Troops find hostage 'slaughterhouses' in Falluja
 

What should be done with places like this. Should they be left as memorials to what happened, or should they be completely destroyed?

I think that the memories, if not the buildings should be preserved. I would like to see some of the billions that are being poured into this war channeled into a museum that would educate the population about what has happened.

This could be given as a grant to the Governing Council in Iraq and be used not only as a public works project, but also giving Iraqis control over what shown in the museum. This will be a way for them to reclaim and give legitimacy to the concept of an Iraqi-run government as opposed to the American puppet regime that many believe are, and will continue to be, in power.

It's the job of the Iraqi people to decide stuff like that. I suspect they'll want to destroy them, in the same way they want to destroy Abu Ghraib.

Of course no one lost their head in Abu Ghraib, but nice try at making a false moral equivalent.

A museum to mark a place where people were beheaded? Why??

I don't think that he was trying to make a "moral equivalent" between Abu Ghraib and the beheadings, so much as he was trying to point out that the Iraqi people may want to just destroy these reminders, and try to move ahead of all of it.

Perhaps but with all the horrors in Iraq, I find it telling that he picked out the one where no one was murdred.

As opposed to...what?
Unless you count colateral damage as murder, which I am sure you do not, then so far as I know, our side has not commited murder. Unless you know something that I don't?

No I think you missunderstand.

There are mass graves, execution rooms, etc, all from Saddam's reign. Yet by picking Abu Ghraib as the same type of place as a hostage execution room where DVD's of their deaths were spread across the world, it was a direct attempt to make a moral equivalent. It wasn't accidental.

I don't think they really give a shit about what happens to that kind of stuff at the moment.

ustwo...perhaps your memory could be refreshed. before US MPs committed acts of brutality there, Saddam had already given the place a bad name....

I have to say that I also don't necessarily see the equivalent being drawn.

Abu Graib was already a very bad place irrespective of what the US did or did not do there.

Actually, several Iraqis were killed while detained by the Americans in Abu Ghraib, but their deaths were apparently because some kind of riot broke out between the inmates, and Americans had to use "lethal force" by shooting them dead.......yeah sure. Besides, I'm sure death would have been far better in some cases than the brutal manner in which the inmates were tortured.

As far as Americans murdering innocent people, I know most of you don't want to believe, but it happens quite often. Forcing people in the Tigris River so they would drown, massacring weddings, etc. The link below provides numerous other links to American murders and injustices. That is for a whole other thread though.

http://www.usawatch.org/archives/cat_iraq.html

Al Jazeera, must be true then, thanks.

I’ll take Al Jazeeras word over American media any day.

And you have another link there as well you probably decided to ignore.

That's pretty obvious. Can you remind me why U.S. ground forces found satellite communications equipment, foreign passports, AK-47 rifles, machine guns, and cash at a wedding held at 3 am? A wedding 10 miles from the Syrian border and 80 miles from the nearest civilization?"

In compiling your links, did you happen to notice anything that the US did right? Or anything Saddam might have done that wasn't good?

Troll bait. Don't feed this guy kiddies.

I'll point out that Tarl Cabot did not bring up "massacring weddings".

I also don't see a troll, but I see an avoidance of answering the question.

No one was murdered huh? Allow me to refresh your memory:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...alGraner55.jpg

If you are implying that I avoided the question, here is Tarl Cabot's answer.

I love how you added a few things in there Tarl Cabot. I notice you threw in AK-47's, machine guns and satellite communications equipments. The article does not say anything about those three things. What it does say though is that they found cash, foreign passports, weapons, and sophisticated communications equipment. Is it so strange for a wedding to have cash or foreign passports? Can relatives not visit from foreign areas to visit a loved ones wedding? And also, a cell phone could be considered a sophisticated communication device for Gods sake. And weapons? Yeah, to shoot in the air for celebration, which is why the US forces returned fire killing 15 children and 10 women, you know, the 15 child terrorists? Believe it or not, wedding celebrations go well into the morning as well, and could it be a possibility that maybe they held it a remote location to avoid complications with the war?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

You have got to be moronic to fire in the air in a warzone, especially when a helicopter or airplane (probably a helicopter) is in the vicinity, and more importantly in your line of fire.

Also, Rdr4evr, you're taking what your article says for granted, while a simple Google Search while show that "sattelite communications equipment" was found. Also, the most popular gun in Iraq right now HAS to be the AK, and what else do you believe they would be firing?