format_quote Originally Posted by
Jayda
hola cognescenti
you are lying. she copied the conclusions of the report almost verbatim. i've even color coded this for you, NO question was changed, none of the results were changed:
Perhaps my Spanish is rusty, but doesn't "hola" imply some degree of warmth or affection? If so, why would you use that salutation then accuse me of
lying in the next phrase?
From the Pentagon study there is this question:
"All noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect"
Caroline claimed "47% of all soldiers and only 38% marines think
innocent civilians deserve dignity and respect".
Does one of us having a reading disorder? There is clearly a substituion of "innocent civilians" for "noncombatants". I am sorry but when use an absolute phrase like "NO question was changed" I interpret that as "no question was changed". It is just my math and science training, when I hear an absolute I naturally assume it means in all cases. To me, "no" means "no". You may think the substitution trivial. I don't. To me it is neither trivial nor accidental. It is designed to inflame and misinform (which is, of course, the whole purpose of this thread) .
Note also the clever context change. The original question asks about "
all noncombatants". It is that pesky business about the use of absolutes in the language. To me that indicates the question applies to
every noncombatant...no matter how odious or how much the level of suspicion. That is, of course, the goal to which to aspire, and must be the goal of training, but, honestly, if you were an infantryman who had seen combatants blend back in to the population right after your friend's Humvee was blown up...how would
you answer tha question. Caroline's phrase is clearly spun to make the soldiers and Marines look bad.
Take this phrase for eg., "Nearly half of all soldiers and over 1/3 of the Marines agreed that all noncombatants deserve diginity and respect even if they have a look of venom in their eyes, spit as you pass by and have suspcious bulge around their midsection." Technically, that would still be true as the question was about all noncombatants. Woudl you accept that as an accurate portrayal?
BTW...I think you have something to learn about he concept of context too. You can't simply leave of a modifying phrase like "in order to save the life of a Marine or soldier" and pretend you have captured the essence of a quote. that is the oldest trick in the book.
Lastly, as has been stated by others, this isn't an expose on torture by US servicemen as has been implied in this thread. The question was clearly directed toward
policy. Nobodoy is going to change the policy...it's already in the Army Field Manual. This was a tool to assess the state of mind of the soldiers and Marines.
I will now go back to my hole to await further insults and caterwalling to the mods about the mean guy.