Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (125969)	3/12/2004 10:01:24 AM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 281500

Because of your predilections, I can understand your skepticism. However, I cannot understand how a presumably intelligent indidividual can reach conclusions concerning criminal behavior without the benefit of even a smidgen of evidence. C2, I used to have predilections. Really great predilections too. But I never had a gatekeeper. ...I think that's the real difference. ...Unless there's a full moon. Then I'd go with the full moon if I were you. <?isthereanemoticonforshockandamazement?> 0\|0

To: carranza2 who wrote (125969)	3/12/2004 12:20:27 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<I cannot understand how a presumably intelligent indidividual can reach conclusions concerning criminal behavior without the benefit of even a smidgen of evidence.> And I cannot understand the callous indifference of my fellow Americans, to all the killing we do abroad. Here are my assumptions, my basic way of looking at events: 1. I assume my nation's soldiers, are no better and no worse than those of other nations. That is, I consider it absurd, to assume we are angels, while everyone else is capable of acting devilish. 2. When a prisoner dies in custody, I assume foul play. This is true no matter which army has him. The burden of proof is on the military who had total control over the situation, to prove their innocence. 3. This presumption is stronger, if the prisoner has been in custody for a long time, and had no life-threatening injury known before his death. If a severely injured prisoner dies, shortly after being captured, I'd assume no foul play. But Abbas had been in custody for many months. He had angina, was middle-aged, but was otherwise is good health. He had written a letter to his wife, not long before he died, with no indication of any health problems. 4. This presumption is even stronger, if the soldiers who held him, work for an army with a track record of killing prisoners, and not being punished for it (impunity): A) Death By Container by Special Forces and Dostum's militia. Nobody punished. B) prisoners beaten to death at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Nobody punished. C) numerous reports of prisoners being savagely beaten, and several deaths, by U.S. and British troops in Iraq. Nobody punished. D) In Vietnam, reports of the Calley trial, and the Tiger Force, show a pattern of executing and torturing. Calley spend a bit of time in house detention, for murdering hundreds of civilians. (Deny any of the above, and I will again point you to the extensive posts, with links, that I have made on each of these crimes.) I see the pattern, you deny it.