I have a very good friend that was kidnapped during the early days of the Iraq war. He was held captive for 331 days until he was rescued by the US Marines.

He was kept in a cellar with his hands and feet tied for virtually the entire period. His solitary confinement was extreme in that the cellar was sealed up each time his captors left. He said he never knew if he would come out of the ordeal alive, but the sheer isolation is what bothered him the most.

Our Islamic friends are not very good jail keepers either.

His book will be coming out next month. I believe the title is "Buried Alive".

Well, if the story is as "true" and dramatic as the Private Jessica Lynch story....it's sure to be an exciting piece of fiction.

Which brings the topic to how media stories of torture are recieved and percieved. How we in the West are spoon-fed stories, often (as in the case of Pte Jessicca Lynch) deliberately falsefied by US officials, for propaganda purposes.

OF COURSE we will be told and "shown" that the enemy is terrible....it's not neccessarily true. Jessica Lynch proves how deceitfull the media and top officials can contrive to be.

Only three misspelled words in your post. Here are some links for your thought and consideration. Moveon.org had nothing to do with any of these links.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/200046.php

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/17/phot...ducted-in-iraq/

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d1_1261080551

I can find some more links if you doubt my veracity any longer.

Edit in: I just noticed "falsefied" is also misspelled. It should be "falsified". That makes the count four.

m gladd that yor noomeracy is as good as yor litaracy.

I was not so much suggesting your friend's story was false, as taking the opportunity to point out that not all stories we get from the media AND government officials are true....including the stories we get about how bad the terrorists are.

Maybe, but we did not have a big problem the last time we we went after them full bore.

Sorry I do not know what your talking about

You mean to say the Vietcong?

In which case if you are....Then I would ask you tell it to all the parents of the 58000 dead American soldiers or the families of the 1.1 million dead Vietcong or even the 1,170,000 injured on both sides many of whom spend the rest of their days without limbs.

In the end for what?

I was not so much suggesting your friend's story was false, as taking the opportunity to point out that not all stories we get from the media AND government officials are true....including the stories we get about how bad the terrorists are.

I agree with your point about the media and government officials, but from direct personal knowledge, the terrorists are actually worse than portrayed.  I have always been amazed at how few of the accounts of true atrocities ever made it to the press, I mean, really, really horrible things.

What is this OCD thing about spelling and grammar?

Don't worry. He thinks I'm pompous because he has had to get a dictionary to find the meaning (and spelling) of some of the words I use.

He now revels in pointing out my spelling mistakes.

MY little game is some of those mistakes have been deliberate.

Edit for ChuckD: Read, "He now finds joy in pointing out......"

I was not so much suggesting your friend's story was false, as taking the opportunity to point out that not all stories we get from the media AND government officials are true....including the stories we get about how bad the terrorists are.

I agree with your point about the media and government officials, but from direct personal knowledge, the terrorists are actually worse than portrayed. I have always been amazed at how few of the accounts of true atrocities ever made it to the press, I mean, really, really horrible things.

Wow, that's an eye-opening revelation. (Absolutely no sarcasm here). I am very suprised at that....but you would know.

Why is it so? We know the officials use propaganda, so I would have thought that every atrocity would be detailed.

This is very curious.

Yeah. Suuuure.

Nearly all of my misteaks are deliberate.

Perhaps you could stop implying I am a dope head or an alcoholic, neither of which is true.

Perhaps you could quit acting like one & find a different thread to...Let the air out of as you implied?

Perhaps you could stop reading and replying to my posts. We might both be happier.

Yeah. Suuuure.

Nearly all of my misteaks are deliberate.

I don't know what your problem is, but I don't mind that you have one.

I admit to my mistakes, and I have an open mind whereby if someone says something credible....take Bonobo's last post, I sit up and take notice and am willing to look at another's opinion.

Which is more than can be said for anyone on your side of this discussion....especially you.

Yes, some of my spelling mistakes have been deliberate to see your reaction...call it person-specific trolling.

If you want to call me a bad speller...I admit it. If you want to call me pompous.....I just see it as your admission of having a lesser vocabulary, and I don't hold it against you. If you want to call me a liar, be prepared for a backlash.

Actually, I should correct my broad statement above. Sometimes, some on your side concede points.

