May 31, 2005
Al Qaeda Handbook: "Claim the Americans are torturing you."
Well, this certainly explains a lot. Chad Evans is all over this one and you definitely need to read his take, but I just have to put this up. Washington Times:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
An al Qaeda handbook preaches to operatives to level charges of torture once captured, a training regime that administration officials say explains some of the charges of abuse at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp....Very interesting indeed. This goes along way in explaining a lot of allegations. Especially from the likes of al Qaeda linked terror suspect Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who you will recall accused the US of torturing him.In a raid on an al Qaeda cell in Manchester, British authorities seized al Qaeda's most extensive manual for how to wage war.
A directive lists one mission as "spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy."If captured, the manual states, "At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison."
The handbook instructs commanders to make sure operatives, or "brothers," understand what to say if captured.
"Prior to executing an operation, the commander should instruct his soldiers on what to say if they are captured," the document says. "He should explain that more than once in order to ensure that they have assimilated it. They should, in turn, explain it back to the commander."
Posted by: Rusty at
04:55 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This is exactly what Muhammed taught his followers to do and what is wwritten in the Koran...that it is okay to tell lies to "infidels" , to spread propaganda and mishief among the unbelievers...its what ALL Muslims do when confronted by the truth of what they actually are like...they cry and bitch that they{Muslims} are being picked on and tortured and such lies as they can think of...the culture of Islam is to lie to infidels and that its okay to do such...to make promises and treaties and to break them as soon as possible when the situation favors the Muslims....thats why they CANNOT be trusted to keep their promises...they cant do it as it is okay to make false promises to non-Muslims...go to islamundressed and you can read all about the Muslim meaning of "honor" and "promises of peace"....i hope everyone will go there and find what the truth is and spread it to all they know who come in contact with Muslims...untill they can keep their words of peace and tolerance, why should they be trusted on blind faith????...i for one do not trust any person who follows the cult of Islam....Knowledge is Power
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 31, 2005 05:08 PM (b7uP2)
2
The only knowledge one needs of Muslims is that they are pathalogical liars, they hate everyone, they cannot be trusted, and they are better left dead than alive.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 31, 2005 05:16 PM (0yYS2)
3
They also have no morals and would never comply with the Geneva convention so why should anyone care if they are tortured.
Islam is a religion of hate and bigotry. The Nazis were angels compared to the Islamic world.
Posted by: Cliff at May 31, 2005 05:58 PM (QKZX5)
4
in some cases i believe in a saying my wife taught me....kill em with kindness....unfortunately this usually only works on inlaws and friends...not with terrorists...in their case in believe in fighting fire with fire....anyone remember Sean Connerys line in The Untouchables....If they pull out a knife, you pull out a gun...If he sends one of youre guys to the hospital, you send one of his guys to the morgue.Thats the Chicago way!!!...thats what the USA should be doing with these terrorists and those countries that support them...its brutsal but its what needs to be done, the more you play by the rules, the more you cause them to be even more brutal....Muslims do not react in the same way other religions or cultures do....they see you as weak if you talk nice to them and they see you as a victim in waiting....Hit them hard and with all you got and you will get their attention fast and they will see you mean it...its time to stop playing nice
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 31, 2005 06:27 PM (b7uP2)
5
Shorter manual: fool the useful idiots-- Liberals-- into siding with you.
Posted by: Carlos at May 31, 2005 06:31 PM (8e/V4)
6
You're all a bunch of hypocrites. Oh, I'm sure anyone from any religion aside from Muslims don't lie like crazy. Ha! You're all delusional fools.
Such blanket statements about millions of people are exactly the behavior of....you got it Cliff: NAZIS!
"The only knowledge one needs of Muslims is that they are pathological liars, they hate everyone, they cannot be trusted, and they are better left dead than alive."
--->They say the same about you, Minimus Phallus.
"Shorter manual: fool the useful idiots-- Liberals-- into siding with you."
--->The same would apply to Rove's book of 'flyover voting strategy'...only substitute liberal with average red state idiot.
