News Flash!! US Soldier kidnapped in Iraq!!

from original source
The soldier, who has not been named, was visiting the relative at a residence when the kidnapping occurred Monday night. He did not have permission for the visit, a military spokesperson said Tuesday.

why was he visiting a relative?

he had no permission for this very reason.

perhaps he wanted to dissapear?

hmmmmm getting close to voting period in the uk wonder if a bit of spin on how terrible the so called anemy is in iraq???????

Originally posted by spacedoubt

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

"Yes but you dont call a child "Captured" by kidnappers."

So then you agree, unless your equating US soldiers to children.

LOL, you are a riot!

You do know that ADULTS can be kidnapped too?
nice try, friend of the dark ages..

If a child soldier (we all know how they LOVE to recruit children to do the killing)
from the insurgent side is abducted, are they kidnapped or captured?

Captured, because they are a soldier, not an innocent. Age doesn't matter, soldiers don't get 'kidnapped' in a war. Kidnap is normally used when an innocent is taken without expecting it e.g. from their home. But if it is a soldier in a warzone they have to expect it, capture has always been the term used in war situations.

The U.S. didn't 'kidnap' Saddam Hussein did they? Well a soldier is no different, he is 'captured' just the same. Saying he was kidnapped is just trying to draw sympathy because it makes people think of an innocent taken from his home.

^ exactly, you recognise their war of words, just as george orwell did. The importance of using the correct word can mean the difference of having a propoganda vicotry over a loss.

For instance the definition of the word "insurgent" means a small group of people fighting against a legitimate government, it has nothing to do with fighting against occupation and is as inappropriate to use in iraq as the word "kidnapped" against a soldier . Calling the resistance by their true name, resistance, just doesn't demonise them enough.

-------

hal9000

I suppose you would scream like a man?

No i happen to be a little girl, so ofcource i will scream like a little girl. Pitty your big brave soldiers have no excuse.

You know, I now understand the mentality of a suicide bomber. If I were married to you and had to listen to your rancid hate, I too would strap on a bomb and blow myself up.

Though your proposal is tempting, especial if it involves your death, unfortunately i'm going to have to reject your proposal. Would you like a cleanex?

RicharGeere

And I too would agree, the word captured is more "sophisticated", since these Iraqis are plain clothed and very sneaky, I think kidnap would be the proper term.

It doesn't matter if the person who conductes the siezure is in civilian clothes or not, it only matters if the person being captured is in civilian clothes or not.

And the resistance has it's own arm bands and insignia (face covering etc) and they carry their arms openly.

Originally posted by helium3

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght

damn, i'm speechless. A board full of Americans and no one gives a damn.

Maybe the kidnappers are the family of that raped and murdered of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl ?.


I feel sorry for the guy dont get me wrong but he had S#$% for brains going to fight in Iraq in the first place.


[edit on 26-10-2006 by helium3]

I don't think the soldier has 543t for brains and went to fight. You see if you join the military in the US and a war breaks out you have to go, if you agree or not. They are not a bunch of cowards that run and hide, in somwe wilderness area.

Originally posted by malganis
Captured, because they are a soldier, not an innocent. Age doesn't matter, soldiers don't get 'kidnapped' in a war. Kidnap is normally used when an innocent is taken without expecting it e.g. from their home. But if it is a soldier in a warzone they have to expect it, capture has always been the term used in war situations.

The U.S. didn't 'kidnap' Saddam Hussein did they? Well a soldier is no different, he is 'captured' just the same. Saying he was kidnapped is just trying to draw sympathy because it makes people think of an innocent taken from his home.

So because there "soldiers" that makes them able to be "captured"? so I can kidnapp anyone who I deem as a "soldier", right?

Well, all arguments no longer matter. They had the soldier's general location cordoned off in Sadr City, and Bush personally gave the order for them to pull the SAR operation.

I gotta wonder if this has anything to do with the Sons of Sadr, or other operations in the area. This is unusual, if not completely unheard of.

Either way, "thank" you very much, Bush.

EDIT: By the way, the soldier is married to an Iraqi girl, he was visiting his wife and her family when the capture took place. You can't blame a man for visiting his loved ones during off-time, even if loved ones are in a danger zone.


[edit on 31-10-2006 by Astygia]

Bush pulled the plug on the SAR>>>>


A man is left to his fate at the hands of savages and they could of done some thing about it.....