I agree with your point about the media and government officials, but from direct personal knowledge, the terrorists are actually worse than portrayed.  I have always been amazed at how few of the accounts of true atrocities ever made it to the press, I mean, really, really horrible things.

I agree & have said the media should show it all.....ALL of it.

But by the same token terrible atrocities occur daily. The US does not occupy those countries.

I also agree 100% with Ron Paul that much of what we see directed against the US is blow back.

We should bring troops home & have a defensive military. There is no point in being in so many places around the world where we are not only un-welcomed but many times as bad as the problem we claim to chase. What gives the US the right to go door to door in any country doing searches? It would never be tolerated here in the US...NEVER

Perhaps you could stop reading and replying to my posts. We might both be happier.

Kind of hard to ignore someone acting like a child in a thread I started.

Take it elsewhere if you have nothing to contribute on topic.

Here is a question pertinent to Afghanistan......

If Russia now decided to supply arms to who ever it is that the US military Industrial Complex is chasing......

What would the implications be?

After all the Russians claimed that they had been invited in by the government and that they were not invading the country. They claimed that their task was to support a legitimate government and that the Mujahideen were no more than terrorists.

Yet the US supplied arms .......

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980 ... The transport of arms to the Afghans started from Cairo on U.S. planes. .... By 1987, the annual supply of arms had reached 65000 tons

Here is a question pertinent to Afghanistan......

If Russia now decided to supply arms to who ever it is that the US military Industrial Complex is chasing......

What would the implications be?

After all the Russians claimed that they had been invited in by the government and that they were not invading the country. They claimed that their task was to support a legitimate government and that the Mujahideen were no more than terrorists.

Yet the US supplied arms .......

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980 ... The transport of arms to the Afghans started from Cairo on U.S. planes. .... By 1987, the annual supply of arms had reached 65000 tons

That question forces one into an interesting perspective.

And highlights the hipocrasy of America.

The most obvious thing that would happen is that Russia would be accused of assisting terrorists...a crime in the US, and I suspect in the UN.

If diplomatic pressure did not change Russia's actions, then America would have no choice but to declare war.

I was not so much suggesting your friend's story was false, as taking the opportunity to point out that not all stories we get from the media AND government officials are true....including the stories we get about how bad the terrorists are.

I agree with your point about the media and government officials, but from direct personal knowledge, the terrorists are actually worse than portrayed. I have always been amazed at how few of the accounts of true atrocities ever made it to the press, I mean, really, really horrible things.

Wow, that's an eye-opening revelation. (Absolutely no sarcasm here). I am very suprised at that....but you would know.

Why is it so? We know the officials use propaganda, so I would have thought that every atrocity would be detailed.

This is very curious.

I have wondered about this and discussed it was well with my colleagues, but we never came up with a  good reason. And I know there have been embedded reporters who have seen the atrocities.  

I did ask one reporter I met at the embassy lunch cafe about it, and he didn't really give me an answer other than a vague statement along the lines of the public getting inured to this kind of thing.

I personally wonder if it might be that we were courting the Sunni while I was there, and we didn't want to make them sound too bad, but then, why weren't the atrocities by the Shiia being more reported? Unless we were trying to shore up the Shiia-led government?  Then what about the foreign Al Qeda atrocities (which ended up being a major reason most of the Sunnis stopped fighting and joined the coalition forces)? Not reporting too many Kurdish atrocities makes sense in a political arena, though, although while I am sure there were some, I am not personally aware of many at all.

I agree with your point about the media and government officials, but from direct personal knowledge, the terrorists are actually worse than portrayed.  I have always been amazed at how few of the accounts of true atrocities ever made it to the press, I mean, really, really horrible things.

I agree & have said the media should show it all.....ALL of it.

But by the same token terrible atrocities occur daily. The US does not occupy those countries.

I also agree 100% with Ron Paul that much of what we see directed against the US is blow back.

We should bring troops home & have a defensive military. There is no point in being in so many places around the world where we are not only un-welcomed but many times as bad as the problem we claim to chase. What gives the US the right to go door to door in any country doing searches? It would never be tolerated here in the US...NEVER

I strongly disagree with the fortress mentality, but I respect your opinion on that, and I understand the sentiment.