You guys are so fucking dumb it's constant entertainment for me to check in here and read your pathetic posts.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 31, 2005 07:25 PM (OXRZJ)
7
osamabeenthere (aka Steven Babler) = Useful Idiot.
The Al Qaida manual works.
Posted by: Carlos at May 31, 2005 07:40 PM (8e/V4)
8
Osama, I personally would prefer that you address the issue rather than the comments. Oh, that's right, you only know how to call names. So what DO you think about the "manuals"? Is it okay by you? You've conveniently ignored it, so I take it that the fact that such training manuals have been found has no bearing at all on current situations and allegations of torture according to you? The only reason I ask this is that you seem to spend a lot of time berating others for their opinions without ever really claiming an opinion of your own unless it's in opposition to someone else. Except of course when you, greg, actus, et al are chumming it up in the comment section.
Posted by: Oyster at May 31, 2005 07:54 PM (YudAC)
9
Oyster, since you are one of few I respect in here...I'll chill and stick to the issue: I don't doubt that a training manual says such things. But then, that would make it awful convenient to dismiss legitimate abuse cases, don't you think? I think that any group of people that wants something bad enough will lie to get it...our government, corporations, christians, muslims, jews, space aliens...you name it. Maybe even your mom! The shit is really hitting the fan about US soldiers abusing 'detainees' and the heat isn't coming from the muslims.
Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at May 31, 2005 08:17 PM (OXRZJ)
10
What is clear is that Osamabinmoron here believes abuse cases that have essentially no credible evidence at all.
That's the definition of being on the other side.
Posted by: SPQR at May 31, 2005 09:10 PM (xauGB)
11
osama, you're a fucking retard and you will die when the shit goes down. You are a traitor to civilization, and your type won't last long, because either a true patriot will gut you like a fish, or a terrorist will use you like his bitch and cut your head off when he's done with you. Idiot.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 31, 2005 10:11 PM (0yYS2)
12
In the interst of research, I have decided to find out who the Washington Times really is. Guess what everyone, News World Communications, owner of the Wasington Times is a newspaper publishing company owned by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.
In other words folks, Rusty thinks the Moonies are a reliable source for news.
Hardy Har Har
Posted by: deccles at May 31, 2005 10:51 PM (TLWNQ)
13
deccles,
Welcome to the bronze age. Old freakin' news. However, for your information, the moonies don't have editorial control.
Posted by: SPQR at May 31, 2005 11:17 PM (xauGB)
14
The owner has no editorial say? That's like saying Rupert Murdock has no say in how his publications are handled. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that. Welcome to the Jim Jones news agency.
Posted by: deccles at June 01, 2005 12:03 AM (TLWNQ)
15
"At the beginning of the trial"
Obviously doesn't apply, as terrorists don't get trials.
Posted by: actus at June 01, 2005 12:03 AM (Ygl+x)
16
deccles,
If you're objection to the Washington Times is that they are a conservative-leaning newspaper, then that's fine. But when you Libs mechanically trot out the "moonie" thing (as per standard formula) it's the surest sign you have no argument on the merits. It's so amazing how you all appear to be reading off the same memo, like robots. I'll bet a million dollars that the next time you see "Washington Times" you'll again mechanically trot out the moonie thing, as per your programming.
I have no reason to believe the Washington Times is less trustworthy than CBS or Newsweek, as the Wash Times has yet to manufacture memos out of whole cloth or print phony stories that they later had to retract.
Posted by: Carlos at June 01, 2005 01:52 AM (8e/V4)
17
Frankly, I have my suspicions about all print media and most other forms. The trick is to corroborate stories for ourselves. No one else is going to do it.
Actus: If you'll read the news, detainees at Guantanamo ARE getting lawyers. They've not been "denied" lawyers, just no one seemed to care about them. There are some whose families got them lawyers right away and they were not denied that representation. Now lawyers are starting to show up to do pro-bono work. And guess what? Even the lawyers won't take some of the cases.
Osama: You said, "...that would make it awful convenient to dismiss legitimate abuse cases, don't you think?" Yes, that's true, but it works both ways. It also puts a crimp in their ability to use our own system against us by suing for abuse that may not have occurred. We had problems at Abu Graib and they will use it as a precedent for further cases. And there are far too many people out there who will take the word of a detainee, with no knowledge of their guilt or innocence, no knowledge of what crimes they are being suspected of and no knowledge of well, just about anything.
