Re: U.S. soldiers encouraged to spread message of their Christian faith in Afghanista
1992.
If one single reruit decides not to go to Mass, the Drill Instructor has to baby sit him. This, and the fact that it gives the recruit a chance to get away and relax is exactly why they are 'encouraged" to get the hell out and go to church.
You mean the Duty DI has to do his job? EEK!!
There is always at least one recruit that doesn't go and guess what? The Duty DI still has to be at the barracks, empty or not. So who are you trying to fool, the people here who don't know any better? :roll:
Oh, slope you got me. The great mission to make all military personel Christians has been discovered. It's just a matter of time before we take the next step and don the crosses to crusade our way from Cairo to Islamabad for Jesus.
You can try to be dismissive by making ridiculous exaggerations but it only makes you look like you've got no argument.
This may be a hard pill to swallow for you, but most people do not bathe in the same partisan slavery pool as you. I care as much for Reagan as I do for Clinton, or Bush, or Obama, or Bush Jr., or FDR, or Kennedy or.....
I guess you're right, since you bathe in the partisan slavery pool of neoconservatism.
The fact is that our troubles began to occur the moment father Bush began weakening the military....after the Cold War. And were it not for 9/11, we would be worse still.
That's because Reagan made massive military cuts. I remember getting a memorandum to provide a list of personnel under my command suitable for early release/retirement because Reagan wanted a smaller military. You know why he wanted to reduce the size of the military? So he could spend less on people and more on military contractors. By the time Reagan left office he had expanded the U.S. military budget to a staggering 43% increase over the
total expenditure during the height of the Vietnam war while creating MASSIVE budget deficits.
Are you a card carrying Democrat? I'm just curious, because you seem to shed an awful lot of tears when ever somebody dares to speak about them.
Actually, I'm considered quite moderate outside of the hard-right/hard-left categories we are all put in on this board. I've never registered as a democrat, always as an independent. I even voted for Reagan for his first term (I was a bit more conservative leaning then). How about you? Life long repub... until the shrub years. :roll:
I am having a hard time seeing you as anything more than insignificant at this point. "Counterpunch." Really? I wonder if I there's a "Jewish Weekly" or "Chrisitian Agenda" source I can start tapping into. Maybe mix it up with some personal blogs as "proof."
Such a transparent tactic. If the source is so unreliable then just attack the facts and prove it instead of making noise to hide your ineptitude.
Get over it. The dip ****s at Abu Ghraib were simply retarded and exercised practices well beyond their mandate. And no matter how hard they try to excuses themselves by accusing others for telling them to behave stupidly, no body told them to stack naked bodies, take pictures, and conduct themselves as if they were pledging Freshmen.
Oh so now it's your claim that these US Troops are just retarded dip****s (nice support) who somehow came up with the same techniques used at other interment prisons. You see, the intelligent people can see the difference between the softening up of detainees and the pictures. The ingenuity of the techniques don't quite mesh with the stupidity of the pictures which tells the intellectually honest people which parts the soldiers came up with on their own. Like a cat ****ting in a toilet, you know the cat knows how to **** but it's obvious someone taught it to **** in a toilet.
But I do love how the CIA is tied to virtually every single thing that has ever happened since its creation by those who need there to be more to the story than what was told them.
And time after time after time in case after case we find out it's true. The CIA really is involved in most of it.
Oh...so dead civilians under Bush bad. Dead civilians under Obama acceptable or dismissed. Let me guess...it's the military's fault under Obama, but not the military's fault under Bush, who is to accept ultimate responsibility as CiNC.
Do you even know what you're responding to? Nice try at changing the subject but you said:
Of course, this self-righteous blame game of the left to seek out the Commander-in-Chief as the end all be all individual to hang for all misdeeds of individuals faaaaaaar under them.....will not be a game played against the current administration.
So what dead civilians are your referring to as Obama's fault, in the conversation about torturing detainees? FAIL.
