ElendilPeredhil
Member
...what difference does it make that they used female captives? Was she raped, bashed, tortured? No. It's not like they are somehow worse because they used the girl as the spokesperson. Female soldiers don't get a free pass just 'cause they've got a womb. And If you are trying to convince me that filming that chick wearing a head scarf, and saying whatever she has to say to make her captors happy, is horrendous abuse and absolutely low and disgusting, then do a little reading on what happens to people captured by the US.YankeeChica said:Because US does not want captives to be filmed and used as propaganda tool and force them to confess like iranian government did to the British soldiers. Using female captives to forced confession probably Iranian style or should I say islamic style, unheard of in the west.
Those soldiers are just smart enough to know that if they confess, play along, be good, they've got a better chance.
Aww...the prisoners were imprisoned, and put in handcuffs...aww. That's a bit harsh.yankeechica said:How many minutes of the treatment you've seen on TV 5 minutes footage of them sitting and eating does not explain how the rest of 20155 minutes were spent. In fact , the captives explained how they were put in solitary confinement, handcuffed, interrogated, blindfolded and threatened with lengthy jail term if they dont admit to confession pre-prepared by iran. The female's confession letters were written in wakward archaic english with words which will never be used by a normal British soldiers.
Their solitary confinement can't have been too horrendous for them, they were only captive for a week or so.
Well, now I see your problem. The Iranians made her look stupid! Lets burn their villages.yankeechica said:The female's confession letters were written in wakward archaic english with words which will never be used by a normal British soldiers.