So yes, this is good for us. It levels the playing field a bit when it come to who said what. If we're supposed to assume innocence until proof of guilt, then that should work for us as well when they start souting allegations of abuse. This puts the whammy on all the people who assume these creeps are unable to lie.
Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2005 06:55 AM (YudAC)
18
I was doing great until I started misspelling words in the last paragraph. I think you'll understand it fine though. PIMF, I know.
Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2005 07:35 AM (YudAC)
19
Real or imagined, the U.S. has got to be on its toes, documenting EVERYTHING, so that if false claims are ever leveled against our soldiers, we will have the proof to prove otherwise in court.
War, in these days of ever-increasing litigation, has come to this, I guess.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 01, 2005 07:55 AM (x+5JB)
20
I agree, YBP & Oyster. But tell me this, and Carlos might know more about this: If they are all coming at us suing about abuse, and if they are lying and have no proof...then what can they do? It can't be that much of a problem. I also doubt that anyone thinks these detainees are all honest. People in general take advantage of any system.
"osama, you're a fucking retard and you will die when the shit goes down. You are a traitor to civilization, and your type won't last long, because either a true patriot will gut you like a fish, or a terrorist will use you like his bitch and cut your head off when he's done with you. Idiot."
Minimus Phallus, you waste your time trying to spar with me. I am a guiding light to civilization compared to a dumb-ass fear monger like yourself. My mere words make you feel so insecure that you just can't handle it, huh? Too bad, because I have a voice and like every true American patriot and have a right to use it. By the way, the only shit going down is you...
Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 01, 2005 09:02 AM (OXRZJ)
21
"If they are all coming at us suing about abuse, and if they are lying and have no proof...then what can they do?"
That's not completely my point. This is also a PR war. Otherwise, we wouldn't be discussing it.
Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2005 09:10 AM (fl6E1)
22
Sorry, I wasn't finished. It's not so much the fact that anyone assumes they're all innocent, it's more the fact that some don't care. They simply want us to lose this every which way and if lying does the trick, then they're okay with it. All I'm saying is that it's good that the contents of these handbooks were exposed to everyone so it's not so easy for them to use the allegations to further their ideas that we are the eeeevil ones in this. Many are irresponsible in using the WWW to vilify the American troops. They get on line and start their catterwauling and now it's just a little harder to do that.
It's much like the Kevin Sites issue being discussed in another thread. The media doesn't tell the whole truth and people get all jacked-up. They do the same thing when reporting on the many suicide attacks and car bombings. In one case the media reported on several attacks and skirmishes in a three day period saying "49 dead in attacks!", and neglected to mention that 28 of those were terrorists. It's a PR war and it shouldn't be. That's why we have our panties in a wad. I prefer to wear mine on my head, but that's just me ;-)
Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2005 09:30 AM (fl6E1)
23
I see your point... It's just in my eyes, we should be less concerned about what specific detainees are claiming and have a better reaction to Amnesty Internal than finding their recent report "Insulting"-Cheney and "Absurd"-Bush. I mean, really...if PR is the issue, our administration better come up with something better than that because nobody is believing them. Amnesty Internal's response to Bush's "absurd" response yesterday spanked Bush big-time and it's a disgrace to our nation.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 01, 2005 09:33 AM (OXRZJ)
24
I see what you're saying and I completely agree. There is a responsibility the media doesn't really uphold. I want my news whole and real, without distortion. I need to be able to trust that what I'm reading or seeing or hearing is true. When profit and ratings take importance over truth and accuracy we are all screwed. The media controls pretty much everyone's views on everything because they have no other way to form a thought on a subject without personally experiencing it by actually being there. That's why I'm so freaked out that our media isn't really owned by tons of small networks...they are all lorded over by a few very powerful corporations which will always have their best interests first.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 01, 2005 09:46 AM (OXRZJ)
25
Steven,
this is a war, not a legal battle. Wars are waged on the ground with boots and bullets, and in the press. If some terrorist sues our government, he will lose, but the damage is already done. When that bitch at Amnesty International called Guantanamo a Soviet gulag, she would lose in any debate or court of law, but her foolish words alone have already done their damage. Same with bogus lawsuits.
