The abuse of Iraqi prisoners. [Archive] - Armageddon Online Forums

FKoE

May 1st, 2004, 1:21 PM

YES, WE ARE better. If WE had not been, WE would have been covering it up; WE would NOT have wanted to ADDRESS the issue; WE would not be taking steps to investigate and punish these asinine perpetrators

THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY; HOW "MUCH" do you hear from "Al~Jazeera" about the way Saddam used to feed his own people alive to a "wood-chipper?" WHO ever took steps within his own regime to investigate and punish the perpetrators of THOSE ACTS?

Back to the "news aspect" of the issue, WHEN did Al~Jazeera ever address the above issues AS WELL AS the sick behavior of Uday & Qusay?
(FOX news reported the photographs, showing the 'human pyramid', and every other single-aspect of these crimes that are presently known 3 times within ONE HOUR last night, CNN also followed suit) and I have not seen ONE reporter YET that even attempted to 'make excuses' for these idiots.

What MAKES us better is that we are willing to investigate; We are ready and willing to punish the perpetrators; We are willing to discuss and implement corrective measures....I believe those regimes in the "Middle-East" could have learned from such a policy, such a regard for decency, such a regard for "human life"

IN THIS WORLD, (unfortunately) there are those that practice thier inhumanities; AT least acknowledge that we are willing to face-up to these inhumanities. War in itself, IS an inhumanity. I won't question WHY WE WENT to "Iraq" for WHATEVER reason, a murderous despot in what "Saddam Hussein" represented is NOW GONE.

HOPEFULLY, "IRAQ" will be better in the end- - -hopefully. All we can do is try.

AND I TRULY BELIEVE that these (ahem) "individuals" who perpetrated these acts ARE NOT representative of the "whole"

Joe (Bigsky770)

CNN had to air the pictures, they were in the media FFS.

What makes you think its an isolated incident, because only now you see the picture's ?

What evidence do you have off Saddam using a woodchipper ?, would that be verbal evidence like the Kuwaiti princesses claim the Iraqi's were throwing babie from incubators into the street ?

Theres no excuse for mistreating prisoners, either by comparing the US's treatment to the Saddam regime or by claiming it was done in the name of Freedom and Democracy.

The abuse of prisoners is institutionalised and widespread, remember all those shot German prisoners of war in WW2, remember Korea and the alleged massacres.

We are guilty of abuse as much as Saddam was, methods or scale don't come into it.

There is no honour in this conflict, just the good fortune that Saddam was toppled.

What a price to pay for so called liberation eh?

ps How did Al Jazeera enter the story, the UK pictures were published in the Daily mirror ??

FKoE

May 1st, 2004, 3:50 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraqi prisoners have faced numerous "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" by U.S. soldiers, including sodomy and beatings, according to a U.S. Army report quoted by the New Yorker magazine.

The New Yorker said it had obtained a 53-page, internal U.S. military report into alleged abuses at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad. In an article posted on its Web site on Saturday, the magazine said the report had been authorised by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, and was completed in February.

The May 10 issue of the magazine goes on sale on Sunday.

The army report listed abuses such as "breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; ... beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick."

The report, written by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, said evidence to support the allegations included "detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence."

A U.S. defence official, who asked not to be identified, said he had not specifically heard about the report cited by the New Yorker, but said:

"We take all reports of detainee abuse seriously. All allegations of mistreatment are investigated. We are committed to treating all persons under our control with dignity, respect and humanity ... . The U.S. Army has acted immediately in all cases of alleged abuse."

-Click for More- (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=502930§ion=news)

New Yorker article

A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of ?sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses? at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski?s brigade headquarters.) Taguba?s report listed some of the wrongdoing:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added??detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.? Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their ?extremely sensitive nature.?

The photographs?several of which were broadcast on CBS?s ?60 Minutes 2? last week?show leering G.I.s taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to assume humiliating poses. Read the full article in the Link
(http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact)

Click for Images (http://www.newyorker.com/online/covers/?040510onco_covers_gallery)

Bigsky770

May 1st, 2004, 6:17 PM

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa91184.000/hfa91184_0f.htm

Don't be afraid...CLICK the damn link. (tis' better for me to do THAT then post ["reems & reems of unread material] Don't yah think?) :D

READ. THINK. UNDERSTAND.

- - -By the way, I only mentioned "Al~Jazeera" because they always paint the best 'face' on anything that has to do with a middle-eastern Arab nation as opposed to the U.S. or their interests. . .In a free world, Even if there are those that would attempt to 'supress' a story such as this, it IS FINALLY KNOWN.

"Peace-out!" :D Joe (Bigsky770)

VegasRonin

May 1st, 2004, 7:47 PM

Anyone want to dispute the fact we are no better than Saddam's henchmen, or will we discuss military honour and how these are isolated events, I assure you from experience they are not I can assure you, my unit behaved honorably during Gulf War 1. You're going to have your share of idiots, but if you think we are the same as Saddam then you're just an anti-west individual, and nothing anyone says will change your opinion.

DontBeAfraid

May 1st, 2004, 10:09 PM

Seriously, The "hazing" you get when you are promoted or pass any special training is much more painful and humiliating than what was described..... It was a lot less gay however, but that might just be the difference between units. lol.

lazserus

May 2nd, 2004, 11:41 AM

As all of us (especially us military) have said before, there is no such thing as a PC war. You can stick your nose up in the air and complain all your want about these things, but the simple reality is that THESE soldiers are actually doing something about it and their lives are threatened every single day. When you're out there getting shot at, standing near suicide explosions and watching your countrymen dragged through the streets like slaughtered game and you keep your cool, THEN you can complain. We can all talk about how stressful this war is for us, but our stress is practically nil compared to the stress of war that these soldiers face daily. Our world is not perfect, so it's best not to try to act like it is and turn your noses up when it is not.

You don't see us Aussies doing that kind of @%&@#
You're right. That's because the Aussies aren't fighting. :D The British and the US are the two primary forces at war right now. I'm frankly getting tired of just seeing American casualties on the news. I'd like to know how many of our British friends are suffering. I may be a Yank, but I'll not forget my brothers in arms.

lotrfan55345

May 2nd, 2004, 3:40 PM

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Not just prisoners...

FKoE

May 2nd, 2004, 3:46 PM

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa91184.000/hfa91184_0f.htm

Don't be afraid...CLICK the damn link. (tis' better for me to do THAT then post ["reems & reems of unread material] Don't yah think?) :D

READ. THINK. UNDERSTAND.

(Bigsky770)

Too many paragraphs for ya Bigsky ;o)

I hope everyone's reached a concensus over the allegations?

So if it was the enemy treating our troops in this manner its ok......?

Am I reading you all correctly ?

A couple of articles addressing the UK allegations:
UK troops face new brutality claims (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0300nationalnews/tm_objectid=14204418%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=uk%2dtroops%2dface%2dnew%2dbrutality%2d claims-name_page.html)

Serving officer says British troops are beating Iraqi prisoners (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/02/ubeat.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/05/02/ixportaltop.html)

Hit the links Bigsky.........FFS!

VegasRonin

May 2nd, 2004, 3:54 PM

So if it was the enemy treating our troops in this manner its ok......? No, its not okay either way. You don't play with your food or your prisoners. :Bdevil:

evilwill

May 2nd, 2004, 7:09 PM

You're right. That's because the Aussies aren't fighting. The British and the US are the two primary forces at war right now. I'm frankly getting tired of just seeing American casualties on the news. I'd like to know how many of our British friends are suffering. I may be a Yank, but I'll not forget my brothers in arms.

So what are our few hundred troops doing then?

honeycomb

May 2nd, 2004, 7:46 PM

THESE soldiers are actually doing something about it and their lives are threatened every single day.

sorry lazserus, i just can't help picking urs to quote. these soldiers can just go home. ever thought about that? plss go home. iraqis don't want them. those pics are sickening. it just strengthen the oppressive proof of coalition army on iraqis...

Emerald_Dragon

May 2nd, 2004, 8:30 PM

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

Even if its for the wrong reasons. We shouldn't be there. We're there, because of oil companies paid our politicians to do their bidding, to campaign for their special interests.

Now that we're there, we have to fight, right or wrong. Unfortunately, some people don't see anything wrong about the war. And that's where my difference of opinion surfaces.

Sure, we could go into some country like, Ubekistan (sp?), and regime change their cruel dictator and receive kudos and a job well done for our humanitarian efforts. But we don't. Its not our job. Yet this one, is being marketed as such. Whatever. Believe the pro-war propaganda if you must.

People are people. No matter what country they're from. "We are all mortal, living on this small planet," - JFK.

DontBeAfraid

May 2nd, 2004, 9:23 PM

sorry lazserus, i just can't help picking urs to quote. these soldiers can just go home. ever thought about that?

Thats the dumbest thing I have read in quite a while honeycomb..... They CANT just go home.... if the soldiers had the option of "just going home" there wouldnt be any soldiers anywhere but home.... So dumb....

Emerald_Dragon

May 2nd, 2004, 9:52 PM

nonono. i think you misread honeycomb.

I think he means to say, "they should just go home".

of course, we know they can't do that. They're under orders else go AWOL/desert. But no soldier would do that else die after a court martial for cowardice.

$0.02

Strife

May 2nd, 2004, 10:04 PM

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Not just prisoners...

Am I the only one that noticed lotrfan's post? Guys click on that, it's really disturbing.

Emerald_Dragon

May 2nd, 2004, 10:17 PM

yechhh!

that was pretty messed up.

but the military will tell you that the DU rounds are not harmful to the soldiers using them nor to the environment [/sarcasm with a straight face]. apologists for the atrocities will repeat the claims.

anywayz, returning soldiers will probably exhibit "Gulf War Syndrome" 2. Or said to have negative reactions to the vaccines they were given prior to being shipped out. DU dust will never be mentioned as the cause for their problems. It will take years for people to realize and prove today's "Agent Orange".

Believe what you want, but this is what I believe. Our soldiers are being lied to, so that they will do their duty. They are not taught to think independantly, they are taught to follow orders. This is the life they chose.

Strife

May 2nd, 2004, 10:30 PM

Believe what you want, but this is what I believe. Our soldiers are being lied to, so that they will do their duty. They are not taught to think independantly, they are taught to follow orders. This is the life they chose.

You nailed the target there Emerald_Dragon.

VegasRonin

May 2nd, 2004, 10:47 PM

I know this to be true, at least when I was in, there are only two ranges within the U.S. that DU rounds can be live fired. I'm not sure I'm supposed to share that information, so I won't. You'll have to find that out yourself. My dughter was born with a serious respiratory condition but I figured it was something that ran in the family;as I was asthmatic as a child but luckily grew out of it. They told us that the DU rounds were harmless but any Tanker will tell you that the ammo door on an M1A1 is a lead composite. An argument that the rounds are harmless can be made as well. I was my Unit's NBC NCO (Nuclear Biological Chemical Non-Commisioned Officer). None of my radiation equipment registered radiation above normal levels. The equipment that I used registered Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation. Not being trained or having other radiation type detectors, that's all I can vouch for.

MetalMilitia

May 3rd, 2004, 2:52 PM

"The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment." - George W. Bush

lotrfan55345

May 3rd, 2004, 3:05 PM

Hahaha, good one, Matt! :rolling:

Moishe3rd

May 3rd, 2004, 4:12 PM

The soldier's are being disciplined. They could even face criminal charges. It's not a good thing they did and they will be punished.... :respect:
That being said:
Big effin' hairy deal.
When Al Jazeera and the rest of the Islamic fascists who have a fondness for the old hershey highway, start moaning and complaining about people driving through a town; getting brutally murdered and burned to death; hacking the corpses to pieces and hanging the body parts about like party decorations; all the while dancing and singing "ain't we got fun...",
Then, I might feel a touch of compassion for the murdering bastards who are The Enemy who got humiliated.... :indec:
They didn't get their nuts cut off. They didn't get burned alive. They didn't get electric dildoes shoved up their heine. Their tongues weren't cut out. They were not buried alive.....
They were humiliated.
I would hope and pray that that is the absolute worst thing that our Enemy does to our soldiers.
We could even make that part of the Geneva accords: Enemy combatants may be stripped and forced to partake in humiliating sexual acts if you do not otherwise flay them alive, cook their eyeballs and eat them.
So let it be written. So let it be done.

Marajadex

May 3rd, 2004, 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by lotrfan55345
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Not just prisoners...

Then posted by Strife:
Am I the only one that noticed lotrfan's post? Guys click on that, it's really disturbing.

Wow that is disturbing. I had missed this post by LOTR. Thanks Strife for pointing it out. It was hard to watch, espically because I was eating lunch at the time.

lotrfan55345

May 3rd, 2004, 9:59 PM

Oral sex is "disiplining" Iraqi soilders, Moishe. Is this now an interactive bondage thing?

midnightsonblaze

May 3rd, 2004, 11:21 PM

I have been showing my wife some of the posts on this site for a while and she is really getting into it. She really didn't realize things were bad until she got onto this site and started reading things. That post that LOTR put up really disturbed her, just because of the fact that we have a 1yr old son.

Anyways......I just think thing are really going down hill.....I read in my local newspaper that in Georgia the rebels blew up bridges that lead into the city or country...really can't remember.....well.....I really think it's sad wars are breaking out all over......armageddon might not be a month, year or decade down the road...but who the hell knows anyways...

BTW......I really don't have weird dreams that often.but recently I have had some rather disturbing ones....I'll tell on another post....

lazserus

May 3rd, 2004, 11:57 PM

When Al Jazeera and the rest of the Islamic fascists who have a fondness for the old hershey highway, start moaning and complaining about people driving through a town; getting brutally murdered and burned to death; hacking the corpses to pieces and hanging the body parts about like party decorations; all the while dancing and singing "ain't we got fun...",
Then, I might feel a touch of compassion for the murdering bastards who are The Enemy who got humiliated....
They didn't get their nuts cut off. They didn't get burned alive. They didn't get electric dildoes shoved up their heine. Their tongues weren't cut out. They were not buried alive.....
They were humiliated.
I think I love you. I'm glad someone finally mentioned this. When did it come to the point to where we are more concerned about the way we're treating people and ignoring the reverse? All you free-loving hippies who think war is fought with hugs, when did you forget what the fanatical Muslims are doing to our POWs? Remember, we're keeping their POWs, the enemy is torturing and killing ours.

honeycomb

May 4th, 2004, 12:07 AM

Thats the dumbest thing I have read in quite a while honeycomb..... They CANT just go home.... if the soldiers had the option of "just going home" there wouldnt be any soldiers anywhere but home.... So dumb....

hellooooooo.. ur war's goal is to liberate iraqis from Saddam. NEWS FLASH 1 - SADDAM WAS TOPPLED. ur "war" is over. just bcoz u can't find WMDs (there's a great chance it was a hoax anyway) doesn't mean u hv a right to stay in iraq & rule it. if its so, iraqis aren't really liberated.

