3 ms·

> How many innocent lives were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? further to what I wrote above: On April 20, 2004 insurgents fired forty (40) mortar rounds i

> How many innocent lives were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? further to what I wrote above: On April 20, 2004 insurgents fired forty (40) mortar rounds into the prison. Twenty-two detainees were killed and 92 wounded. Commentators thought the attack was either as an attempt to incite a riot or retribution for detainees' cooperating with the United States.[6] reasonable to surmise shelling was to stop or prevent information being given up under torture.

smsm42 13y ago
So wait, now US soldiers must take the blame for one set of terrorists killing other terrorists to prevent the latter from talking? Maybe also the police is to blame when Mafia is killing witnesses? Abu Ghraib abuses are bad, but it looks like you're losing perspective here and try to paint every wrong being done as US fault, no matter who did it or why.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  Blame isn't as black and white as you are making out. If the police have a duty of care to witnesses, and the Mafia kill them, then the police should take some blame. Not as much as the mafia. Think of a witness protection program, if they fail at their task then they are partially to blame. So no, I am not trying to paint it all as being US' fault, you can tell that because I wrote "insurgents fired".
  - smsm42 13y ago
    You wrote "insurgents fired" but also you wrote that "innocent lives" (supposedly talking about imprisoned terrorists) are at risk because of what happened in Abu Ghraib and brought other terrorists firing as an example. SO you laid the blame not on terrorists that fired but on US forces that captured the terrorists.
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      in my initial comment, which applies as much to the staff as the people you assume are terrorists: > How many innocent lives were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? Depends on how you define innocent

smsm42 13y ago

So wait, now US soldiers must take the blame for one set of terrorists killing other terrorists to prevent the latter from talking? Maybe also the police is to blame when Mafia is killing witnesses? Abu Ghraib abuses are bad, but it looks like you're losing perspective here and try to paint every wrong being done as US fault, no matter who did it or why.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
Blame isn't as black and white as you are making out. If the police have a duty of care to witnesses, and the Mafia kill them, then the police should take some blame. Not as much as the mafia. Think of a witness protection program, if they fail at their task then they are partially to blame. So no, I am not trying to paint it all as being US' fault, you can tell that because I wrote "insurgents fired".
- smsm42 13y ago
  You wrote "insurgents fired" but also you wrote that "innocent lives" (supposedly talking about imprisoned terrorists) are at risk because of what happened in Abu Ghraib and brought other terrorists firing as an example. SO you laid the blame not on terrorists that fired but on US forces that captured the terrorists.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    in my initial comment, which applies as much to the staff as the people you assume are terrorists: > How many innocent lives were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? Depends on how you define innocent