Diggers detained Afghans in 'dog pens', page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 1-9-2008 @ 05:26 PM by VIKINGANT

Diggers detained Afghans in 'dog pens'

news.ninemsn.com.au

Australian Muslim groups have also expressed outrage that four suspected insurgents were held for 24 hours after being arrested by special forces soldiers in Afghanistan on April 29.

An army inquiry last week rejected claims that the raid on suspected Taliban members, which resulted in allegations of mistreatment, was carried out in response to the fatal shooting two days earlier of Sydney commando Lance Corporal Jason Marks.

Defence officials have confirmed to the Australian newspaper that Afghan prisoners were held in the dog pens in Afghanistan.

"Yes, however this holding area provided the best secure, safe and isolated short-term accommodation until the following day," a Defence spokesman told the newspaper.

However, Islamic decrees warn Muslims against contact with dogs which are regarded as unclean.

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 05:26 PM by VIKINGANT

Is this action right or wrong? Keeping prisoners locked in a dog pen? Although this article does not say I am sure there would have been enough space and they would have been fed. The Afghanis biggest issue is that it was a DOG pen and dogs are ‘unclean’

Sure the Taliban will have a field day with this accusing our diggers of all kinds of nasty treatment, but if they did this themselves it would have been OK.

The way I see it they needed to be held in a secure place, and if that was all the diggers had available why not? And it was only over night for crying out loud.

The prioners could have been chained by the neck and tied to a post out in the open. Would that have been better?

news.ninemsn.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 05:37 PM by Interestinggg

As it states this was the most practical secure safe location at the time in the area.
Taking there religious beliefs into account comes second after safety in a war zone.

reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 05:42 PM by jackinthebox

reply to post by VIKINGANT

While I fully respect the Muslims in their aversion to canines, the first thought that popped into my head was an old article about the health risks the Taliban faced because of their beards. There were all sorts of vermin in their face muffs, and the flesh under them was being eaten away by fungus and bacteria. Of course a beard alone will not do this, but will certainly add to the mess if you are, say, living in a cave.

reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 09:52 PM by WatchNLearn

Oh yes, it is ok for the Taliban to stone to death teenage girls for being raped, and cutting the arms off children for being treated by non-Muslim doctors...and lets not forget that it is ok in the eyes of Muslims to cut a foreign soldiers body into bits and drag it around town just for fun.

GIVE ME A BREAK! These soldiers had to improvise so they put them in a dog pen. It was not permanent - it was only temporary until they could move them.

I am sick to death of these so-called Muslims criticising such actions whilst all the time the moderate Muslims in Australia look the other way when their filthy animalistic friends over seas commit atrocities on innocents that would make the devil blush!

Enough of this political correctness. But yes, you are right, they should never have been put in a dog pen. Dogs are far to good to share their homes with these animals.