& when iraqis want sovereignity, u call them insurgents. NEWS FLASH 2 - ur the one who took over their country unjustifiedly - sending rockets to their families!

the fact is, the war ur facing now is between iraqis against the coalition army. saddam is already out of the scene. can't u just think logically for once? iraqis - against - coalition army - saddam - is not there... ur coalition army, is fighting local iraqis. its obvious iraqis don't want them in iraq.

plus the Abu Gharib is a proof how u mistreat Iraqis. even the Japanese hostages are better treated, that after their release they still wanna stay in Iraq. if thought about it, i guess being Iraqis hostages is better than being coalition army inmates, isn't it...

though, i do appreciates Bush & Blair critisizing those inhuman soldiers. i they're honest to give back Iraq to Iraqis. when the coalition army withdraws, 1/2 the battle will be won. i think they should withdraw let UN takes it place maybe. u can finish it -- by giving iraq to UN & iraqis.

midnightsonblaze

May 4th, 2004, 12:12 AM

What's up with this 'NEWS FLASH' crap Honeycomb?! Yeah the US is still there...yes I don't agree with the 'war', yes, my cousin is on his 3rd stint in Iraq......but for Christ's sake.....do you want to just get up and leave with a country in a complete mess and let some jerk.....like Al Sadr(sp) take over and make it a terrorist haven?? This whole thing is a mess....maybe it'll never get fixed, but believe me...Iraq is doing better now that it was when Saddam was there.....all the news people do is focus on the negative......there are positive things going on in Iraq....

:evbat:

honeycomb

May 4th, 2004, 12:14 AM

what's the positive? plus u started the mess, in the first place. i guess that's why u feel the need to clean it up? so touching...

midnightsonblaze

May 4th, 2004, 12:22 AM

Honey..........newspapers being formed, people going back to school, jobs being created......my paper the Portland Press Herald (Maine) did a nice article a week or so back about our soldiers in Iraq......they are in a province that accepts them there.....there was even a picture with an Iraqi man buying a soldier a drink.....not all Iraqi's hate what's going only.....on 60 minutes means to break you down.....and see the NEGATIVE - - - - - -

evilwill

May 4th, 2004, 2:12 AM

Just watched that animation posted by lotrfan.

:eww:

/me shudders

Moishe3rd

May 4th, 2004, 6:26 AM

Okay, Micky, I love you instead. Although I must admit, when I scanned the posts, I missed your ascerbic assertation.
That is also well done.
However, I want to repeat, Ourwrongdoers are being punished. And they should be. And the punishment will be justice for the crime they committed. As it should be. Because we have a justice system. Laws. Honorable men.
And THEY do not. The people we are fighting and whom our soldiers humiliated are evil. Evil people. People who think nothing of cutting off your baby's head and using it as a pen holder.
We need to punish our own and move on to kicking their asses, hard... :gotcha:

lazserus

May 4th, 2004, 11:49 AM

I'd first like to say that if you don't know anything about the war in Iraq it's best that you stay out of these debates. You just set yourself up to look retarded. If you'd like to debate, at least do SOME homework instead of just attempting to regurgitate what people who did their homework says. It's fairly obvious those who do their homework and those who don't. I'm going display a few uneducated quotes and then attempt to educate. Some people are just hopeless, though. I don't think anyone will be surprised they tend to come from one person instead of several.

hellooooooo.. ur war's goal is to liberate iraqis from Saddam. NEWS FLASH 1 - SADDAM WAS TOPPLED. ur "war" is over.
Try reading - this helps when making educated statements. Right now you're just spitting out uneducated assumptions. The war ISN'T over. The U.S. hoped things would settle down after Saddam was captured, but there are plenty of sympethizers that want to continue on Saddam's murderous path. The Iraqis are NOT liberated yet. As long as a threat to their well-being still exists they will never be liberated. And you can drool and spit up "America is the threat" all you want, but you apparently know NOTHING about the Middle East and the horror these people faced under Saddam's rule.

ur the one who took over their country unjustifiedly - sending rockets to their families!
You keep making it worse for yourself. Do homework. Read. Educate yourself. We took over their country unjustified? I guess you're from a country where it's a GOOD thing for a dictator/leader to murder his own people and dump them into mass graves like the Nazis did the Jews. :thumbs: If that's the case, maybe someone just ought to turn that country into a parking lot. I find it amusing how people can watch genocidal maniacs slaughter their own people with out a care in the world, and then when someone actually gets off their asses and does something about it, those countries piss and moan like little brats. They piss and moan until it's their turn to be the victim. Once that happens, they beg those "unjust" countries to rescue them.

the fact is, the war ur facing now is between iraqis against the coalition army. saddam is already out of the scene. can't u just think logically for once? iraqis - against - coalition army - saddam - is not there... ur coalition army, is fighting local iraqis. its obvious iraqis don't want them in iraq.
This is by far the more ignorant statement in your entire post. Do you even bother to read? Or do you attempt and just can't understand so you just make things up? Because that's what's happening right now. You're just making shit up. The fighting is not between Iraqi civilians and coalition forces. The fighting is between coalition and Saddam militants and terrorists. I suppose you also think the Taliban were just innocent civilians trying to keep the US out of Afghanistan.

i they're honest to give back Iraq to Iraqis. when the coalition army withdraws, 1/2 the battle will be won. i think they should withdraw let UN takes it place maybe. u can finish it -- by giving iraq to UN & iraqis.
You honestly think the Iraqi people can fight for themselves? If they could, then why was Saddam so easily murdering and manipulating them? Let the UN take over? We've seen what the UN is capable of doing - squat! Plus, 90% of the UN is American/British soldiers. Remember, the US owns the UN. Oh, you probably didn't know that. I bet you thought the UN was run by the Super Friends.

Uh...laz....I posted that info first. You should be in love with me. I'll post it again for your viewing pleasure.
My fault, Micky. Sometimes I have to skim over these idiotic responses to avoid going stupid and I miss posts I'd prefer not to miss.

/me throws some love at Micky

Emerald_Dragon

May 4th, 2004, 2:17 PM

>newspapers being formed,

that have the staff quitting because of undue influence
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/124/world/Editor_in_chief_of_U_S_funded_:.shtml
"
The head of a U.S.-funded Iraqi newspaper quit and said Monday he was taking almost his entire staff with him because of American interference in the publication.
"

[edit: found the article.]

>people going back to school

to study Americanized history. We're what, ranked 30th+ in the world for education and we want to teach Iraqis? i think they want to teach their own. but then again, maybe they'll teach them to hate the U.S. whereas we'll teach them that we saved them. Just like we save the French in WWII.

*lol* don't mind me, just found it humorous.

>jobs being created......

i agree. to replace the ones that were lost during the invasion. Police, paramedics, etc.

>not all Iraqi's hate what's going only.....

i agree. its the one shooting us that don't want us to be there. I think of it as analogous to the German occupation of France. Sure, the French welcomed their conquerors, but the resistance fought on.

>We took over their country unjustified?

yes. there is no deception, like self-deception.

>I guess you're from a country where it's a GOOD thing for a dictator/leader
>to murder his own people and dump them into mass graves like the Nazis did the Jews.

well, America had no problem supplying WMDs to SH to use in Halabja. We even defended them in the UN
for that incident. I guess you can say we're from "that" country.

>I find it amusing how people can watch genocidal maniacs slaughter their own people with out a care in the world,

me2. how did we just stand by, watch, and say, "Iran did it".

>The fighting is between coalition and Saddam militants and terrorists.

Saddam is not in power. He's captured and one of his Generals works for us, in Falluja. Even some of the soldiers that fought against us are now with us. So who is left to fight us?
The PEOPLE?

> suppose you also think the Taliban were just innocent civilians trying to keep the US out of Afghanistan.

Weren't they the guys Unocal were talking to to get that pipeline built? Weren't they the guys who offered OBL if we had proof to link him to WTC? Weren't they one of the first countries to offer condolences after 911?
Weren't they the ones we helped put together to fight Russia? I forget my history.

>then why was Saddam so easily murdering and manipulating them?

well, when you're well funded by the US, you can pretty much do whatever you want. Look at Israel.

>Remember, the US owns the UN.

I thought it was a mutually beneficial organization founded on promoting peace and preventing wars through communication and diplomacy. Is this anything like some Israeli PM saying that Israel owns America? I disagree.

We have veto power. We can make the UN useless, and we have. If they don't rubber stamp what we want to do, we do it anyway.

>When did it come to the point to where we are more concerned
>about the way we're treating people and ignoring the reverse?

...when we got away from the point that we shouldn't be there in the first place.

lotrfan55345

May 4th, 2004, 2:47 PM

Laz, do you belive in revenge (ie treating our POW's bad because they are treating their POW's bad)?

For the record, I am "against" both sides for treating their POW's "badly", Iraq(or other muslim extremists) have treated our soldiers worse, but should we, in turn, treat the soildiers *we* captured bad? Is the really the solution?

/not responsible for the contents of the above

Emerald_Dragon

May 4th, 2004, 3:23 PM

oops, correction.

replacing an Iraqi General with another Iraqi General...

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/05/04/446119.html
"
In Fallujah, the U.S. military was moving to install a new commander for the Iraqi force taking control of the city, bringing in an Iraqi general thought to have opposed Saddam Hussein to replace another general who some allege took part in Saddam-era repression.
"

lazserus

May 4th, 2004, 4:27 PM

to study Americanized history. We're what, ranked 30th+ in the world for education and we want to teach Iraqis? i think they want to teach their own. but then again, maybe they'll teach them to hate the U.S. whereas we'll teach them that we saved them. Just like we save the French in WWII.
You have some kind of proof? You saying this holds absolutely no water. Oh, and by the way, we did save the French during WWII. It only took them 2 weeks to surrender the entire country to the Germans.

to replace the ones that were lost during the invasion. Police, paramedics, etc.
Do homework. Saddam had shutdown a lot of schools and hospitals BEFORE we invaded. Within a few weeks US and British military opened them back up. For someone who doesn't believe what corporate media tells you, you sure like to believe every negative thing they say and nothing positive.

yes. there is no deception, like self-deception.
I suppose you liked the idea of Saddam's tyrannical terror reign? What a swell guy you must be.

well, America had no problem supplying WMDs to SH to use in Halabja.
Wow, ED - you can't seem to keep your beliefs straight. First you say there was no WMDs and now you're admitting that we supplied them to SH. Isn't it funny how that's what myself and several others have been saying all along? Or did you not realize you just contradicted your standpoint?

Saddam is not in power. He's captured and one of his Generals works for us, in Falluja. Even some of the soldiers that fought against us are now with us. So who is left to fight us? The PEOPLE?
Boy, you're up there with honeycomb now. Saddam sympathizers are fighting us. Do you know what a sympathizer is? Those are people who sympathize with Saddam's beliefs and reign of terror. That means....*gasp* they believe in the same ideals! If you can't figure out what that means on your own then you might be better of not debating in this discussion.

Weren't they the guys Unocal were talking to to get that pipeline built? Weren't they the guys who offered OBL if we had proof to link him to WTC? Weren't they one of the first countries to offer condolences after 911? Weren't they the ones we helped put together to fight Russia? I forget my history.
You obviously have forgotten your history and it was only a few years ago. The Taliban REFUSED immediately to give up OBL. They never offered anything. They told us to stick it. We gave them three warnings and then we went in there and mopped the desert with them. And they didn't offer any sympathy. They cheered 9/11. But, I guess the Taliban were loving rulers and we unjustly invaded Afghanistan too. Poor Afghanis - they don't have to get murdered and stoned to death anymore. I'm sure they loved not having television and radio and fearing for their lives on a daily basis. How dare we take that away from them.

/me sobs

...when we got away from the point that we shouldn't be there in the first place.
Back to the contradiction. Just above you admitted Saddam had WMD but you still believe we shouldn't be there. You're so caught up in technicalities that you still firmly believe we shouldn't be there even though you admit that some of those "technicalities" are fact. You complain that the politicians didn't have sufficient enough intel to invade Iraq and would rather us not be there than remove someone like Saddam from power. What kind of human being are you that you'd rather "mind your own business" than help someone in need?

Spinebuster

May 4th, 2004, 5:12 PM

Actually, Iraq was one of the most egalitarian countries in the Middle East during Saddam's reign in terms of education and opportunities for both men and women. If they obeyed Saddam, that is.

What kind of human being are you that you'd rather "mind your own business" than help someone in need?

Get real. US only kicked Saddam out for two reasons. One, he had done something they didn't want him to do (Invading Kuwait and seizing its oilwells) and had a mind of his own (a sick and twisted mind, but still...). Two: Iraq has the largest known oil reserves in the world. If they'd really want to "help people in need", they'd be shutting down African dictatorships, stopping Russia from commiting controlled genocide on the chechnyans, sign the whole Geneva treaty, redistributing the massive military budget into something more useful etc. US only went to Iraq because Iraq had something they wanted. The "mission of mercy" was just something they could do while they were at it.

Don't get me wrong, it was a good thing to boot Saddam out. If only the country hadn't turned into a complete hellhole, it might have been the best thing Bush has ever done.

You're so caught up in technicalities that you still firmly believe we shouldn't be there even though you admit that some of those "technicalities" are fact.

Saddam HAD WMD's, but he could've never been able to produce them by himself. Countries such as USA, France, Germany, Russia etc. helped him to acquire them, either by supplying Iraq components/knowledge about the weapons or selling the weapons outright. That's why the US had a reason to believe that Saddam had those weapons: you armed him.However, the weapon inspectors have uncovered no WMD's, or weapon systems capable of carrying the payload over a distance of 1000km (so far).

The Taliban REFUSED immediately to give up OBL. They never offered anything. They told us to stick it. We gave them three warnings and then we went in there and mopped the desert with them. And they didn't offer any sympathy. They cheered 9/11.

Exactly, the Taliban did. Just remember, that Taliban =/= the majority of Afghanistan's people. The Taliban movement was a terrorist group that seized the power from Afghanistan's legal government. That doesn't mean that every Afghan condones their actions. And the US has no real power or military presence in Afghanistan anymore, they are just backing a single faction that's fighting for power to rule the country, which is almost as badly screwed as it was before US invaded it.

You have some kind of proof? You saying this holds absolutely no water.

There is a study about this (it's a couple of years old, IIRC). Scandinavian countries and Japan were ranked at the top of the list, followed by Germany etc. It might be hard to find a link to it.

We have veto power. We can make the UN useless, and we have. If they don't rubber stamp what we want to do, we do it anyway.

Agreed. They should strip every member nation of their veto rights, if they have it - then the UN could be taken more seriously.

Emerald_Dragon

May 4th, 2004, 6:08 PM

its all about timing.

>>well, America had no problem supplying WMDs to SH to use in Halabja.
>Wow, ED - you can't seem to keep your beliefs straight.
>First you say there was no WMDs and now you're admitting that we supplied them to SH.

are you forgetting your history? or do you have selective memory?

Did the U.S. assist SH acquire WMDs in the 70/80's? Did we, or did we not, tell the UN that Iran used the Chemical weapons on the Iraqi Kurds in Halabja?

Didn't Powell and Rice tell us in July and August of 2001, that SH did not have any WMDs, could not get any WMDs, and could not influence areas outside his country? Only to turn around and say he has tons of it post-911?

