Leave a comment

Comments 4

landruc August 15 2005, 14:46:33 UTC
I love the possibility that suppressed emotional terror originating in childhood abuse is causing "responsible" adult authorities to invade a country looking for terrorists that aren't there and, when reality doesn't reveal the supposed source of their machismo-disguised terror, do what was done to them in childhood until members of the innocent population become terrorists.

I don't mean to suggest Mowhoush was an innocent, but perhaps the reason they weren't getting any info about Al Qaeda from him was not because he "was being stubborn with his American captors," but because there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq for him to have info about.

Reply

stanleylieber August 15 2005, 23:53:52 UTC
This is precisely the kind of thing that was explicitly denied about this incident when the man's death was first reported. I remember it. The contempt that the White House displays for the press, as miniscule details filter out, is usually turned on its head by further revelations. I don't know why, at this point, but it still shocks me that none of the major ("liberally biased") news organizations maintain a matrix of all these overlapping assertions, and where they contradict each other.

Even a simple mathematical model of the number of these incidents, compared against the total number of interrogations over there would eliminate many of the question marks. Is it a systemic problem (as the Congressional report asserted), or not (as Rumsfeld insists ( ... )

Reply


sparkligbeatnic August 15 2005, 14:51:41 UTC

This was just too sad and disgusting for me to read beyond the first page.

Reply

stanleylieber August 15 2005, 23:55:33 UTC
I was reading an article the other day that suggested that the major difference between the conduct of the government in this war, vs. previous wars, is that they no longer even try to cover up their actions. Pretty much everything is boldly admitted, up front. "Yeah, we're doing it -- so what?"

Reply


Leave a comment

Up