While I would never have gone into Iraq, if it were up to me, I would have gone into Bosnia (which we did) and Rwanda (which we did not).  Having the power does obligate us to protect those without the power, in my opinion.

To try to get a bit of balance, I almost daily watch Al Jazeera News.

Beside seemingly to be a balanced news station (compared with the likes of Fox), it does give aspects of news that Western media do not, or only touch on.

I saw nothing on Al Jazeera about the Abhu Graib scandal that was not also shown on Western media, and no commentaries that were any different from liberal Western commentaries. It does seem like a balanced broadcaster.

Take the Israeli invasion of Gaza a year ago. Al Jazeera was the ONLY international news company that had reporters inside Gaza for the duration of the conflict. Al Jazeera watchers saw a whole lot more footage than any other watchers of other stations....but that footage was actual footage, not commentary.

I think if we really want balance, Al Jazeera is a good start....but it would be nice to get reports that have been prepared and translated from other Middle East news services.

[

......., if it were up to me, I would have gone into Bosnia (which we did) and Rwanda (which we did not). Having the power does obligate us to protect those without the power, in my opinion.

Yeah, Rwanda: Shame shame shame on all of the West.

As for having the power....yes indeed, there is an obligation.

What say you on Palestine? They have no power and are being destroyed slowly and subtley (sometimes not so slowly or not so subtley).

I strongly disagree with the fortress mentality, but I respect your opinion on that, and I understand the sentiment.

While I would never have gone into Iraq, if it were up to me, I would have gone into Bosnia (which we did) and Rwanda (which we did not).  Having the power does obligate us to protect those without the power, in my opinion.

Thanks I appreciate your answer. I also do not want to give the fortress mentality impression but, at this time in our history I do not see the benefit of occupations nor the ability to afford it while home burns.

I agree 100% that if ever there was a case for helping...... Rwanda would have been one.

To try to get a bit of balance, I almost daily watch Al Jazeera News.

Beside seemingly to be a balanced news station (compared with the likes of Fox), it does give aspects of news that Western media do not, or only touch on.

I saw nothing on Al Jazeera about the Abhu Graib scandal that was not also shown on Western media, and no commentaries that were any different from liberal Western commentaries. It does seem like a balanced broadcaster.

Take the Israeli invasion of Gaza a year ago. Al Jazeera was the ONLY international news company that had reporters inside Gaza for the duration of the conflict. Al Jazeera watchers saw a whole lot more footage than any other watchers of other stations....but that footage was actual footage, not commentary.

I think if we really want balance, Al Jazeera is a good start....but it would be nice to get reports that have been prepared and translated from other Middle East news services.

 I also watch Al Jazeera, and I do think it is fairly balanced, on the whole.

I have also seen quite a few translations of other Middle-East news services, and, well, to put it bluntly, they tend not to be as balanced, depending on the country of origin or perhaps the commercial interests of the service.

Maybe, but we did not have a big problem the last time we we went after them full bore.

Sorry I do not know what your talking about

You mean to say the Vietcong?

In which case if you are....Then I would ask you tell it to all the parents of the 58000 dead American soldiers or the families of the 1.1 million dead Vietcong or even the 1,170,000 injured on both sides many of whom spend the rest of their days without limbs.

In the end for what?

Interesting. All those years of all out war and bombing in Vietnam resulted in about the same number of deaths the Left says have been killed in Iraq by the USA during 6 years - most of that time spent patrolling the streets and dodging IEDs.

[

......., if it were up to me, I would have gone into Bosnia (which we did) and Rwanda (which we did not). Having the power does obligate us to protect those without the power, in my opinion.

Yeah, Rwanda: Shame shame shame on all of the West.

As for having the power....yes indeed, there is an obligation.

What say you on Palestine? They have no power and are being destroyed slowly and subtley (sometimes not so slowly or not so subtley).

I am not bashing Israel here as they have faced wars with the sole intent on eliminating them from the face of the planet, and they have been under a siege mentality for most of their existence.  Give most nations their pressures, and see how they would react.

And I do not resent the Golan Heights issue.  If Syria hadn't invaded Israel, the Heights would not have been lost, and keeping it protects Jerusalem from further attacks.