Please review our previous threads and contest the validity of those statements there. I've already gone over this material. Are these statements false?

>Saddam sympathizers are fighting us.

He's captured. Not in the picture. No way he's ever coming back.

As you have mentioned, his own people hated him. His military and supporters were firmly beaten by ours in 2 weeks time. Prolly like the French when the Germans invaded with superiors arms and tactics.

And now, they work for us. His military. Everyone's got to eat and have a job. So who is left to fight us? the city of Falluja. Insurgents or a Popular uprising? Wouldn't his military be more likely to support him, than the people he persecuted? After all, he's known for killing his own. So why would they sympathize with him?

Could it be, that they just don't want the U.S. telling them what to do, when to do it, and how? [ref previous post]

>If you can't figure out what that means on your own then you might
> be better of not debating in this discussion.

i think you want me to stop talking because it counters your view of things.

I'll continue to debate until you tell me Powell/Rice and so many others, didn't say what they have said. That we really didn't invade Iraq, we liberated them. That Muslims want to kill us because we are 'free' and they can't understand that idea.

>You obviously have forgotten your history and it was only a few years ago.

so the statements about the Unocal/Taliban were not false? How's opium production in Afghanistan according to the UN, now that the Taliban are out of the picture?

>They cheered 9/11

hmmm...it was featured in a news article that they did. And the cheering was misinformation, put out to stir misdirected anger. Much like the political assassination of Cynthia McKinney for speaking truths. She didn't say what the media claims she said, but it didn't matter. Repeat a lie enough, and it becomes the truth. Look it up.

> Just above you admitted Saddam had WMD but you still believe we shouldn't be there.

refer to previous threads about WMDs supplied, used, and destroyed. The "sexed" up WMD reports. The David Kelly/John Kokal deaths. The false Nigerian uranium connection. The Wilson/Plame/Rove fiasco. The Powell/Kay admissions that there did not exist any WMDs in Iraq since 1991. The Rumsfeld "concrete evidence" connecting Al Qaida to SH used to promote the war, which we're still waiting for..

Are you keeping up? Selective perception? Is it better to accuse someone of not reading, when you yourself, need some catchup time?

>You complain that the politicians didn't have sufficient enough intel to invade Iraq
>and would rather us not be there than remove someone like Saddam from power.

the removal of SH was a good thing. and was probably the only good thing. but if that is the measure of success, then why aren't we doing it in many other countries where we could do more good? Ubekistan? Chechnya [as mentioned by SB].

We did it for the oil. not for something noble, like overthrowing an evil dictator [romantic though it may sound]. which we happened to support until he wouldn't listen to what we wanted him to do.

Again, is it, or is it not true, that we stood up for Iraq after Halabja in the U.N.?

Of course he _had_ WMDs, in the 80's. But did he have any nukes in 2001, as proclaimed by Shrubya/Powell, while drumming up the war? And after a year, where are these nukes? where are these remote drones? chemical trucks? 100+chemical plants? nuclear missiles/weapons? How about any of the weapons we sold them 20 years ago? What's the shelf life of bio-chem weapons?

You seem convinced, so convince me.

Defiant Noquisi

May 4th, 2004, 6:59 PM

its all about timing. <snip> You seem convinced, so convince me. No, its all about using QUOTES. Convince me you are intelligent, maybe. Can you PLEASE use quotes or something in the way of format so your posts can be read? I cant hardly tell the difference in what is what. Your last post is a complete mess. How can you expect to educate anyone on your viewpoint if they cant read it?

lazserus

May 4th, 2004, 7:05 PM

I'm going to try and keep this short and to the point, because we're off topic now. It'll probably be impossible. This is the same ping pong tournament the pro-war people are arguing about with the anti-war hippies in every thread in this forum. It's growing tiresome because people seem to have to rant about the SAME crap in EVERY thread in this forum. It's almost like spam. Please, please try and keep to the topics. I, myself, have had complaints from users having trouble getting through threads because people like to rant and jump off topic. For the sake of people who are interested in the TOPIC, try and stay there for them. If you want to just rant and rave about your beliefs, come to the chat. :yumyum:

The "mission of mercy" was just something they could do while they were at it.
I've never denied that. I know that there are several reasons why the US went to Iraq, but I'm not so blind to forget about the "mission of mercy". I wouldn't imagine you'd have seen me post that one SEVERAL occasions because these threads can get quite tedious to read through, but I've said it. Just because the US's sole involvement in the Middle East isn't diplomatic relations, does that mean we should ignore the good?

Saddam HAD WMD's, but he could've never been able to produce them by himself. Countries such as USA, France, Germany, Russia etc. helped him to acquire them, either by supplying Iraq components/knowledge about the weapons or selling the weapons outright.
Which is also something several of us mentioned on multiple occasions. I'm glad someone else agrees with this. We know they were there because we helped produce them.

That doesn't mean that every Afghan condones their actions.
I know for a fact they're not like that. It's just the fundamentalists. I have a few friends that will end up there 3 times within 4 years. I hear all the stories, good and bad.

And the US has no real power or military presence in Afghanistan anymore,
I guess that depends on your interpretation of military presence. The US still has a good sized presence and they plan to keep sending people there. Most are spec ops, though. The presence is there, we just won't hear about what's happening.

Did the U.S. assist SH acquire WMDs in the 70/80's?
Yes.

Didn't Powell and Rice tell us in July and August of 2001, that SH did not have any WMDs
No. I believe it was substand that posted the link to the actual quote. They never said SH DIDN'T have them.

His military and supporters were firmly beaten by ours in 2 weeks time.
The majority of the force, yes. The battles taking place over there are more skirmishes than anything else, but result in the loss of life. Do you recall the reports just after we took Baghdad about Iraqi military dressing as civilians and going into hiding? We experienced a few surprise attacks and had Iraqi intel inform us of such. The point it, there's still a force to be reckoned with in Iraq. Don't give me that, "it's the people just wanting the US to leave" nonsense, because it's just that: nonsense. If they Iraqi people were capable of standing up for themselves then how did Saddam remain in power? If Saddam's supporters didn't actually want to support him and they're capable of threatening the coalition forces, then how come they didn't stand up against those who WANTED to support Saddam?

we really didn't invade Iraq, we liberated them.
We did liberate them from Saddam, but liberating someone in another country calls for an invaion. When you send armed forces into another country with intent to commit war, it is an invasion.

That Muslims want to kill us because we are 'free' and they can't understand that idea.
Talk about selective perception. I've never said that Muslims want to kill us because we're free and anyone who thinks that is probably a bigot. I've said that fanatical Muslim terrorists want to kill us because they despise western culture.

The Rumsfeld "concrete evidence" connecting Al Qaida to SH used to promote the war, which we're still waiting for..
Love this. Saddam had several terrorist training camps in his country and he was aware of every single one. Al Quada being the primary camps. No need in attempting to refute this, because we've found the camps.

but if that is the measure of success, then why aren't we doing it in many other countries where we could do more good? Ubekistan? Chechnya
We are. Oh, did your media sources not mention that? Did they not mention we've been in places like Chechnya for a long time? I'm sure those sources didn't.

I think it's time to just admit you don't really know what you're talking about. None of us do. We only know what the media spits at us, unless we're hearing it first hand from the soldiers in place or experience it ourselves. The politicians really haven't a clue what's going on either. We all take the same medium and interpret it the same way. The difference is, we all find supporting evidence for our own beliefs easier than for the opposing.

honeycomb

May 4th, 2004, 10:39 PM

i'm so appaled how u cannot see the atrocities in iraq. let me say this straight - UR ARMY IS THE PROBLEM IN IRAQ. if u go, iraq's problem will be readily solved...

its their country. ur in it creating havoc - detaining innocents, sodomizing inmates, killing children with ur weapons. U ARE THE MENACE IN THEIR COUNTRY. i think u're the one misinformed. sitting there in ur computers, reading sugar coated articles glossied for ur pelasure. those are for u to read, bcoz they want u to support this war. u should see the truth.

Ian Fisher, NYT, reported:

Three times US interrogated Iraqi, Abbas Mehdi said, "When Americans came I was so happy. I said, 'We will have democracy. We will have freedom' After I was arrested, the picture changed." Mehdi was arrested when 6 soldiers barged into his house, pointing guns at him, his wife & his children. He was handcuffed, kicked in the abdomen & placed a black hood on his head. One of the soldiers urinated on him. He was beaten so badly, he suffered a heart condition.

Abu Ahmad, 30 said he & other prisoners had been beaten regularly at Abu Ghraib & had been forced to strip naked & bend over the wall, leading him to believe he would be raped. He has nothing to do with Sadr's army. "The Americans are an occupying force, not liberators, and we should force them out of iraq," he said.

Mowfak Sami, 28, "We are very happy when (Saddam) regime fell. We were optimistic. But this savage process -- arresting the innocents, house raiding, attacking houses with bombs -- make u s feel aggressive against the coalition."

even 50 ex-US diplomats & 52 retired British diplomats had slamed ur mid-east policy.

William Rogers, under-sec of state "we're not the goodguys any more & our foreign relations have been damaged. We are viewed as hypocritical."

this is the truth, from someone who gains nothing for telling u these. unlike ur presidents...

MetalMilitia

May 4th, 2004, 11:20 PM

Torture, which the UN defines as severe mental or physical pain inflicted to coerce or punish, is illegal. It is prohibited by U. S. and international law, and is considered inhumane and immoral by most people. But this past week we were reminded once more that it is still practiced. In a Baghdad prison where Saddam Hussein's jailers once tortured and raped their own countrymen, Americans are accused of similar atrocities against Iraqi prisoners.

I watched the interview with the Commander in charge of that unit, and she had no idea that it was going on. She also went on to say that by the looks of things, that wasn't the first time that unit had done something like that.

-MM- :crs:

lazserus

May 4th, 2004, 11:25 PM

i think u're the one misinformed. sitting there in ur computers, reading sugar coated articles glossied for ur pelasure.
There's no hope for some. I don't get my information from sugar coated news media. I get most of my information first hand. And just for your information, 90% of the children casualties are by their own people. Their own people use their children as shields on top of murdering each other's children. The vast majority of patients we treat over there are not ours or even wounded by our forces, but maimed and gunned down by their own people. Honeycomb, I think you're the least informed here.

I watched the interview with the Commander in charge of that unit, and she had no idea that it was going on. She also went on to say that by the looks of things, that wasn't the first time that unit had done something like that.
Sounds to me like that unit needs a new commander. I don't think I've met many military personel who like to take male prisoners and rape them.

What I'm trying to understand now is that a handful of rotten apples in the service and now the entire US military are evil, torturing, raping bastards? If we play that game then it's safe to say every single Muslim on the planet is a raping, child murdering hate machine. We can always go further and just admi that every human is a planetary infection bent on self destruction. Get real people.

honeycomb

May 4th, 2004, 11:30 PM

There's no hope for some. I don't get my information from sugar coated news media. I get most of my information first hand. And just for your information, 90% of the children casualties are by their own people. Their own people use their children as shields on top of murdering each other's children. The vast majority of patients we treat over there are not ours or even wounded by our forces, but maimed and gunned down by their own people. Honeycomb, I think you're the least informed here.

u treat? who are u anyway? my Dr Jemilah who was in Iraq a week after the war, giving medical aid, said a different story.

lazserus

May 4th, 2004, 11:32 PM

Well, that's beautiful of your Dr. I have a friend who just got back as well who was doing the same thing and he says different. Everyone has their stories.

honeycomb

May 4th, 2004, 11:33 PM

i guess so. but i took the noble way of not criticising different opiniated people as retarded.

lazserus

May 4th, 2004, 11:35 PM

Uneducated opinions are retarded. :angel:

honeycomb

May 4th, 2004, 11:36 PM

then i can say u are retarded too. but much to the chagrin of retarded people to be associated with u.

Defiant Noquisi

May 5th, 2004, 1:02 AM

then i can say u are retarded too. but much to the chagrin of retarded people to be associated with u. Hey honeycomb, how can you accuse someone of being retarded when it appears you are unable to use proper punctuation and sentence format? Personally pointing out the obvious?

MetalMilitia

May 5th, 2004, 1:25 AM

/me rings the bell

Ok, let's try to get back on topic here.

-MM- :crs:

substand

May 5th, 2004, 3:02 AM

I was disappointed for a while, trying to find the thread on this. many of you are more idiotic than I am on this situation... But you all should read http://www.constitutionallychallenged.com/home/slar-050304.cfm to find indictments on these "american" soldiers. Its riduculous what they've done, and they should be tried for treason.

DontBeAfraid

May 5th, 2004, 7:02 AM

You dont know what treason is then, substand. And I thought you were less idiotic than most on this?

Defiant Noquisi

May 5th, 2004, 9:28 AM

.......and they should be tried for treason. I agree with alot of what you said however, a treason charge will never stand. The betrayal of trust didnt occur with the military, it occured against the Amerikkkan sheeple who could care less for the most part. Besides, its not an unusual crime for a US military entity to commit against the humanity of prisoners from other countries. Dehumanization of the enemy has been the modus operandi for over 500 years and it doesnt just happen here.

Fine, they captured them and they are grilling them for anything they can get. They may even use them for a bargaining chip later. The excessive crap is stupid and as a "superpower" country the US should be above that kind of behaviour.

dutchie

May 5th, 2004, 9:50 AM

Hm. So, it happened more often in history, so it's OK?? I think this kind of degrading, bestial behaviour should be punished severely, whenever it happened, regardless by whom.

It is an outrage that the army leadership does not have better control of this type of deranged elements within its ranks. This type of thing AGAIN will make people say: "See?" and I would want avoid that at all cost, if I were an American soldier.

Only yesterday evening I saw footage, smuggled out of Iraq, on which Iraqi civilians were shot in cold blood by Americans, even pursueing and killing them when they obviously did not pose a threat any more, crawling underneath a truck unarmed. You could hear the shouts of soldiers, commanding to shoot them.

If I were in the US army leadership, I would sooner express my deep shame over such "incidents" than trying to talk my way out of it. There is no heroism in lame futile excuses.

lazserus

May 5th, 2004, 11:58 AM

then i can say u are retarded too. but much to the chagrin of retarded people to be associated with u.
I guess it wouldn't help to tell you that my information comes from the horse's mouth considering I'm in the US military with a certain respective high level security clearance. I suppose that makes my responses uneducated. My responses are based on FACT, not opinion based on detached reality.

Its riduculous what they've done, and they should be tried for treason.
I read the article and agree with what it says, fueling terrorist rage. I think a lot of this could have been avoided if our politicians weren't running the show. The rotations are absurd as it is and our soldiers are gone entirely too long. The rotations need to be more sufficient. The last thing anyone needs is another Vietnam. Honestly, I could care less if the guards scare the prisoners. That's really no big deal. That happens in every single prison on this planet. Guards always threaten force and bodily harm - this is no new developmental torture. The rest of the atrocities, however are absurd. The soldiers WILL be punished. It's been said again and again. Treason? Come now, that's like charging the soldiers with vehicular homicide - it won't stick because it's not happening. You're the political science major, you should know what treason is. These atrocities are not treason, they're crimes against humanity and violate the Geneva Convention.

