me off royally!
To many unknowns to come to any conclusion, as is often the case in a "breaking story." My first instinct, unfortunately, is to distrust the media reporting of such incidents. **If we need to tweak it a bit to make it a good story, we will!! Damn the consequences!!**
(Well Geez Looeez! did I rant on this one or not!?! LOL 
)
.
- Collapse -
of course, is such an un-biased source and probably did exhaustive research before making the claim. Not.
- Collapse -
to be the finest daily newspaper in the world regardless of politics. I suggest you research it if you wish, although US Right wing opinion may differ.
But attacking the source doesn't invalidate the story. It's a red herring, an avoidance of dealing with the facts reported. SOP here at SE when the news doesn't suit the reader.
Rob
- Collapse -
and the fact that it is very critical of the US most of the time. How is pointing that out "attacking the source"?
http://tinyurl.com/4qqx7
"Good writing but a sometimes annoying editorial outlook that includes taking potshots at any American policy not personally vetted by its staff; when American pundits complain about the British press, they?re talking about the Guardian."
- Collapse -
I sent myself a link to that!
It fit in well with my comments re: The Guardian below.
Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
In the earlier days of CNN there was a Saturday morning show called "Foreign Correspondents", I actually set my alarm to catch the 6:00 AM telecast!
Two of the "regulars" were correspondents from the then USSR and the Guardian. The former was optimistic that the Berlin Wall would come down, the government would change, etc. The latter was not.
Since then, I try to read the Guardian as much as possible. They have some excellent articles. But they also have had and do have pieces critical of the US, as if trying to be our conscience. I do not think our major newspapers do the same toward Britain.
Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
"Don't be fooled by the spin on Iraq"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1458237,00.html
And who is to say who spins what?
And are we guilty of looking for opinion that matches our own?
Having been against the war is one thing. Heaping blame on our military that is there is another As it looks like everybody else will be pulling out, I reckon the arrows at us will be even sharper.
Those here who have family in the military are not well served by spin from either side of the question, especially as articles such as this are read in Iraq.
Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic