Post War

jpatterson · #1 (**permalink**) December 18th, 2005, 02:45 PM

Is it just me, or do people today tend to make a huge deal out of things because they don't understand the historical context?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051218/...n_torture_camp

Later

The_Historian · #2 (**permalink**) December 18th, 2005, 03:23 PM

It's in the Grauniad JP, so I wouldn't take it as gospel. The same paper tried the same BS recently with detention camps for the Mau-Mau in Kenya in the '50s.
It's more likely that people died on hunger strike than they were starved to death. Wonder how many of the guards had been witnesses to the liberation of the concentration camps and felt like dishing it out on the inmate's behalf?!

Martin Bull · #3 (**permalink**) December 19th, 2005, 08:32 AM

Yes, it's Shock ! Horror ! again.

Don't forget that, according to the National Press, I should be dead thanks to the 'TOXIC CLOUD' (

) which The Times and The Evening Standard confidently predicted would bring chaos to London a week ago.

PS : It wasn't, and it didn't......

The_Historian · #4 (**permalink**) December 19th, 2005, 08:43 AM

They also predicted the Kuwait oil fires in 1991 would burn for 15 years. They lasted months. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]
The latest 'protest' in Scotland centres around 71 alleged CIA flights containing torture suspects (!), which supposedly refuelled in Scotland. Even the fact there's no proof-and not likely to be any- hasn't stopped the rent-a-mob bunch from wetting themselves with self-righteous indignation.

Kai-Petri · #5 (**permalink**) December 19th, 2005, 12:09 PM

Indeed.

The SS are the last of the bunch to say they should be treated nicely.

Then again these days ( sorry I´m wondering a bit off the topic here )I am puzzled why on earth does Bush need to sign a pact for not torturing POW´s? Does this mean that the US army did not need to value the lives of POW´s earlier? Or what conclusion do we make of this?