The major thing I've noticed in these situations is that it all tends to be the same unit under the same commander. This commander hasn't the slightest idea what's going on in her unit and should be relieved of duty. The military needs leadership, not incompetence - they always say, a soldier's actions reflects upon the leadership. FIRED!

If I were in the US army leadership, I would sooner express my deep shame over such "incidents" than trying to talk my way out of it. There is no heroism in lame futile excuses.
I'm just curious on how you would go about it? The leadership publicly stating it was shameful and that those soldiers will be punished accordingly isn't sufficient?

MetalMilitia

May 5th, 2004, 11:49 PM

****in' Sick... More pics released. This is abuse and degradation.

The pictures include shots of soldiers simulating sexually explicit acts with one another and shots of a cow being skinned and gutted and soldiers posing with its severed head. There are also dozens of pictures of a cat's severed head....

Other photographs show wounded men and dead bodies. In one, a dead man is lying in the back of a truck, his shirt, face and left arm covered in blood. His right arm is missing. Another photograph shows a dead body, gray and decomposing. A young soldier is leaning over the corpse, smiling broadly and giving the "thumbs-up" sign.

And in another picture a young woman lifts her shirt, exposing her breasts. She is wearing a white band with numbers on her wrist, but it is unclear if she is a prisoner.

Another photograph of a naked man with a dark hood over his head, handcuffed to a cell door. And another of a naked man handcuffed to a bunk bed, his arms splayed so wide that his back is arched...

A picture shows a soldier holding a leash tied around a naked man's neck in an Iraqi prison....

http://www.drudgereport.com/irr.jpg

This is the saddest thing I've seen. They aren't even being treated like human ****ing beings. Could you even BEGIN to imagine what the US would do if this situation were reversed? I don't think we would just stick up thumbs up our asses and ignore it, that's for sure. If this is an isolated incident, where the hell were the commanders... what were they doing?

Outrageous.

-MM- :crs:

Marajadex

May 6th, 2004, 2:08 AM

It is almost more abuse to publish the pictures. Bad enough these people had to go thru this in the first place. Then to make their humiliation so public. Now not only did it happen, their family and peer group get to see their humiliation as well. Maybe not on a computer but I bet Al Jazera is showing them now that they are available. I understand some of these people are just everyday criminals not terrorists or part of a group who engaged in other atrocities. Maybe I am wrong here. Please enlighten me if I have got incorrect information.

MacRasta

May 6th, 2004, 6:36 AM

There will always be torture in war, I mean, it's war, no? It always makes me laugh when they say on the news that rules of war have been broken.... stupid.... what rules?

The only stupid thing about all of this is that they (US soldiers) let those pics out for the public to see. They know that almost the whole world is against the US in Irak, so why show those pics if they know they're gonna get in trouble.

I see a few possibilities :
1) They are really stupid, and wanna be "the man" with those pics
2) They don't wanna stay in Irak anymore so they pull this kind of shit to maybe get a ticket home
3) They are false pictures, maybe Irakens themselves produced these pics to put the US in an ever badder daylight.

If those pics are real, then the Irak soldiers are lucky, is that torture what they are showing? Don't even think for a minute that Iraki's won't take the chance to torture some US soldiers, and they will not be so lucky, Iraki torture is far worse than the US torture.

Medieval torture against Modern torture. I think the Iraki's are lucky....

Mac

Defiant Noquisi

May 6th, 2004, 10:48 AM

....I'm half expecting that crazy bitch Jane Fonda to get involved just like in 'Nam...

BTW - You've all fallen for propaganda. . .AGAIN! Yeah Mickey, we could pit Jane up against that woman soldier in the pic MM posted.

If we are supposedly a "superior" country and "better" then the military should act like it. Prove the naysayers WRONG instead of fueling more debate and giving them the ammunition they need to speak against the US. :argue:

lotrfan55345

May 6th, 2004, 3:03 PM

I'm sure some pervert/war monger is probably going "Wow! Free bondage pictures!"

"Those Iranian people did do some use afteral"
(Mispellings intended)

I hope not...

lotrfan55345

May 6th, 2004, 5:23 PM

http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/399/12699_bush.html

Some Russian anaysis of the "situation".

substand

May 6th, 2004, 11:01 PM

From DBA:

You dont know what treason is then, substand. And I thought you were less idiotic than most on this?

From DefiantStar:

a treason charge will never stand

From Laz:

Guards always threaten force and bodily harm - this is no new developmental torture. The rest of the atrocities, however are absurd. The soldiers WILL be punished. It's been said again and again. Treason? Come now, that's like charging the soldiers with vehicular homicide

Treason is, by definition in the American Heritage Dictionary, "1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. [or] 2) A betrayal of trust or confidence"

Obviously these soldiers committed treason on account of definition #2. I hold they committed it on definition #1 because they couldn't be so retarded to think that it wouldn't hurt the US. However, I did mean it only as hyperbole in the way that "they will never get what they deserve" (for what shame they caused the US).... I changed my article by adding a line the next morning after you all had condemned it, but before I had read this thread again to further explain that point. I had previously thought everyone would understand it, but after having a drunken conversation with a friend, I decided I needed to explicitly state it when I woke up... The last line now reads, "So the treason charges may be hyperbole. So send me to Abu Ghraib. [the prison aforementioned]"

Additionally, I know they will be punished. But the charges against them, IMO are not sufficient. They obviously raped Iraqis. They are not facing that charge. I hold no stock in the guy who objected to being naked and bent over with hands to the wall- that is standard procedure in US Jails (I've been to one) to check for stuff like razorblades taped to the inside of the asscheek (among other things). It may be degrading and you may get scared (as I was), but in the end, its not "torture" or even "bad" in my opinion. I don't object to pouring ice cold water on the body of another man either... The only things I really object to are stacking nekkid people in a manstripper pyramid and forcing other men to jack off in other men's mouths. That is uncalled for and disgusting and well below the American standard (assuming there is one).

From DefiantStar:

US should be above that kind of behaviour.

I completely agree... but the sad part I see is that so many so-called Americans are trying to be apologists and say its ok for us to do it because they've done worse. Well, its not hard to beat the Islamists (not Muslims, but Islamists, and there is a difference (http://www.islamamerica.org/articles.cfm?article_id=28)), on this. I consider it no great accomplishment and think that we should judge ourself by our own ideals, not those of tyrants.

From MickeyDoolittle:

The torture and abuse they delivered to our and other countries citizens/soldiers was far worse and did not grant the same end result.

Normally, I agree with you even though I think your methods are detrimental to my cause. However, in this case, I completely disagree. AMERICA should hold herself to AMERICAn standards, not those of depots. And while some forms of intelligence gathering may _seem_ unAMERICAn to some, I have no problem with them. Where I draw the line is on AMERICAn rape of prisoners, forcing Iraqi prisoners to become part of an experiment to orally impregnate men through masturbation techniques of other men, at gunpoint.

Makrasta- who cares what low standards despotic regimes hold themselves to. Most of those pics arent bad in my discretion, but we as leaders of the free world should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

LOTRfan: Bush et al need not apologize for something they didn't do. They need only bring those who committed such atrocities to justice. I they "didn't do" that, then they should apologize for it and be considered accomplices (unless they tried and failed in a court of law). Besides that, I argue he didn't apologize, but one of my English friends/boss argues that even though he didn't say "I'm sorry," that he apologized. And he's even less of a fan of Dubya than I am.

Marajadex

May 7th, 2004, 12:25 AM

Good find on the article Lotr. Interesting to see a vewpoint from another country.

Originally Posted by LOTR:
http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22...12699_bush.html

Some Russian anaysis of the "situation".

Sirius

May 7th, 2004, 1:01 AM

Sirius

May 7th, 2004, 1:05 AM

MetalMilitia
Leper Messiah
Forum Admin

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 607
Skin: MilitiaVision
The abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

http://www.armageddononline.org/for...read.php?t=2036

55 responses and counting, no sense in making a new thread, when there's one ongoing on the same EXACT subject.

-MM-
__________________

Time for lust, time for lie, time to kiss your life goodbye. Send me money, send me green, Heaven you will meet... Make a contribution and you'll get a better seat.

My thread wasn't about the abuse of iraqi prosoners, it was about toture being used period. The question asked in the poll was "Is it ever appropriate to use torture during an interogation?"

This includes interogation by civilian police, as well as goverment police on the people of our country.

substand

May 7th, 2004, 3:28 AM

sirius- what is "trture"

I objected only to the "jack off into another guys mouth" and such... so what does torture entail? Becuse based on the 109000fr342534 80934987 things Iraqis have accused us/others of, theres only the 2-4 things I disagree with.

dutchie

May 7th, 2004, 5:12 AM

As an answer to lazs' remark: I do not think Mr. Bush did his BEST to tell the world he regrets the atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq (Micky..."they walked away alive"....shame on YOU!!!) nor did he APOLOGIZE wholeheartedly to the Iraqi people for the conduct of some of his troops, and he REFUSES to fire Don Rumsfeld for withholding evidence and intelligence, the latter thus stating the fact he's absolutely unwilling to set this straight in the way it ought to be.

Someone asked me in the chat: "How would America have reacted to the pics when those prisoners would have been Americans?" - and "how would you feel if those prisoners where Dutchmen?".

The more pressing question from my side in this case would however be "How would I feel, if I were an American?"...

lazserus

May 7th, 2004, 10:14 AM

I do not think Mr. Bush did his BEST to tell the world he regrets the atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq (Micky..."they walked away alive"....shame on YOU!!!) nor did he APOLOGIZE wholeheartedly to the Iraqi people for the conduct of some of his troops, and he REFUSES to fire Don Rumsfeld for withholding evidence and intelligence, the latter thus stating the fact he's absolutely unwilling to set this straight in the way it ought to be.
Thank you for that response. I certainly agree with you. :thumbs:

"How would America have reacted to the pics when those prisoners would have been Americans?" - and "how would you feel if those prisoners where Dutchmen?".
From what I hear, there are a LOT of outraged Americans about this situation. However, I see what you mean. I'm willing to bet that the number of outraged Americans would increase exponentially if they were American soldiers.

MetalMilitia

May 8th, 2004, 9:32 PM

There are even suggestions that the murder of a prisoner has been recorded. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina questioned Mr Rumsfeld on Friday about why the abuse had not been detected earlier. "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here.

The abuse was "detected" a year ago by the Red Cross, which officially complained to both the US and UK.

Ongoing, sick, wrong, abuse... The 'acts of a few', unheard of for quite some time?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=519448

-MM- :crs:

substand

May 9th, 2004, 12:17 AM

it was a tabloid that published it?

Defiant Noquisi

May 9th, 2004, 1:49 AM

......I'm willing to bet that the number of outraged Americans would increase exponentially if they were American soldiers. You know it, it would be a smaller scale 9-11 all over again with flag wavers and people climbing all over each other screaming for vengeance.

In fact, I think thats even more disgusting that anything. Where were all those flag waving "patriots" (Mickey excluded, I imagine a flag tatooed on his tuckus when he popped out of the love canal and his first words were AMERICAn patriot, with or without the missile) BEFORE something bad happened? Couldnt get away from the remote?

substand

May 9th, 2004, 5:06 AM

And your proof for this posted diatribe of lies, is ...?

Though I dislike it- "Specialist Matthew Wisdom, an M.P, … testified [that he] saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open"

from http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact or http://www.constitutionallychallenged.com/home/slar-050304.cfm.

Not lies, but well known.

For further reference, rape is "forcing another person to submit to sex acts," which clearly these prisoners were forced to do.

dutchie

May 9th, 2004, 9:24 AM

What the hell are you ppl on about? Move on to more deserving issues in the world. Take up the cause for stoping the spread of AIDS in Africa. This is not something over which you should get your collective panties in a twist.

The only reason you're here bitching is because AMERICA is involved.

Courage is also being able to admit your mistakes.

My post touched that quite clearly. It has EVERYTHING to do with AMERICA being involved, yes, for we NEVER EXPECTED anything like THAT to be committed by AMERICANS, Micky, and it should never have been done, and it is BESHAMING. And Don Rumsfeld should have taken full responsability - heck, in our country a minister would have to step down for only 10 % of what Rummy did. If we are SO DAMN PROUD of our morals and values, why then doesn't it COUNT when ARABS are involved... HUH???

So don't play your Patriot Game with me.... This time.

BTW, this is a discussion forum, Micky, I know that. I AM discussing AIDS and all other problems in other threads, You want to censor / divert attention from subjects you deem insignificant, or should that read painful / embarassing to America?

lotrfan55345

May 9th, 2004, 11:08 AM

it was a tabloid that published it?

No, a tabloid just "photoshopped" the images to make it look like Chucubarcas or whatever were torturing the Iraqi POW's.

MetalMilitia

May 9th, 2004, 11:26 AM

They allowed the cons the LUXURY to WALK AWAY. Ingrates. I hope our boys remember the stink over this and kill the fuq's the next time around...that way, you'll have nothing to bitch about.

I won't even go into how wrong your collective anger is.

According to you we should just ignore this? Or should we just kill them all, and let their god sort them out?

Sure everyones making a big deal. These men were lined up and forced to simulate sexual acts at the discretion of AMERICAN soldiers. As if that wasn't bad enough, there were other soldiers there taking photos, and even smiling and being IN THE photo with the prisoners. If you don't find that a big deal (ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE TRYING TO WIN "HEARTS AND MINDS") then what the hell is?

Sure, I'm sick of flipping on the news and seeing Iraqi S&M bondage all over the place. Rumsfeld is the fall guy, because their have been reports from generals and others for a few months (including reports from the red cross) sayin "hey, we're in trouble here... looks what's going on." No one DID care until this started hitting front page news, and maybe that's what it takes to wake a person up to this shit.

-MM- :crs:

FKoE

May 9th, 2004, 3:13 PM

it was a tabloid that published it?

As Mike and Smersh would tell you, The Independent is a Broadsheet and not a Tabloid. The Independent is a respected newspaper, though being the newest, Sorry SS if I'm being pedantic, or if I've got you wrong ............

Rummy should walk the plank for this PR disaster and obvious neglect and ignorance by him and his staff..........

Marajadex

May 9th, 2004, 3:30 PM

Neglect seems to be the mantra of this administration. They negelected to acknowledge information leading to 911 now they have neglected to act on specific information about this abuse of prisoner. What else have they or are they ignoring.

lotrfan55345

May 9th, 2004, 9:22 PM

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=74594

Here is a wealth of pictures compiled by some Russian guy.

oisin2000

May 10th, 2004, 2:01 PM

Iran is watching the EU with new interest for uniting the arab nations under Islam and hopes by 2007 to have enough firepower to hit the United States.

And after last weeks news of torture in Iraq by the US army ect. How many people will want to feel sorry for the USA if they were to experience another 9/11 or worse.