Seems to me that your beloved liberals and Democrats are a little uneasy and unhappy about certain matters these days as well. Perhaps its time to step off the partisan stooge bus and gather some perspective grounded in what I like to call reality.
Well it's about time you made a wise decision... welcome to the real world. :2wave:
President Obama is doing exactly what I expected. I am rather pleased so far. Aren't you pleased with him? But given that you rush to blast Reagan and the "Cons," defend Clinton at all costs, and blast Bush and the "Cons," forgive Obama for continuing Bush policies....you are mostly pleased that "your guy" sits upon high.
Poor raving Gunny... it's really hard to argue against facts eh? It's obviously much easier for you to just change the subject and attack.
Oh here it is in the CIA handbook....."stack naked bodies up in pyramid formation for fun." Oh and here it states to..."have sex with married superior and have baby."
Oh here it is in the neocon apologists handbook... "make fun of the troops involved and only point to things we have no
proof the CIA does."
These were idiot civilians in uniform behaving badly. Nothing more. It's not about defending anybody. It's about seeing it for what it is and not invoking exaggeration to cling to crap.
Info:
The Justice Department memos also buttress the testimony of former Army Sgt. Sam Provance, who served as a military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib for four months starting in September 2003 and was the only one in such a position to blow the whistle on the cover-up that sought to focus blame for the scandal on low-level military police.
“While serving with my unit in Iraq,” Provance said in a statement submitted to Congress, “I became aware of changes in the procedures in which I and my fellow soldiers were trained. These changes involved using procedures which we previously did not use, and had been trained not to use, and in involving military police (MP) personnel in ‘preparation’ of detainees who were to be interrogated.
“Some detainees were treated in an incorrect and immoral fashion as a result of these changes. After what had happened at Abu Ghraib became a matter of public knowledge, and there was a demand for action, young soldiers were scapegoated while superiors misrepresented what had happened and tried to misdirect attention away from what was really going on.”
As a computer expert working the night shift, Provance came to know many of the interrogators, including a female who “told me detainees were routinely stripped naked in the cells and sometimes during interrogations (she said one man so shamed had actually made a loin cloth out of an MRE (Meal Ready to Eat) bag, so they no longer allowed him to have the MRE bag with his food).
“She said they also starved them or allowed them to only have certain items of food at a time. She said they played loud music – ‘Barney I Love You’ being the interrogators’ favorite. … She said they used dogs to terrify and torment the prisoners. She also said they deprived them of sleep for long periods of time.”
Provance said these strategies were “all part of a carefully planned regimen that had been introduced after the arrival of the teams from” the Guantanamo Bay prison facility where detainees from the “war on terror” had been concentrated.
Provance also recounted a conversation at the Camp Victory dining facility where one military intelligence guard “told an entire table full of laughing soldiers about how the MP’s had shown him and other soldiers how to knock someone out and to strike a detainee without leaving marks. They had practiced these techniques on unsuspecting detainees, after watching, he had participated himself.”
What is striking about Provance’s account in retrospect are the similarities between the CIA techniques approved by the Bush administration and the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, including the notorious photographs of naked Iraqis paraded in front of female soldiers.
In both cases, nudity -- especially in front of women -- was used to degrade the prisoners; their diets were manipulated to weaken their resolve (the CIA fed its detainees Ensure); they were deprived of sleep (the CIA hung prisoners by their wrists and used icy water to keep them awake for a week or more); their personal fears were exploited; and they were roughed up in ways designed not to leave marks (the CIA used a technique called “walling,” slamming prisoners repeatedly into a false wall that made a loud noise).
There were some differences, too. While the Abu Ghraib photos revealed prisoners being piled up in fake sexual positions, the CIA program included the near-drowning experience of “waterboarding” against three “high-value detainees,” including its use 266 times against two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Consortiumnews.com
Oh and try attacking these facts instead of the reporting source this time.
What do you say to all those civilains "murdered" under Obama in Afghanistan? Not as delicious when "Bush" isn't in the sentence is it?
Nice try at obfuscation, again. DENIED