But I have also been to the West Bank, I have spoken at great length with Palestinians in Jordan and with a few in Israel, and I understand their plight.  I personally think the US should not be in knee-jerk lockstep with everything Israel and really try to broker a two-state solution which is workable.  The problem is that I don't think we have the power to do so.

What say you on Palestine? They have no power and are being destroyed slowly and subtley (sometimes not so slowly or not so subtley).

Yes, it was a brilliant move by Israel to destroy the Palestinians by returning Gaza to them!

You won't see this because I'm on your ignore list but others will - it's about spelling. My Thaivisa has a spellchecker in it. I'm I the only one with it? It seems to be using American spelling so that might be why some of you turn it off?

[

......., if it were up to me, I would have gone into Bosnia (which we did) and Rwanda (which we did not). Having the power does obligate us to protect those without the power, in my opinion.

Yeah, Rwanda: Shame shame shame on all of the West.

As for having the power....yes indeed, there is an obligation.

What say you on Palestine? They have no power and are being destroyed slowly and subtley (sometimes not so slowly or not so subtley).

I am not bashing Israel here as they have faced wars with the sole intent on eliminating them from the face of the planet, and they have been under a siege mentality for most of their existence. Give most nations their pressures, and see how they would react.

And I do not resent the Golan Heights issue. If Syria hadn't invaded Israel, the Heights would not have been lost, and keeping it protects Jerusalem from further attacks.

But I have also been to the West Bank, I have spoken at great length with Palestinians in Jordan and with a few in Israel, and I understand their plight. I personally think the US should not be in knee-jerk lockstep with everything Israel and really try to broker a two-state solution which is workable. The problem is that I don't think we have the power to do so.

That's a pleasantly moderate approach.

I disagree with you, though; America DOES have the power. I think it is biased and shirks it's responsibility in this regard.

edit...out of respect for this thread....perhaps this current discussion should go to the "1000 Palestinians thread"?

So many threads intertwined!!!

That's a pleasantly moderate approach.

I disagree with you, though; America DOES have the power. I think it is biased and shirks it's responsibility in this regard.

Biased, yes.  But I don't think we really have the power that most people assume.  If we really started to pressure Israel, I think they would shut us out.  The Israelis have shown themselves willing to take action against the US when they feel  it serves their purposes (e.g., the USS Liberty attack), so I have no doubt the US would be put on ignore should they feel we are working against their best interests.

Interesting. All those years of all out war and bombing in Vietnam resulted in about the same number of deaths the Left says have been killed in Iraq by the USA during 6 years - most of that time spent patrolling the streets and dodging IEDs.

As for VN Depends on which source you use..... & wiki does list Iraq as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

And Afghanistan as....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil...2%80%93present)

Also they have a accidntal caused by coalition forces section

So I would say that is not a left? view.

Here is their VN page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

Then again wiki is not what I would call reliable as it is editable by anyone I believe

So now that brings us to your official number & why it is acceptable?

That's a pleasantly moderate approach.

I disagree with you, though; America DOES have the power. I think it is biased and shirks it's responsibility in this regard.

Biased, yes. But I don't think we really have the power that most people assume. If we really started to pressure Israel, I think they would shut us out. The Israelis have shown themselves willing to take action against the US when they feel it serves their purposes (e.g., the USS Liberty attack), so I have no doubt the US would be put on ignore should they feel we are working against their best interests.

I moved this to the Palestinain thread.....shall we go over there?

I moved this to the Palestinian thread.....shall we go over there?

Very considerate of you but I will also say I have no problem with it.

It is all intertwined in many ways too.

International members of my pacifist team were kidnapped and held hostage by a fanatical Islamist group in Iraq, 11/26/2005 to 3/23/2006. Tom Fox, an American Quaker, was killed. They were thankfully rescued by a multinational force led by British SAS. The survivors have forgiven them. We had unarmed peacemakers in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq before, during and long after the invasion.

The British SAS and Marine Corps Recon. Peace by superior firepower.

International members of my pacifist team were kidnapped and held hostage by a fanatical Islamist group in Iraq, 11/26/2005 to 3/23/2006. Tom Fox, an American Quaker, was killed. They were thankfully rescued by a multinational force led by British SAS. The survivors have forgiven them. We had unarmed peacemakers in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq before, during and long after the invasion.

Ahhh...one was a student studying in NZ? A guy with dark hair glasses?