God Bless America - Not Anymore.

humanhybrid

May 10th, 2004, 6:23 PM

Well now! Americans and the world, We are being toyed with in regards to these abuses on the Iraqis. Its all a stage and Rumsfeild has now created a reason for the people of the world to see that the Iraqi people do indeed have a reason to resist. Before the pictures were out, Bush and Rumsfeild had no reason to offer the world "a reason as to the resistance". It kinda went against all rationale that Americans were liberators. What rationale is it that the very people that americans are liberating are the very people that are killing them. The cold hard reality is the Iraqi people do not want to be occupied. So now that Bush and Rumsfeild has staged pictures we now automatically understand that the reason behind our soldiers being killed are those pictures. Its not that were plundering the wealth of the Iraqi people with treaties nor spending billions of the taxpayers money to rebuild and then turn a huge profit. Otherwise if this was not true Mr Rumsfeild would be in the unemployment line along with that person or persons who gave us the information and reasons to invade Iraq. Lets not forget that Mr Bush had plans of invading Iraq long before taking office. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ so everything that is happening now has been preplanned to the best of their abilities.

humanhybrid

May 10th, 2004, 6:37 PM

LOOKS like Iraq will be occupied for some time, unless we dont impeach the Bush. Who out there will feel well about sending their children there so that the constituents of Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeild and friends can turn a hefty profit, And mind you ladies and gentleman its our taxes that they are using to accomplish this, as well lies. "excuse me bad intelligence"

substand

May 10th, 2004, 11:38 PM

As Mike and Smersh would tell you, The Independent is a Broadsheet and not a Tabloid. The Independent is a respected newspaper, though being the newest, Sorry SS if I'm being pedantic, or if I've got you wrong ............

Rummy should walk the plank for this PR disaster and obvious neglect and ignorance by him and his staff..........

Indeed, it is a broadsheet. It only looks like a tabloid it in "American" terms. I also had thought a "tabloid" was a paper that focuses more on entertainment than truth- therefore, "truth" is not the main aspect of a tabloid- it need only be based somewhat on truth. Then again, every news outlet would be a "tabloid" under that restrictive definition, but I think you'll understand my point when I point out that this particular paper's cover says "CIA Uses Chupacabras to torture prisoners in Iraq"... Come on- respected?

I don't know what "Chupacabras" means in UK English, but in Spanish it means "necksuckers" which loosely translates (in TexAmerican English close to Mexico which is much closer than England is to Spain) to "Vampires." Either way, thats retarded for a "news" outlet, and falls under "tabloid" in my loose definition.

Under tabloid (IM Definition) would fall everything from that, to my site (which is all true, but with megaspin) to the (US) National Enquirer. My def (though it technically could include) doesn't include FOX, CNN, or BBC.

from lotrfan:

No, a tabloid just "photoshopped" the images to make it look like Chucubarcas or whatever were torturing the Iraqi POW's.

I've actually read that some of the UK papers were doing that. I don't know if you meant it rhetorically or not- but in the end, it did happen as far as I've read.

From Mary Kate and Ashley Oisen:

And after last weeks news of torture in Iraq by the US army ect. How many people will want to feel sorry for the USA if they were to experience another 9/11 or worse.

God Bless America - Not Anymore.

I'd venture to say not many more people who were opposed to the US (or leaning that way) to begin with. Putting the abuse in perspective, its nothing. However, it does provide the enemy with propagrandisment to convert those leaners in the wrong direction. The vast majority are there doing good things which are never mentioned on the news.

It kinda went against all rationale that Americans were liberators.

How is it against any kind of "rationale" that American's are liberators?

What rationale is it that the very people that americans are liberating are the very people that are killing them.

How is it that the vast majority of people in Iraq are not killing American? How is it that majorities in polls say that they are glad the Americans are there, even though they think the war was wrong? The point is that the "very people that americans are liberating" are not the same ones that are killign us. To be sure, SOME are. But the vast majority aren't, nor do they wish us gone to be releived with excessive Saddamization(slash Sodomization if you dont understand).

Otherwise if this was not true Mr Rumsfeild would be in the unemployment line along with that person or persons who gave us the information and reasons to invade Iraq. Lets not forget that Mr Bush had plans of invading Iraq long before taking office. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ so everything that is happening now has been preplanned to the best of their abilities.

No one is ignorant enough to think that Bush did not CAMPAIGN ON (which he did) taking Saddam down.

I would like also to think that no one "forgot" that it was also the POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO CHANGE REGIMES IN IRAQ SINCE 1998 UNDER BILL CLINTON. Unfortunately, given your ralphing, I cannot be so blind in my hopes, since you blame it only on Bush.

humanhybrid

May 11th, 2004, 12:30 AM

humanhybrid

May 11th, 2004, 12:45 AM

substand

May 11th, 2004, 1:31 AM

How is it that the vast majority of people in Iraq are not killing American? How is it that majorities in polls say that they are glad the Americans are there, even though they think the war was wrong? The point is that the "very people that americans are liberating" are not the same ones that are killign us. To be sure, SOME are. But the vast majority aren't, nor do they wish us gone to be releived with excessive Saddamization(slash Sodomization if you dont understand). _____________ "My answer" The vast majority of people in Iraq do not posses weapons and if they do they are in so much fear they would say anything to protect themselves and their loved ones. POLLS? Please! I guess they go door to door and ask questions. And the americans are their for war not a vacation. The vast majority want the oppressors out. Sodomization is what the commander and chiefs soldiers are doing to the Iraqi people. Here is the Poll http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
First, please learn to use the quote button. I don't fault you for it, I just want you to know it exists (it looks like a cartoon blurb). I really don't mean that in a derogatory way, but I know it sounds like it as you read it.

Second, are you ****ing retarded (I assuming if people can say "fuqing" I can say "****ing")? Did you read the post I wrote, and/or did you read the link you posted?

I would have loved to quote you and your post of a poll, and say

POLLS? Please! I guess they go door to door and ask questions.

No, they don't go door to door. The point of a poll is that you don't go door to door otherwise the poll could not be taken in a reasonable amount of time- the point is to take a random enough sample that it represents popular opinion, typically within + or - 4 percent.

The vast majority of people in Iraq do not posses weapons and if they do they are in so much fear they would say anything to protect themselves and their loved ones.... Sodomization is what the commander and chiefs soldiers are doing to the Iraqi people

On that, news reports before the war say that not only did Saddam give amnesty to all those tortured souls, he gave them and everyone in his country weapons to fight the Americans with. Not that we should beleive Saddam, but you obviously do, except presumably for this case. I feel sorry for you beleiving him in any case. But if you beleive the Americans who are occupying Iraq are worse than Saddam, then surely you beleive Saddam.

The Iraqi people are so much in fear that they would never protest against Saddam (except for a couple of times, after which they got Chemicalled or slaughtered without WMD nonetheless) and not the US. They are so in fear of us that they protest. Wow. I didn't realize that people who fear that if they utilize free speech they will die would choose to not to do so, but will utilize free speech when they won't die en masse. I suppose that you think the Iraqi vote in November 2002 where 100% voted FOR Saddam Hussein was legit (http://www.constitutionallychallenged.com/home/slar-101702.cfm)?

I guess you ignore the results of the poll you posted when it says:

The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak.

But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus...

I guess it is telling that USAToday has to take out a major part of the population to say:

If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases.

Of course the poll only gives 13% of responses to Kurds, while they make up 15-20% (see World Factbook) of the population. Even then, it is only justified in "SOME" cases to the poll's respondents. So basically the poll says that a minority says it is OK to kill Americans in "SOME" cases, but portrays it as if "MOST" people think its OK to kill Americans, when that is simply not the case. Even if you only call Kurds 13% of the population, USAToday has to discount them for the poll to say "MOST" Iraqis see it as "OK" to kill American soldiers "some of the time."

What's even more telling is they have to go to Sadr City, which most Americans would not know the significance of, to find the quote "'I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance,' says Abbas Kadhum Muia." And they tell me the media isn't liberal. Sadr City is one of the few most resisting cities. I said few. They couldn't go to some random neighborhood, they had to go to one of the 3 places of major resistance to get that quote.

"American failures have left the capital with higher crime and less-reliable services, including electricity. That is 'making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans.'"

This should change when all is said and done. However, it is too early. there are many contradictory reports which show schools and cities better off than before we came. Sure, Saddam kept the cities he resided in in good repair (which is where this quote comes from) but what about the rest of iraq?

In any case, realize "That negative opinion of the behavior of the troops rarely is based on direct contact. "

substand

May 11th, 2004, 1:44 AM

It does not take being blind that it was Mr. Bush who went to war and setting aside the world community with over blown information that took us to war. I cant call Mr Clinton having done what our Bush has done. Was it me that was ralphing?

Its you ralphing. Clinton advocates' excuse largely has been that he was dealing with Monica et al. Clinton signed the legislation that made Iraqi Regime change OFFICIAL USA policy. Clinton bombed Iraq due to "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (even if I beleive the war was still on then- you don't, which is precisely why it matters).

Look it up. You'd be amazed to find out that Clinton was saying many of the same things Bush 43 has been / was saying. If you read transcripts, you'd think it was Bush. Its only the "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is" voice that betrays him in the recordings.

Lets see, before a "preemptive" attack, who said:

Let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, in some way, I'll guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.

I'll give you a hint. It was before Dubya, and after H Dubya.

substand

May 11th, 2004, 1:49 AM

so was clinton ralphing? were all the intel agencies in the world ralphing? or was it you? You have to be mickeydoolittle to beleive it was everyone besides yourself. especially if you beleive if was all those in the know having "diarrhea of the mouth" and not yourself.

DontBeAfraid

May 11th, 2004, 4:59 AM

have to be mickeydoolittle to beleive it was everyone besides yourself.
lol. I cant tell what side he is REALLY on.

humanhybrid

May 11th, 2004, 2:10 PM

lotrfan55345

May 11th, 2004, 5:49 PM

Private Lynndie England - the Great American Heroine

http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/397/12739_iraqTortures.html

It's Russian, so you may consider it "communist".

MetalMilitia

May 12th, 2004, 1:33 AM

[sarcasm]Hey MD, I noticed 3/4 of your references come from CNN... great news source there! [/sarcarm]

Republican Senator says Iraqis deserved it

Uber-Conservative Republican Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) just said on CNN that the Iraqi prisoners basically deserved what they got:

The world is going to judge all Americans by this asshole.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2004/05/video-republican-senator-says-iraqis.html

What do you think this does to the rationale of the ones holding American prisoners / hostages?

-MM- :crs:

Chrome Ninja

May 12th, 2004, 7:54 AM

YOU people make me sick talking about who deserves what or who is in the right or the wrong, we are both in the wrong, it's all nonsence, the U.S. torturing their civilians, Iraq slaughtering our troops we are both in the wrong, so stop justifing these in humane actions(and stop taking sides) and realize that war like this is not the answer.

lazserus

May 12th, 2004, 10:58 AM

"Fact one" Iraq and 911 no connection!!!! "Fact two" Bush ignored world community "Fact three" intelligence failure "selective intelligence" Premtive war "Fact four" One year and 31 days and still no WMD "Fact four" Saddam captured "Fact five" Its about the oil silly and occupying the middle east. "Fact six" the Iraqi people want a sovereign country, they want Ameicans out. America has no right in dictating policys on other countrys. Its rather a cartoon to see just who is the bad guy Bush or Saddam. The pictures of abuse and torture and death are just the begining. And as far as danger is concerned in this world it is Isreal. They are the group of terroists with weopons of mass destuction stealing and killing for land.
I'm glad you formatted your post using " " because your facts are not facts at all, but misconceptions and lack of information.

Iraq and 911 no connection!!!!
Iraq had no direct connection with 9/11, nor did Afghanistan. 9/11 wasn't a military attack, but a terrorist attack. President Bush immediately said that if any country is harboring terrorists they are classified as our enemy. Afghanistan admitted to harboring OBL and refused to hand him over. So, we marched in there and rearranged their terrorist political system. Saddam funded and allowed Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in his country. That's connection enough for me.

Premtive war
Wrong. We were still at war with Iraq. The was only a cease fire established after the first Gulf War. Saddam had violated that cease fire several times during the Clinton administration and we did nothing (well, Clinton dropped a few bombs, but nothing serious).

One year and 31 days and still no WMD
Because they've been moved. Military and CIA intel supports that possibility.

the Iraqi people want a sovereign country, they want Ameicans out.
They'll get their nation, but right now there's still fighting going on (and I'm not talking normal civilians against military). As I've said on numerous occasions, if the Iraqis were capable of handling the situation themselves then why did they let Saddam terrorize them for as long as they did?

America has no right in dictating policys on other countrys.
This isn't entirely true. The US dictated Germany AND Japan's policies after WWII and they also dictated Afghanistan's new policy. Nothing in this world is free, especially multi-billion dollar military operations. If the US spent all that money fighting terrorism in other countries and happened to liberate civilians from their tyrannical rulers, it would only be in the US's best interest to insure a proper government is put into place.

They are the group of terroists with weopons of mass destuction stealing and killing for land.
This can go either way. Quite frankly, the Palestinian/Israel war is far beyond western understanding and should just be left to them to sort out. Palestine fights Israel with terrorists while Israel fights with military. Again, no WMD are being used in the fight between Palestine and Israel.

MetalMilitia

May 13th, 2004, 2:06 AM

Powell says Bush was 'informed' of Red Cross concerns

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he and other top officials kept President Bush "fully informed ... in general terms" about complaints made by the Red Cross and others over ill-treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Powell's statement suggests Bush may have known earlier than the White House has acknowledged about complaints raised by the International Committee of the Red Cross and human rights groups regarding abuse of detainees in Iraq.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.powell12may12,0,2804533.story?coll=bal-news-nation

-MM- :crs:

midnightsonblaze

May 13th, 2004, 2:49 AM

I'm almost positive the administration knew what was going on for a long time, but was hoping nothing would be leaked out, or maybe they were hoping they were...this may truly be an evil admin....who the hell knows?

Besides that..I may have missed the boat on this, but who the hell was taking these pictures and how did they get leaked to the press anyhow? Are people that stupid to do shit like this? Making it so possible they would get caught....

Sometime stuff truly does blow my mind...

humanhybrid

May 13th, 2004, 5:17 AM

Iraq had no direct connection with 9/11, nor did Afghanistan. 9/11 wasn't a military attack, but a terrorist attack. President Bush immediately said that if any country is harboring terrorists they are classified as our enemy. Afghanistan admitted to harboring OBL and refused to hand him over. So, we marched in there and rearranged their terrorist political system. Saddam funded and allowed Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in his country. That's connection enough for me. Perhaps you could say that the Palistinians are terrorists because they are fighting for their right to live on the land they once had, and that Isreal is only retaliating with the military that the USA furnishes! We can remember the days when we aided Saddam and Osama, does that mean that the good ole USA has aided terrorists? These training camps trained who and what? gee I wonder how they knew about these training camps?? OOpps change in policy, now a terrorist.

Wrong. We were still at war with Iraq. The was only a cease fire established after the first Gulf War. Saddam had violated that cease fire several times during the Clinton administration and we did nothing (well, Clinton dropped a few bombs, but nothing serious). Were talking about Kuwait I presume, Of which the no fly zone was illeagal. Kuwait was a part of Iraq wasnt it? Ya we know all the top guns were flying in and out of the no fly zone intimidating the Iraqis to the point of acting like a soveriegn country and fireing back. And they are doing much the same on the Syrian border.

