US' new standards

[Undertoad]

"American soldiers are given dog collars and leashes to torture prisoners." here

(with ironic tone) "...we all know those enlisted men brought those dog collars and leashes with them to Iraq." here

(with ironic tone) "Clearly those enlisted men brought dog collars and leashes to Iraq." here

(with ironic tone) "After all, those lowly enlisted men did not bring dog collars and leashes with them to Iraq." here

"...her troops did not come to Iraq carrying dog collars and leashes." here

So I'm thinking, why is ol' tw so concerned with dog collars and leashes? The Army stocks dogs, so clearly they're going to stock dog collars and leashes. This is not the puzzling final straw evidence. This is not Perry Mason's sudden twist.

Call him on it, and suddenly the subject changes. You ever see him do this, xoB?

Well why would an overcrowded prison use dogs? I can't think of a reason, can you? It must be a fuckin' conspiracy from the fuckin' top!

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I like Duck_Duck and have said so from the beginning. So what's your point?

Whether you like Duck_Duck is obviously and clearly irrelevant. I need not repeat a point you clearly understood and intentionally deny. You have just posted something irrelevant so as to avoid a bluntly posted reality. Your latest post repeats a deception and deceit that are, for you, situation normal.

You know exactly what my point is. Trying to avoid that reality by deceptive replies is so characterisitc of those driven by a political agenda. How curious. You have just replied as Rumsfeld did everytime he was accused providing too few troops. He also put a political agenda ahead of reality. Deceptive replies don't change reality. You know exact what my point is.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So I'm thinking, why is ol' tw so concerned with dog collars and leashes? The Army stocks dogs, so clearly they're going to stock dog collars and leashes.

The Army also stocks nuclear weapons. Does that mean reservists in Abu Ghriad also had nuclear weapons? That is your reasoning.

Did you notice where dogs and their handlers eventually came from? In various reports, dog handlers were from other units such as Army Signal Corp, Navy, etc. These dogs and dog collars were not assigned to MPs in Abu Ghriad.

So how did those enlisted men get dogs, dog collars, and leashes? According to official responses, enlisted men must have taken action to obtain dogs, etc. People such as Gen Miller who took over Tier 1A and 1B did not institute that torture, sexual abuse - officially did not Gitmoize the place. Clearly only enlisted men were guilty and the only one's prosecuted. Or maybe implications in Gen Taguba's investigation are accurate? Maybe torture and sexual abuse was advocated at the highest levels and known even to Rumsfeld. After all, these same people (including AG Gonzales) openly advocated torture. But somehow only lowly enlisted men are guilty of initiating torture and sexual abuse?

As for Gen Taguba as a result of a report that implied guilt at highest levels:

A retired four-star Army general later told Taguba that he had been sent to the job in the Pentagon so that he could "be watched." Taguba realized that his career was at a dead end.

He got too close to the truth. Too close to the sun (light of day). His stars melted because he was honest. Same people who intentionally lie about Saddam's WMDs would routinely advocate torture, sexual abuse, extraordinary rendition, murder, and what else? And not one is even investigated for criminal acts?

A fox is in the hen house - and nobody cares. Screw Gen Taguba. He simply tried to be honest and do what any patriot would do. Instead blame some enlisted men. Then no real crimes occurred.

[Undertoad]

Well they should have booked 'em the minute they ordered dogs! There's only one reason why you'd use dogs in an overcrowded prison, and that's for torture!

Because dogs and dog collars and leashes can be used for torture!

I'm not sure exactly how! Every time I've worn a dog collar it was all in fun!

But I'm sure they can, and only the most devious mind can figure out how to use dogs for torture, which is why it's proof it came to the top!

Maybe the dogs apply hot irons to the prisoners! I don't know! These are Army dogs, they're really smart!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well they should have booked 'em the minute they ordered dogs! There's only one reason why you'd use dogs in an overcrowded prison, and that's for torture!

Somewhere in the so many reports about Abu Ghriad, I recall a Navy dog handler withdrew his dog and refused to participate with the abuse in Tier 1A and 1B. I remember wondering why Navy dog handlers might be more responsible than Army ones.

Go Navy. Beat Army ... instead.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Somewhere in the so many reports about Abu Ghriad, I recall a Navy dog handler withdrew his dog and refused to participate with the abuse in Tier 1A and 1B. I remember wondering why Navy dog handlers might be more responsible than Army ones.

Go Navy. Beat Army ... instead.

Navy dogs are not nearly as smart as Army Dogs. But Navy dogs swim better.