Its time to leave. Then as you leave, detonate two nukes in Iraq. destroy the slums of sadre city and all its occupants, and then detonate the green zone. leave nothing behind that these savages could use as infrastructure.


If Syrian sister is any thing to go by, thats all they deserve any way. Should of left Saddam in power really - at least he kept these animals in check.

From what I understand (I was listening to CNN as I typed), the Shiekh or whatever in that area was feeling peeved at having soldiers there, so he asked the local commander to pull his troops, who refused. The Iraqi general in that area was then asked, who ordered the local commander to leave, who refused to do so. Then the order came from Bush personally to the commander to get out.

They had gradually searched most of the city and had only a relatively small area left to search when the order was given. It's pretty likely that the soldier would have been found.

Regarding being time to leave, yes. We should never have gone. But why nuke the place? They're not all bad people. Not even most are bad people.

If Syrian sister is any thing to go by, thats all they deserve any way.

No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about on this line. It's pointless and just rude to attack other members for being on the other side of conflict. Most of us choose sides based on principles and viewpoint; not because one side seems "funner". Destroying the parts of the world that don't agree with us makes us just as barbaric as those we condemn.

I do agree, once again, that we never should have gone in.

[edit on 31-10-2006 by Astygia]

ok - maybe I was harsh towards the peoples in those slums...after all they are beaten into submission by those in the mahdi army.... financed by iran, run by iran...so yes it might be harsh to take them all out... as the bullies will always find a way to rise back up to the top after an event like that and it would not bring freedom to them either..

Hell, pull out, put saddam back in, dust him off, apologise about his sons, tell him what a good job he was doing keeping Iran at bay and the animals quelled, give him a boost with billions in weapons and aid, and let saddams peace settle once again in the region...

No more Iranians running round making IED's for the Iraqis...no more syrians running round making mortars for them...no more saudis financing it... the guy had the right idea.

They can only be ruled by fear and an iron glove wrapped in a steel mitt....

By jolly thats it - Let saddam back in. Job done! (Then lets hear the muslims moan about oppression and terror...oh and refuse every single one of them asylum and sanctuary in europe or the USA...they hate us that much they gotta stay in their country.)

Originally posted by AstygiaBy the way, the soldier is married to an Iraqi girl, he was visiting his wife and her family when the capture took place. You can't blame a man for visiting his loved ones during off-time, even if loved ones are in a danger zone.

I also read that they were married in August, and that is against military regulations.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A U.S. soldier kidnapped last week in Baghdad was married to an Iraqi college student and was with his wife and her family when hooded gunmen dragged him out of a house, bound his hands and threw him in the back seat of a white Mercedes, a woman who identified herself as his mother-in-law said Monday.

U.S. military regulations forbid soldiers from marrying citizens of a country where American forces are engaged in combat. There was no immediate comment from the military about the account of the soldier's abduction.

The mother-in-law told The Associated Press in the family's Karadah home that her daughter, 26-year-old physics student Israa Abdul-Satar, met the soldier a year ago. The couple were married in August and spent their honeymoon in Egypt.

Source

So what? Read that story in its entirety. Our soldier is also of Iraqi descent, and his wife was a college student. This isn't exactly "in bed with the enemy".

Regulations can go straight to hell on this one.

Originally posted by AstygiaThis isn't exactly "in bed with the enemy".

Who said it was?

And the ones who enforce the regulations are the only ones that can say something about it, if the soldier ever returns to his family (lets hope so).

I posted that information because I didn't saw anyone talking about it, thats all.

I recently entered an argument elsewhere about the supposed "immorality" of an American being with an Arabian, though they share the same descent (not that it matters who marries who, IMO). Fate decides who you end up with; no man, woman, or manual controls this.

My smartass-ness was directed more at the situation than yourself.


[edit on 1-11-2006 by Astygia]

This is an Email I recieved and dont have a direct link.

Something to think about:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want
in... And how many want out." Only two defining forces have ever offered
to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.


One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET BOTH OF THEM.

Originally posted by AlBeMet
This is an Email I recieved and dont have a direct link.

So what?

As the lawyers say in the movies:

"That is immaterial and irrelevant"

Did they ever find this guy?

Originally posted by AlBeMet
This is an Email I recieved and dont have a direct link.

Something to think about:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want
in... And how many want out." Only two defining forces have ever offered
to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.


One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET BOTH OF THEM.

Lol and Mr Tony blair also managed to get several dozen UK servicemen killed by pulling MORE money from the MOD.
But then again thats always overlooked.