Because they've been moved. Military and CIA intel supports that possibility. And I guess your going to beleive them again?

They'll get their nation, but right now there's still fighting going on (and I'm not talking normal civilians against military). As I've said on numerous occasions, if the Iraqis were capable of handling the situation themselves then why did they let Saddam terrorize them for as long as they did?
Very good question? They didnt, all but a few as a Bush example. But the Iraqis are terroizeing the americans now! You must get the picture

This isn't entirely true. The US dictated Germany AND Japan's policies after WWII and they also dictated Afghanistan's new policy. Nothing in this world is free, especially multi-billion dollar military operations. If the US spent all that many fighting terrorism in other countries and happened to liberate civilians from their tyrannical rulers, it would only be in the US's best interest to insure a proper government is put into place.
The only tyrannical ruler I see is BUSH and BLAIR capitalising on the wealth of the Iraqis and plundering America to produce a hefty profit for shareholders, OH! the multi-billion dollar military operations? The poor and the middle class pays for that with high deficits and taxes and probably the social security that we hope to get when we retire "in the name of democracy and freedom". And that is not to mention the burden on the planet. Unless we are GOD or being occupied we should allow freedom of life for others and respect the evolving nature of things. I dont know if I should call our military the Calvery because the same rethoric rings with the white man taking the land from the indians because they were savages and the white man a christian.

This can go either way. Quite frankly, the Palestinian/Israel war is far beyond western understanding and should just be left to them to sort out. Palestine fights Israel with terrorists while Israel fights with military. Again, no WMD are being used in the fight between Palestine and Israel. And so should the Iraqi people have that same right. Oh yes! by the way Isreal is the only country with nuclear plants of which has not been monitered by any nuclear agency what so ever, they dont allow it. Terrorists do have military hardware too, and from what I hear Isreal lines up some pretty hefty military contracts from?????? Its just that the ones that dont have it are called terrorists? MMMmm. So while you may have tried to do the work for the burning Bush, not all of us see that burning light. Good day to you "the Budell"

humanhybrid

May 13th, 2004, 11:57 AM

[
QUOTE=mickydoolittle]If you have a friend and that friend turns around and rapes your mother--would you still call that person your friend? Same situation as what you're trying to cast blame on above. Get used to being repeatedly shown wrong. You must have information as to what is being RAPED!!! Show me wrong about What????

This happens all the time--back in the cold war the russian pilots (rather amazing individuals in very amazing planes) did the exact same to AMERICA, and we did to them on their coast. It's about testing the responses/limits of your enemy or aggressor. Duh. Your deameaning nature does not serve you at making this irrelevant, sorry!

If you mean that Bush and Blair are tyrannical in their efforts to eliminate oppression, you are quite correct. Otherwise, your head is akin to my avatar and you're clearly as dumb as you present yourself in your posts.
Dumb?? Its your avatar my freind, and it seems like it befits one that replies like you to others without regards or any common respect. As to regards to oppression. I really dont see the diffrence between Saddam or Bush, they both are oppressors. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/191682p-165691c.html http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6182.htm http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=44854&d=13&m=5&y=2004

You're tired of being poor or middle class? Then go out an EARN the right to be part of the upper echelon by contributing to society and manipulating it to your betterment. You don't deserve it because they have it and you don't. Get off your ass and do something to earn your way to that pie in the sky--without killing ppl in the name of your terrible religion either.
I dont minipulate or kill others as you seem to think as a betterment. Some people do have morals and ethics. If this is what is to be said of the upper echelon "which is absurd" then Ill become dirt poor thank you!! I still stand firm on my post and information. Take the quiz Terrorists? I didnt know how to remove the childish icon, I am sorry! http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/israel_flash_quiz.htm

Emerald_Dragon

May 13th, 2004, 12:41 PM

>Making it so possible they would get caught....

i think its hard to hide whats happening, when many people are involved. You can cover up so much, until the data gets into enquiring hands. The story is out now. Who is ready to believe it?

Is it Iraqi propaganda put out to make us look bad? Is it a bunch of soldiers having fun and taking souvenir pictures? Was it happening and nobody thought it was anything until they came back to the US of A? Who knows. Its out.

Emerald_Dragon

May 13th, 2004, 2:01 PM

>President Bush immediately said that if any country is harboring terrorists
>they are classified as our enemy.

i must have missed the clause that says, with the exception of us. Because we don't harbor any, we don't train any, and sure as hell, we don't have any. Or am I wrong?

>Saddam funded and allowed Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in his country.
> That's connection enough for me.

from what Powell had said, SH was unable to control much of his country outside of Bagdad (sp?). He had to use brute force to keep his country in line. He even had terrorist groups in his country, known to us, that we aided and sided with. And then, there are the Kurds. That's a Pandora's box. As far as I know, SH didn't fund AQ. Where do get that intel? I was aware of the money he was paying families of suicide bombers. Were they AQ? News to me, if true.

>Wrong. We were still at war with Iraq.

if you mean currently, i agree. if you mean for the last 10 years, I disagree. Weapons Inspectors? A Congress-mandated war? U.N. sanctioned? Or a personal war of the POTUS for his oil baron cohorts?

>if the Iraqis were capable of handling the situation themselves then
>why did they let Saddam terrorize them for as long as they did?

its hard to fight a well funded opponent. the people can fight with AK-47s, sticks and stones, etc. But its governments with Heavy Weapons, Equipment, and ammo supplies that win wars. People can resist, they're just going to lose. So wait. And snipe. And bomb.

>the Palestinian/Israel war is far beyond western understanding and
>should just be left to them to sort out

debatable. it is not "beyond western understanding" to some. i think people should be given the history and make their own call as to what is happening. not given the opinion they should have. if we want to let them sort it out, we should stop funding one side officially [gov't sanctioned] and the other, unofficially [non-gov't donations]. then it would be an "even-handed" discourse. As it is, it's not.

lotrfan55345

May 13th, 2004, 5:31 PM

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/20802.htm

More porno, bondage and S&M by the beloved true Amerikkkan heroine Lynndie England!

"I don't know how these people got in (our) military"
- Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.

lotrfan55345

May 13th, 2004, 5:35 PM

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/05/12/image616925x.jpg
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_monkey.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/cpress/20040512/capt.w051221a.jpg
It's a man!^
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/images/H_habilis_200.jpeg
http://www.celebritykidz.com/stevenalawrence/images/beans.jpg
I see a resemblance1^

Strife

May 13th, 2004, 6:14 PM

Your not 12 years old you little rascal! :rolling:

BTW, about 7 replies up, midnightsonblaze mentioned how these pictures got into the public..well, how?? :confused: :boxer:

lazserus

May 13th, 2004, 6:38 PM

lotrf - knock it off. You're starting to spam the forums with irrelevant images. I know they're funny and all, but come on. You're slowing down the thread flow. :deal:

To everyone else, please start using our thread rating system. It's up next to the Thread Tools link at the top of the thread. I'd like to start seeing some ratings!

playmaker88

May 13th, 2004, 7:10 PM

No one knows how they personally would handle the situation until they themselves had been through it. If you walked through a suburb with your closest friends and came under fire and two of your closest friends went down, one taking a couple of rounds to the head and another losing half their body to an RPG and the perpertrators surrendered the minute that you put them under real pressure, whose to say you wouldn't give them a good hiding.

I think you would have to be morally very strong to refrain from beating up on someone in those circumstances. The thoughts going through your head that if it was you caught by the other side, you would probably be paraded on Al Jazeera and ritually decapitated after seven solid days of torture.

I'm not saying an eye for an eye, I'm not condoning brutal treatment, I'm just saying that self-control must be at a premium. No excuses? :dead:

MetalMilitia

May 15th, 2004, 5:17 PM

Democrats agree to suppress photos of US torture in Iraq

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/dems-m15.shtml

The government has no legal justification for concealing these photos, since they do not involve classified material...They are just sweeping the scandal under the rug. This combined with the whole 'Berg' Situation just SMELLS of government corruption.

My rationale is that they now 'fear' that if we release these photos in public, there will be more 'retaliation.' Bullshit. We have a right to see these photos to know what exactly has been going on with these prisoners for more than a year.

-MM- :crs:

VegasRonin

May 15th, 2004, 6:35 PM

No need to humiliate prisoners. A few bodies and heads on a spiked parapet would do the trick. :wink:

humanhybrid

May 15th, 2004, 11:04 PM

The New Yorker said the interrogation plan was a highly classified "special access program," or SAP, that gave advance approval to kill, capture or interrogate so-called high-value targets in the battle against terror. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040515/pl_nm/iraq_abuse_pentagon_dc

lazserus

May 17th, 2004, 10:30 AM

No need to humiliate prisoners. A few bodies and heads on a spiked parapet would do the trick. :wink:
Amen! I say fight fire with fire. If these people want to act like medieval barbarians we should start treating them like that.

MetalMilitia

May 18th, 2004, 1:21 AM

Amen! I say fight fire with fire. If these people want to act like medieval barbarians we should start treating them like that.

Should we lob a few of their heads off? I'm sure that'll make 'em stop...

Pfc. Lynndie England, the Army soldier seen laughing, smoking and flashing the thumbs-up in front of naked male Iraqis in photographs, has told investigators: Guards forced detainees to crawl on their hands and knees on broken glass and forced male detainees to wear women's 'maxi pads'...

Guards also applied needle and thread to prisoners after beating them.... 'Would personally stitch up detainees if the wound weren't too bad' and take pictures of the work. One particular incident, a guard ran a former Iraqi general into a wall and split his lip. The guard than stitched up his lip'

Good thing we're setting the example so others can follow. No wonder they don't want any more pics released...

-MM- :crs:

Ghostrider ESP

May 18th, 2004, 4:04 AM

If abusing prisoners is a release from fears that these people have due to the situation they are in then the taking of photographs just serves to point out how dumb some of these people are.

1. Are the photos taken so that you can bring the memories flooding back twenty years down the line?

2. If you are abusing prisoners, surely you would want to hide that from the outside world, not prove it?

People do foolish things, always have done. Most people tend to follow like sheep to fit in. It is very important that you fit in, in a military unit, soldiers have a habit of making members of their units life hell if they differ slightly from the others. Once one or two idiots start taking photos, most other members of a troop will start wanting to be in that photo, then it becomes a case of who does what, in what photo? Soldier A has a photo taken of him kicking a prisoner, Soldier B decides to urinate on the prisoner, Soldier C defecates on a prisoner. Spiral.

Where is the officer in charge? It is his job to keep the discipline. It is his responsibility to keep these situations in check. It's probably him taking the photos. :Grind:

playmaker88

May 18th, 2004, 7:27 AM

Scenario: The Russian president decides the American president is an evil dictator and decides to free the American people. After weeks of aerial bombardment the land phase begins. The Russians declare victory after entering Washington DC and finding that the US president has gone to ground. The Russian soldiers find that many Americans fear the Russians due to endless negative propaganda throughout the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's etc. Russians quite surprised. The Russians are met with severe resistance in the Presidents home state of Texas and large cities such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles are yet to come under full Russian control.
The Russians, try to install a new government from responsible US citizens and rebuild the damaged infrastucture, the sanitary systems, the food supplies etc. that had been laid to waste during the early battles for control. American networks continue to broadcast anti-Russian propaganda, while the Russians throw pro-Russian propaganda in the opposite direction. The pro-Russian propoganda doesn't seem to be working though because 13 years ago the Russians had a chance to take out the American dictator and when the local Americans rose up to fight against him, the Russians left them to it despite assurances to the contrary. They don't know which way to turn especially as the new Russian president is the son of the one who let them down previously. They feel it is probably best to go with their instincts, afterall they are Americans and it is their country. They resist the Russian takeover any way that they possibly can. The Russians don't feel very appreciated.

Ghostrider ESP

May 18th, 2004, 12:25 PM

So what's more important playmaker? Who is right or wrong? Or your devotion to your country?

humanhybrid

May 18th, 2004, 3:16 PM

So what's more important playmaker? Who is right or wrong? Or your devotion to your country?It seems as though he has the mindless way a soldier is to be. You dont question authority. Your to be a patriot regardless right or wrong? Its a shame because every citizen and soldier of any counrty should question and speak out against bad policies. We should not be mindless. When has it become un patriotic to question the reason why we send our children to die?

DontBeAfraid

May 18th, 2004, 6:04 PM

Im getting a little irritated with soldiers being referred to as mindless. Obedient? yes. Mindless? hardly.

MetalMilitia

May 18th, 2004, 7:43 PM

What the **** is wrong with those carrying out this kinda stuff

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces beat three Iraqis working for Reuters and subjected them to sexual and religious taunts and humiliation during their detention last January in a military camp near Falluja, the three said Tuesday.

The three first told Reuters of the ordeal after their release but only decided to make it public when the U.S. military said there was no evidence they had been abused, and following the exposure of similar mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

An Iraqi journalist working for U.S. network NBC, who was arrested with the Reuters staff, also said he had been beaten and mistreated, NBC said Tuesday.

Two of the three Reuters staff said they had been forced to insert a finger into their anus and then lick it, and were forced to put shoes in their mouths, particularly humiliating in Arab culture.

All three said they were forced to make demeaning gestures as soldiers laughed, taunted them and took photographs. They said they did not want to give details publicly earlier because of the degrading nature of the abuse.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040518/ts_nm/iraq_reuters_dc_4

I hope that this is some fake story, as if there wasn't already enough bad news about abuse by US soldiers... then something like this happens.

-MM- :crs:

MetalMilitia

May 18th, 2004, 10:41 PM

It just hit me like a ton of bricks while I was sittin' here, and I meant to add this in earlier 'cause I hadn't seen anyone raise the point.

It was Dostoyevsky who said "you can judge a society by its prisons." It is how Saddam was judged, and it is sadly now how many around the world will judge the U.S.

Just something to think over :D

-MM- :crs:

humanhybrid

May 19th, 2004, 12:22 AM

Im getting a little irritated with soldiers being referred to as mindless. Obedient? yes. Mindless? hardly. Dont be irritated! I apologize if I may have been disrespectful. Its just that if one submits to obedience, it should go without saying that its from a worthy cause. My son wishes to be a soldier, "he is five" and I tell him that we have enough soldiers in this world but what we dont have is enough peace makers. It hasnt yet manifested, "the idea" There are some very mindful and caring soldiers out there in Iraq as it is evident by the pictures that came out of the prisons.

playmaker88

May 19th, 2004, 4:19 AM

If you had bothered to read my posts on this thread, you would see that in #116 I am trying to see things from the point of view of the American soldiers and then in #123 I was questioning the right to call Iraqis barbarians.
So you will understand if I take offence in being told that I am mindless in your post #125. I don't see anything mindless about analysing the situation from both sides and still coming out with an open mind.