Unfortunately, we can't stop them from suing-- especially when they have useful-idiot Leftist lawyers taking their case. The least we can do, however, is to expose their tactics and minimize the damage they wreak in the court of public opinion. That's why Rusty posts stuff about "AQ handbooks", something you'll NEVER see on a Liberal website because Libs are just as interested in damaging our country's image as the terrorists are.
Posted by: Carlos at June 01, 2005 09:59 AM (8e/V4)
26
Is it my imagination or have the discussions here taken on a more sane approach since Greg went and got himself banned?
Osama, I agree that those in our administration are not exactly "good communicators". Amnesty International wants exactly what their name implies - Amnesty. Sometimes it's a good thing and sometimes it's not. They simply don't discern the difference. The International Red Cross, too, will not be entirely happy until all detainees are served doilies under their beverages. Everyone has an agenda.
Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2005 10:14 AM (fl6E1)
27
I resent the fact that this looks like the U.S.'s war solely. Can we stop all aid to the countries who have bagged out on us? Or will they sue us, too?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 01, 2005 10:39 AM (x+5JB)
28
Carlos...I think it's great that Rusty posts stuff that you'd never see elsewhere...as long as it's accurate. I can't vouch for lib blogs since I don't visit them. So what do you think the solution is to this Amnesty report? Many people trust their word...so damage is done, but how is it repaired?
Posted by: osamabincite at June 01, 2005 11:37 AM (OXRZJ)
29
>>>"Many people trust their word...so damage is done, but how is it repaired?"
When the enemy sees that he is making inroads in the PR war, it emboldens them. That's why I think the Left is causing irreparable damage. It's not only causing more deaths by inciting more anti-American hatred, but it's also prolonging this war. The "pro peace" Left has a nack for unintentially prolonging wars and causing more deaths.
Posted by: Carlos at June 01, 2005 11:58 AM (8e/V4)
30
Carlos, I'm sure terrorists will use anyone or anything to further their cause. The impression I get from most liberals is not that they side with terrorist causes or sympathies, but they don't think we're fighting a justified cause. All this crap makes you wonder if there will ever be a time when humans don't have wars in the future. Do you think humans evolve to the point where wars are a thing of the past?
Posted by: osamabincite at June 01, 2005 12:10 PM (OXRZJ)
31
Well, osamabincite, if that is their motivation, why do they employ methods that directly aid the terrorists?
Portions of the Left are actively allying with the terrorists, how much of liberals' actions come from a sympathy with the Left?
Posted by: SPQR at June 01, 2005 03:51 PM (xauGB)
32
SPQR...do you have some documentation of this? I assume you aren't just referring to the media reporting things that might result in soldiers being killed. I've never heard of any libs actually aiding terrorists directly. If they are, I wouldn't call them 'left' I'd call them a bunch of fuckers who should be in prison. I've never met a lib who sympathizes with the terrorists, unless you think all of Iraq are terrorists. (sadly, some people do)
Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 01, 2005 06:39 PM (OXRZJ)
33
Such blanket statements about millions of people are exactly the behavior of....you got it Cliff: NAZIS!
Not talking about the millions of people, more about the doctrine they accept and follow, some through fear from those who use it's evil laws as a form of oppression and control...just like the Nazis. How many of these people can speak out compared to those in the Western world?...not many because their barbaric religion and society stops them. We shouldn't be trying to placate such people or kiss the ass of the muslim religion as it is so wrong. It is a step back in time for those who live in a civilised world.
Posted by: Cliff at June 01, 2005 06:51 PM (QKZX5)
34
Well, Cliff...I agree with you to a point, but I don't blame just one religion. I blame any of them that do what you just said. There aren't many that haven't abused their power on a massive level.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 01, 2005 07:08 PM (OXRZJ)
41kb generated in CPU 0.0196, elapsed 0.1427 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.133 seconds, 283 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.133 seconds, 283 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
