Difference between revisions of "Talk:Abu Ghraib prison"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Whoever is deleting this article, please stop. This is a valid entry. The Abu Ghraib prisoner preaching work did actually happen, and there are lots of references available to back this up. [[User:Christian concern|Christian concern]] 21:59, 10 March 2007 (EST) | Whoever is deleting this article, please stop. This is a valid entry. The Abu Ghraib prisoner preaching work did actually happen, and there are lots of references available to back this up. [[User:Christian concern|Christian concern]] 21:59, 10 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| − | Phrases such as "Before the US Army liberated Abu Ghraib prison and turned it into a place in where God's work is done" and "the guards who served during 2004 are well known for their services to Christianity" seem like parody/mockery to me. The assumption that Conservapedia would see this from the point of view of the abusers is troubling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:14, 10 March 2007 (EST) | + | Phrases such as "Before the US Army liberated Abu Ghraib prison and turned it into a place in where God's work is done" and "the guards who served during 2004 are well known for their services to Christianity" seem like parody/mockery to me. The assumption that Conservapedia would see this from the point of view of the abusers is troubling. |
| + | |||
| + | Your references to the Washington Post and Christianity Today are quoted correctly, but I have serious problems with the article as a whole in the form in which you wrote it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:14, 10 March 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 03:18, March 11, 2007
Whoever is deleting this article, please stop. This is a valid entry. The Abu Ghraib prisoner preaching work did actually happen, and there are lots of references available to back this up. Christian concern 21:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Phrases such as "Before the US Army liberated Abu Ghraib prison and turned it into a place in where God's work is done" and "the guards who served during 2004 are well known for their services to Christianity" seem like parody/mockery to me. The assumption that Conservapedia would see this from the point of view of the abusers is troubling.
Your references to the Washington Post and Christianity Today are quoted correctly, but I have serious problems with the article as a whole in the form in which you wrote it. Dpbsmith 22:14, 10 March 2007 (EST)