I think Ghostrider got the point and asked a valid question. He had probably read both posts before jumping the gun. You know nothing of being a soldier, or of a soldiers mind. I didn't say that anyone was right or that anyone was wrong on either side regarding the soldiers or the Iraqi people. I was just trying to get people to think and then respond. You responded, I doubt that there was much of a thought process going on though.

MacRasta

May 19th, 2004, 8:15 AM

Scenario: The Russian president decides the American president is an evil dictator and decides to free the American people........

And Iraqi people do it their way.

Bravo Playmaker! That should get some people start thinking!

Mac

Defiant Noquisi

May 19th, 2004, 11:24 AM

Anyone who thinks that soldiers are mindless, get your ass in the military yourself and find out the truth. Until then you dont have any idea what you are talking about and are wasting bandwidth posting about ficticious knowledge you think you have. If you have already served, you have a right to your opinion.

Torturing prisoners is plain ass wrong. We should be held to and act in a higher standard. All that crap has done is prove to the Iraqi people how BS the US is.

Scenario: The Russian president decides the American president is an evil dictator and decides to free the American people........ You cant imagine the sick and twisted sort of pleasure I am getting out of reading that right now.

humanhybrid

May 19th, 2004, 12:17 PM

playmaker88 said; I doubt that there was much of a thought process going on though.I still stand that a soldier does not question authority. He is given orders and thats it, it is his or hers responsability to carry them out, Is it mindless? Should one question the ethics and morality of what one is doing? Tell me that I am wrong and that we should be mindless robots regardless of the ramifications. Maybe I am wrong? :bye: good day! http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16966 Its time to bring our children home out of harms way, TODAY!

DontBeAfraid

May 19th, 2004, 12:32 PM

HumanHybrid the chain of command is filled with, get this, soldiers..... Soldiers who have to make decisions. Decisions about things like what orders to issue and what orders to carry out..... The chain of command is a BIG decision making machine, not just a means of enforcing decisions. It may be harder for suggestions to go up the chain than down but that is because the upper part of it has likely already considered whats coming from below when they were there. That doesnt mean that the guys on the bottom have no input. You act like the orders and authority comes from some source OTHER than the soldiers themselves..... When you prove that you are in fact NOT a mindless drone you start getting promoted. Post ignorance about this again and I will put you on ignore.

playmaker88

May 19th, 2004, 1:03 PM

Well a soldier who went around questioning standard orders that he'd been given, wouldn't make much of a soldier. It's true that when my Sargeant used to tell me to jump, I didn't ask "how high", I just did it. In the case of a combat situation you can't have half a unit doing a job and the other half questioning the practicalities, the whys? and the what fors? HOWEVER if you are given an order that contravenes the Geneva Convention or that breaks the law, you have every right to question that order, even if you are a private and the man giving the order is a General. This is a fact. Meaning they do not have to take part in mindless actions.

A choice also comes in whether you become a recruit in the first place. How you interpret your orders is down to your own abilities and common sense also. Is this mindless enough for you.

We'd all love peace and harmony throughout the world, perfect. There is nothing I would like more. Easy to say sitting in your armchair, watching the news as opposed to being part of it, risking life and limb trying to make the world a better place. When did your child sign up? One minute you're calling them mindless, the next you are calling them your children.

As for your link, not a million miles away from my scenario. Now if you'd like to explain why you called ME mindless as I requested. If you are going to quote me, make sure you quote the whole post, not snippets.

Defiant Noquisi

May 19th, 2004, 1:05 PM

HumanHybrid the chain of command is filled with, get this, soldiers..... When you prove that you are in fact NOT a mindless drone you start getting promoted. Just adding to what DBA posted, my brother has had to take tons of classes on how to "size-up" people under his command and get their opinions. In ALL of his classes there have been lessons on how to better have grunt labor involved in decision making since thats where mosts affects of decisions are felt.

If my brother had been just a mindless drone and not capable of making a decision I doubt he will be where he is today. After his promotion this summer, he will be two more promotions away from becoming an Admiral. If he continues at the current pace hes been in, he will become the youngest Admiral ever appointed in US military service.

We may not get along very well, he doesnt cuss, hes a whitey, Republican Baptist, but Im proud of his accomplishments and the very real fact that HE is VERY capable of making decisions and has been since BEFORE he joined the service. In fact, every Academy was practically beating our door down to recruit him and he chose the Navy.

My brother didnt get where he is by being a "yes" man kiss ass.

humanhybrid

May 19th, 2004, 3:31 PM

playmaker88 HOWEVER if you are given an order that contravenes the Geneva Convention or that breaks the law, you have every right to question that order, even if you are a private and the man giving the order is a General. This is a fact. Meaning they do not have to take part in mindless actions.
Shouldnt have the soldiers been questioning their orders when they were told to abuse, torture, and to kill unnessesarily?
Easy to say sitting in your armchair, watching the news as opposed to being part of it, risking life and limb trying to make the world a better place. When did your child sign up? One minute you're calling them mindless, the next you are calling them your children. To make the world a better place? I dont feel safer at all, we americans have shaken the bee hive of resentment and hate that will ultimatly lead to more terroism across the globe. We all posting here are sitting in an armchair questioning the rationale of our president and the orders that come from him as he is our commander and cheif. And with due respect anybody who thinks that being in Iraq occupying a country that is not our own is mindless. And it is the people who took Mr. Bush and his lies of mass deception that are mindless. As far as my children are concerned I have 4 and I intend for them to be mindfull of what peace is and what war mongering is. Are we mindless here in this forum? I ask you! And what do we teach our children at home. good day!

playmaker88

May 19th, 2004, 4:09 PM

Shouldnt have the soldiers been questioning their orders when they were told to abuse, torture, and to kill unnessesarily? !

For the torture and abuse, that a minority of soldiers are dishing out they should be punished. I think you'll find a soldier was jailed today for such atrocities. As for unecessarily killing, I think you'll find that the majority of killing has been done underfire.

playmaker88

May 19th, 2004, 4:27 PM

To make the world a better place? I dont feel safer at all, we americans have shaken the bee hive of resentment and hate that will ultimatly lead to more terroism across the globe. We all posting here are sitting in an armchair questioning the rationale of our president and the orders that come from him as he is our commander and cheif. And with due respect anybody who thinks that being in Iraq occupying a country that is not our own is mindless. And it is the people who took Mr. Bush and his lies of mass deception that are mindless. As far as my children are concerned I have 4 and I intend for them to be mindfull of what peace is and what war mongering is. Are we mindless here in this forum? I ask you! And what do we teach our children at home. good day!

Are you suggesting that America should scrap its armed forces altogether? Do you think that all the other countries in the world will follow suit? Hey, maybe you've cracked it. Peace worldwide. HH for president. As for the president, he is yours, not mine and for the record has never been my commander-in-chief. I have a child also and I'd love him to live in a world of peace. I think you'll find September 11, happened before your president decided to go into Afghanistan or Iraq. There is a major disliking for your country anyway. My child will be made aware of what peace is and I hope he never has to raise a fist or a weapon in anger but he will also live in the real world and know that this planet is ruled by a species that is incapable of self control. Now if you finally want to tell me why you called me mindless, we can let this one go, we are never going to agree on things.

humanhybrid

May 19th, 2004, 8:24 PM

Now if you finally want to tell me why you called me mindless, we can let this one go, we are never going to agree on things. If your looking for a personal attack, you wont get it. But if the shoe fits, its your choice to wear it. And no it will be nothing I hold on too! One thing that we can agree on though as you have said "but he will also "your son" live in the real world and know that this planet is ruled by a species that is incapable of self control. Not all of our species formulate ideas as the current administation of the United States that stimulates hatred and mistrust. Most people like you and I wish for peace and good will. Thanks for being the gentleman that you are! good day! " the Budell" PS; Dont let our president shine us on to think that it is only a handful of soldiers, nor that it wasnt a procedure that wasnt known by top military brass.

DarkAce

May 19th, 2004, 9:18 PM

Not all of our species formulate ideas as the current administation of the United States that stimulates hatred and mistrust. Most people like you and I wish for peace and good will.

Peace and good will don't make the 'world go round'. Never will either. Well atleast not with all these pesky rights and ethics in the way.

DontBeAfraid

May 19th, 2004, 9:46 PM

HH it IS only a handful of soldiers, bad soldiers. Bad soldiers with bad leadership respectively. Abuse IS NOT standard operating procedure, not even if you just watched Tigerland. Cases like this DONT happen throughout the military, unfortunately too many people "looked the other" way at the prison, for whatever reason.
If you truely beleive this to be the way things work in the military then I suggest you start reading the military TM's and FM's which are the books most of our training is derived out of. This should undoubtedly prove that this is not procedure.

humanhybrid

May 19th, 2004, 10:34 PM

playmaker88

May 20th, 2004, 3:16 AM

It seems as though he has the mindless way a soldier is to be.

This is the personal attack that I was talking about. It was you who got personal. If you can't even defend this statement, then don't make it in the first place.

DontBeAfraid

May 20th, 2004, 11:29 AM

humanhybrid

May 20th, 2004, 12:23 PM

HH did YOU READ THE ARTICLE ON THE LINK YOU POSTED???? It stated that OTHER countries practice torture. It stated that coersive interrigation IS NO LONGER acceptable by the US. Not to mention it had NO links to ANY of the information it is referencing so as far as we know it could just be some dude with a heavely biased site like substand. Biased! Its very clear that we all should be biased against human right abuses, regardless of what country or ethinicity. Im surprised that certain people are defending the actions of the USA! Heres to the few. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6217.htm playmaker88 Again, if your looking for a personal attack, you wont get it. But if the shoe fits, its your choice to wear it. And no it will be nothing I hold on to, sorry! good day!
ps; It stated that OTHER countries practice torture. It stated that coersive interrigation IS NO LONGER acceptable by the US Many stories have raised the rather absurd question of whether the practice of torture by Americans is an aberration. There is abundant proof, however, that both the abusive interrogation practices and the photographic documentation of them are techniques that the CIA has sanctioned and taught over more than 30 years.

"When the Shah of Iran was deposed in 1979, the files of his much-feared CIA-trained intelligence service, SAVAK, were opened to journalists." The noted Egyptian reporter Mohammed Heikal wrote that he was shown a film of a female prisoner being stripped naked, who screamed and broke down as her nipples were burned with a lighted cigarette.

It was explained that this was a training film for other torturers. The film, Heikal wrote, was also given to the CIA, which then made copies for use by the intelligence services of Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia. Tell me that nothing like this happened nor that this video wasnt passed on to other countries! Yess HH did read his info. good day in part Information Clearing House

humanhybrid

May 20th, 2004, 12:27 PM

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6218.htm Heres to the few the proud and brave defenders of freedom.

DontBeAfraid

May 20th, 2004, 6:16 PM

The site has ZERO proof of the allegations its made. Im not saying that human rights violations are acceptable SO DONT IMPLY THAT I AM. Im saying that the author doesnt know what he is talking about. Read the article you posted it says that OTHER COUNTRIES sanction torture not the USA. Even if the cia did have films of torture, which that idiot has only stated and not proven, does not mean they condone it. Your last two links are dead, please try and fix them. Please provide some "abundant proof" that torture is a standard practice if you are going to accuse so many good men and women, including many here on the board, of such crimes.

Prove that your lies are true. You have ZERO first hand expirence and neither do the authors of the sites you post...... You are about as credible as john titor, so it will be difficult.

humanhybrid

May 20th, 2004, 10:34 PM

Why thank you for that splendid accusation, As I see it you have not provided me or anyone here that no torture, death, etc. has not taken place. Simply put, Prove that its not true. You are about as credible as john titor, so it will be difficult.
Today 12:27 PM

humanhybrid

May 21st, 2004, 12:53 PM

mickydoolittle HH-

You continue to post links that are detrimental to your cause. You could be fooling with us, but I doubt your able to accomplish such.

You provide more evidence of your lack of debating ability than anyone here ever could. Myself excluded of course--as it is always very easy to show you up.
Again doolittle http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=523356 thank you for that splendid accusation, As I see it you have not provided me yet or anyone here that no torture, death, etc. has not taken place. Simply put, Prove that its not true. You are about as credible as john titor, so it will be difficult. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html PS I sincerely apologize for broken links as I dont purposely place them. good day!

DontBeAfraid

May 21st, 2004, 8:58 PM

HH Where did I say that NO abuse took place? Sure you could purposely misrepresent MY side when relating it to SOMEONE ELSE to make your side seem more correct, but while we are conversing with each other lets let each represent their own. I said that the abuse is limited to a handful of bad soldiers not that none occured. You imply that its all or most of the military that acts this way and that its sanctioned. You dont have no first hand knowledge of what you speak while many of us here DO.
Now the "wedding"
from your link:

"During the operation, coalition forces came under hostile fire and close air support was provided," it said in a statement. Soldiers at the scene then recovered weapons, Iraqi dinar and Syrian pounds (worth approximately £800), foreign passports and a "Satcom radio", presumably a satellite telephone.

"We took ground fire and we returned fire," said Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of operations for the US military in Iraq. "We estimate that around 40 were killed. But we operated within our rules of engagement."

Major General James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division, was scathing of those who suggested a wedding party had been hit. "How many people go to the middle of the desert ... to hold a wedding 80 miles (130km) from the nearest civilisation? These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive."

US forces say they have been watching the border area where the attack took place for some time. They saw a large group of suspicious people moving in the area and sent in ground forces, who came under fire, so the US forces returned fire

I want you to tell me the average age of a US soldier HH, before you type your next "original" thought.

humanhybrid

May 21st, 2004, 10:31 PM

"How many people go to the middle of the desert ... to hold a wedding 80 miles (130km) from the nearest civilisation? These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive." No lets not! We have seen who was killed at the wedding. It stands good reason that out in the desert, in the open, where a large family gathering would be, should be the safest place against the coilation forces thinking that terrorists are congregating. Its pathetic!!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221511,00.html
You dont have no first hand knowledge of what you speak while many of us here DO. What in the world gives you the first hand knowledge of things, And who here says that this occupation in Iraq has increased our security here and abroad. We can be attacked anywhere in the world and there will be nothing YOU OR ANYBODY can say or do about it. Bush and Blair has done NOTHING but created more hate and resentment. Is that what your talking about, if so then excuse me! good day! http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040521/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_8

DontBeAfraid

May 22nd, 2004, 9:45 PM

HH again you have changed MY arguement to something that it is not..... You are on ignore now. have a nice life.

humanhybrid

May 22nd, 2004, 10:30 PM

Im sorry that you feel that way. Good day to you anyway!

MetalMilitia

May 23rd, 2004, 12:29 AM

Hear it from those that were actually there. I read through a few of them, and I am disgusted.

Sworn Statements by Abu Ghraib Detainees

These documents, obtained by The Washington Post, are the offical English translations of previously secret sworn statements by detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Some of the names have been withheld from these statements because they are alleged victims of sexual assault. These files are in PDF format. Some of the descriptions in these statements may be disturbing because of their sexually explicit or graphic nature.

Click Here (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2636)

-MM- :crs:

MetalMilitia

May 23rd, 2004, 12:44 AM

The Pentagon has admitted that at least 37 people have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While some have been classified as deaths from natural or undetermined causes, 10 are classed as homicides. Yes, homocides, as in murdered.

In my book, "Undetermined" = too many torture wounds to choose from. Criticize all you want, it's mistreatment any way you look at it.

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=052104114757

humanhybrid

May 26th, 2004, 12:45 PM

Open Season in Iraq
MAMs (Military-Age Males) Are Back

By STAN GOFF

In 1963, well before the American public generally understood where Vietnam was, a young Army captain led a South Vietnamese unit through the A Shau Valley to systematically burn villages to the ground. This was to deprive the so-called Vietcong of any base of support, and was called "draining the sea," a reference to Mao's dictum that the guerrilla is the fish and the population is the sea.

That captain would later write, "I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male. If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served... was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong."

On March 16, 1968, the US Infantry of C Company, Task Force Barker, 11th Infantry Brigade, Americal Division went into a Vietnamese hamlet designated My Lai 4 and killed 347 unarmed men, women, and children, engaging in rape and torture along the way for four hours before a US helicopter pilot who observed the massacre ordered his door gunners to open fire on the grunts if they didn't desist. The chopper pilot, however, did not report the massacre.

Six months later, a young enlisted man, Spec 4 Tom Glen, sent a letter to General Creighton Abrams, commander of US forces in Vietnam. Without specifically mentioning My Lai, Glen said that murder had become a routine part of Americal operations. The letter was shunted over to Americal Divison, and then to the office of the same officer who had been leading the South Vietnamese arson campaign five years earlier, since promoted to major. He was now the deputy assistant Chief of Staff of the division--a functionary who was directed to craft a response to this report of widespread atrocities against Vietnamese civilians.

"In direct refutation of this portrayal," wrote the officer dismissively and with no investigation whatsoever, "is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Perhaps he believed that those killed were MAMs, and therefore outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions and international law.

That officer is now the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who is still dutifully spinning out prevarications and excuses for his massahs. Apparently his perceptions of right and wrong are still dulled by his brief experience of "combat," burning people's houses and barns and crops and ordering that young men who run from heliborne machine gun fire be killed because running away from machinegun fire is... "hostile."

Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the MAMs are back.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, the rat-faced boy of CENTCOM, with help from a Marine moron named Mattis, has resurrected the MAM to justify coordinated air-land attacks against weddings.

At 3 AM, on May 19th, 2004, the Rakat family of Makr al-Deeb--a village in western Iraq--were winding down after an all night party celebrating a double wedding, when American war planes suddenly screamed in from over the dark horizon and dumped a fiery axis of bombs across the village. In the wake of the bombing "prep," ground troops equipped with night vision equipment, explosives, and expensive aimpoint sights on their weapons, swept over the shattered ruins and through the terrified and fleeing wedding guests delivering a kind of close-up coup.

Neil McKay writes a harrowing account in the Sunday Herald, in which witnesses describe the ground assault as little different than the My Lai incident, just shorter and on a smaller scale. Troops were razing buildings and killing people as they were encountered. People's children were killed in front of them.

There is an unofficial excuse making the rounds that this was a mistake, that war planes targeted the wedding because this "alien culture" fires weapons into the air during celebrations. This comports well with the notion that being sodomized and sexually humiliated and beaten to death are "particularly offensive to Arabs," as if Americans, for example, would equate this treatment to root canal work--unpleasant but tolerable.

If it were an error from the air, how in the hell did a ground force follow through for the air attack? I can tell you how. There was no error. These planes were not randomly cruising the Iraqi skies at 3 AM, and suddenly responding to ground fire. And ground troops don't suddenly show up at the same place. Combined air-ground operations require detailed planning and coordination, which means this attack was planned in advance. I don't know what really happened that killed 45 people at Makr al-Deeb, but I can assure readers that this premeditation is part of it.

The official line, adopted as the Abu Ghraib scandal metastasizes into a political crisis for the Bush administration, is that there was no error at all, and that there was no wedding. They were combatants, pure and simple, and goddamit we are not going to apologize to anyone for it. Foreign fighters every one of them, and that whole ****ing village is just a pack of rag-headed liars.

"How many people go into the middle of the desert to hold a wedding eighty miles from the nearest civilization," scoffed Major General James Mattis of the 1st Marines. "There were more than two dozen MILITARY-AGED MALES."

Either Mattis is shameless or he is an idiot. We can't rule out either... or both. It's in the job description for senior officers right now--probably a line on their officer evaluation reports--if they want their careers to progress.

Makr al-Deeb is a real village in a real civilization that is, oh by the way General, a hell of a lot older than the one you hail from.

Kimmitt apparently felt compelled to top Mattis for stupidity, when he blurted out last week that, "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."

The manufacture of evidence is now experiencing a speed-up, with Kimmitt telling a yet-again-obedient press corps that there were military items and even possibly cocaine (!) on the site (no fetishes for devil worship... yet) , and no evidence of a wedding. To bolster this preposterous case, they have provided snapshots of (gasp) binoculars, and virtually the entire US press corps has forgotten that Colin Powell presented doctored photos to the UN just last year. The press forgot, because they never reported it. Now they are submissively echoing the Kimmitt evidence photos and the cover story that goes with them. Kimmitt says there is categorically no evidence of a wedding at all, and he stubbornly denies that ANY children were killed, even though every Iraqi medical official says there were at least 15. Liars, according to Kimmitt.

"In direct refutation of this portrayal," Kimmitt might have said, "is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Iraqi people are excellent."

Lo and behold, however, there is an independent press still surviving in the marginal niches of post-modern capitalism--where the image is all--and they are hauling facts out from time to time that smell up the area like a pile of decomposing bodies. A video has surfaced of the site, and there is ample evidence of dead children, musical instruments, and all the paraphernalia of... a wedding. Oops.

The footage was shown on Al-Arabiya television, whereupon the weasel Kimmitt and his dour gangsters demanded that Al-Arabiya give them the name of the cameraman who shot the video. Maybe they planned a Mazen Dana treatment for the offender--Dana being the Reuters journalist who was shot dead by US troops when his camera's eye had drifted to close to their actions.

We are reaching a point of polarization with respect to this war, where these oxygen thieves with suits and stars feel they can get away with the MAM argument, justifying the murder of anyone who is male, military-aged and brown. We have reached some kind of social baseline of racially-stupefied consensus, where all that PC posturing is no longer necessary, where another half-wit in Congress can say he is "outraged at the outrage," and there is 35% of the US population that will sit perfectly still for it, many even cheering it on. For that polarization to be complete, we need 35% of the population that sets aside their maddening liberal squeamishness and dithering and demands that these suits and stars be strung up by their testicles.

We need a good, in-your-face, knock-down, drag-out fight in this place.

Anyone who thinks, at this point, that the election of that hound-dog from Massachusetts--when he promises to send MORE troops to Iraq--is going to fundamentally change any of this is smoking angel dust. It's getting close to grown-up time, and we're going to have to put aside our electoral cake and ice cream.

This place hasn't had a good old fashioned DEEP-DOWN change since Reconstruction. It's time.

MacRasta

May 28th, 2004, 3:32 AM

Quoting myself :

If those pics are real, then the Irak soldiers are lucky, is that torture what they are showing? Don't even think for a minute that Iraki's won't take the chance to torture some US soldiers, and they will not be so lucky, Iraki torture is far worse than the US torture.

What do I see yesterday on CNN : broadcast from Al Jazeera saying literaly that what the US pictures show is no torture at all, Iraqi torture is far worse. They are specialized in torture and opression in their jails.

Boy, that was a fun thread... :grin

Mac

humanhybrid

May 28th, 2004, 10:33 PM

Any torture, Iraqi or American is against all human rights and is befitting a barbarian. The real question now would be, what is the end result of any torture, and does it justify any means, moral or ethical. good day to you!

MetalMilitia

Jun 2nd, 2004, 3:38 AM

More than a third of the prisoners who died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan were shot, strangled or beaten by U.S. personnel before they died, according to death certificates and a high-ranking U.S. military official.

Sounds pretty "brutal."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-31-prison-abuse_x.htm?POE=click-refer

-MM- :crs:

substand

Jun 2nd, 2004, 4:11 AM

more than 1/3 of prisoners who died in iraq is 13. It is well know that I dont defend most of the "torture" (pouring cold water on prisoners (esp in the desert) notwithstanding) of Iraqis by the US. However, 13 POWs is hardly anything to worry about in the grand scheme of things, especially considereing our prisoners' deaths who were not quite US warriors or near as bad as some of those Iraqis in prison. Again, I'm not being an apologist for "American" abuses, just that that figure should be put into perspective.

Defiant Noquisi

Jun 6th, 2004, 3:33 PM

"the Active Denial System 'is absolutely not designed or intended or built' to be a torture device..."

Sure it isn't . . .

Just adding for thought...

"To use this as any sort of torture device would be in direct violation of" the Pentagon's definition of nonlethal weapons, he said. "Nor, as professionals, would any of us sign up for it." The current troops who were active in the torture of Iraqi prisoners didnt sign up for that either.

He said "human history would demonstrate" that once a potential torture technology is available, it usually is put into action. So sayeth the shepard! So sayeth the flock!

WoOp_De_DoO

Jun 6th, 2004, 3:41 PM

I think they are blowing this way out of proportion THe iraqis abuse are men also

MY best friends uncle was hung of the side of a bridge that is some sick S**t.

MetalMilitia

Jun 12th, 2004, 12:51 PM

Abuse scandal likely to become wide-ranging investigation

What began as a military investigation of seven low-ranking Army reservists accused of tormenting Iraqi prisoners now appears likely to become a wide-ranging examination of whether top civilian and military leaders authorized torture or approved efforts to intimidate, humiliate or degrade suspected terrorists in violation of U.S. laws.

The Army is considering placing its investigation under a four-star general, a move that would permit a top to bottom examination of the actions of the military chain of command, including those of the commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq. The current head of the investigation is a two-star general.

In Congress, Democrats and some Republicans are calling for greater scrutiny of what interrogation guidelines the Bush administration approved for dealing with prisoners in Afghanistan and at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Such scrutiny is likely over the actions of top aides to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Following April's release of photographs of abuse by U.S. soldiers in Baghdad's notorious Abu Ghraib prison, military leaders and Bush administration officials denounced the acts as the isolated work of undisciplined reservists.

Since that time, however, the Army has announced that it is investigating the deaths of 127 prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, and evidence compiled by military and congressional investigators indicates that top civilian and military leaders dispensed contradictory advice on how far to push the bounds of laws against torture and whether certain detainees were covered by international treaties.

More: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8903022.htm

America...home of legal torture. Would you like to super-size your order? Thank you drive through.

-MM- :crs:

MetalMilitia

Jun 12th, 2004, 8:16 PM

The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos

More Photos Surface (updated June 11) (Warning: They are graphic)

The Washington Post has released new photos along with new information about the use of dogs on prisoners.

Click Here (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444)

It's the "liberation" of the Iraqi people, and it isn't pretty.

-MM- :crs:

MetalMilitia

Jun 12th, 2004, 8:21 PM

By the way, many of them (80-90%) were innocent, and have since been released.

Soooo.... Yep, just frathouse fun. Unwinding from all of the stress. Absolutely vile and disgusting. I wouldn't treat my dog that way and if anyone else did I might want to kill them.

-MM- :crs:

FactsOverFiction

Jun 12th, 2004, 9:08 PM

My dad once told me a story about a great friend of his in Vietnam he was by all accounts a hippie, got drafted but still felt the "love" for all humanity inside. Then once in a little village a little boy came up to him as he dug in his pocket for a piece of gum to give this poor child the grenade the boy held blew up killing my dads friend. He took me to the wall once when I was a mere sprout but I will never forget his eyes tearing up as he rubbed his friends name nor will I forget that until he passed away last year, that "rub" was framed and sitting next to his childrens pictures.

Of course your going to say what the hell does this have to do with "prisoner abuse" but there is more to the story, you see my dad was a "love" hippie as well, but after that incident he changed, he freely admits had another child came toward himself and he told them to stop and they didn't he would of shot them on sight.

What does this got to do with anything? It has a lot to do with it, this is a war, this is not give a prisoner cable TV and a soft bed USA prison, this is kill or be killed. Fair? Who says what is fair, if you where in a fight and someone was choking you to death would you bite his nuts off? Damn right, not a fair fight but it is for your life. This is not excusing what the guards did to all the prisoners but I will bet you a donut that these where not all your run of the mill criminals being "humiliated" And another thing if someone is going to be trying to kill me one day I do not expect them to be getting pampered the next thats bullchit and damn the Geneva Conventions because your enemies are.

FoF

VegasRonin

Jun 12th, 2004, 9:53 PM

Most of your fairplay and treat people humanely types, have never been in the business of war. Don't get it twisted, it is a business. No matter how many stories they hear from types such as FactsOverFiction , they'll never change their mind until the war is on their doorstep. Its always been like that and it will probably always be like that. When it come to Kings, Countries, and War. Don't even try and find a moral ground to stand on. What in Global History has given you this idea of politely winning a war or annexing a country. Its not possible.

DontBeAfraid

Jun 13th, 2004, 12:36 AM

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 12:59 AM

These guys were prison guards not warriors VR. It was NOT kill or be killed in the prison.
FoF you are right, these were not all run of the mill criminals being abused.... most were not criminals at all. I owe you a donut.

We cant just toss aside the geneva conventions just because somebody else does..... Do you abuse your wife just because your neighbor does or are you better than that? I beleive we are better than that.

Lets put it this way, if this was done in an American prison I would not mind either, I am against so called "reforming" prisoners, it has been shown not to work. But thats besides the point, I will not get into arguing because I believe I am right and you are wrong, where as you know I am right and you are wrong :D (Humor)
Basically I understand these where not fighting soldiers guarding the prisoners okay, but being in the military it is a "unit" and they know there fellow soldiers are getting killed by some of the same people in those cells.
And from what I have seen (And unless you can show me proof otherwise) most where either being questioned because firing came out of there home, former Baathist members, or weapons stashes where found next to them. We released those we deemed "no longer a threat to the coalition" Does that mean they where innocent? No it means we "reformed" them
As for your analogy it is flawed, once upon a time a few years back (During Russia's first Chechnya fiasco) someone noted that America could not ever fight that kind of war we would lose not because we where not better but because the way the Chechnya rebels fought was so brutal, hanging live screaming Russian soldiers in front of the window while shooting at his fellow soldiers down below. The television coverage alone of such events would make pampered Americans weep for the return of our soldiers.
Other countries also paid attention to Somalia where if we where not fighting "by the book" our forces would of singlehandedly ended the starvation of the remaining people.
Point is we cannot allow others to fight dirty and beat us, we can go down as Muslim States Of America and in 100 years other countries history books will say " The once proud USA fought brave, fought diligently and most importantly fought by the "rules" and lost, as Muslim extremists killed there women and children off, violating every Geneva Convention rule, the USA stood by them and still managed to hold them off for a decade"

Thats a load of crock we have to fight how they fight right or wrong, life is more important to me.

FoF

DontBeAfraid

Jun 13th, 2004, 1:05 AM

I take it you have NO IDEA WHAT THE GENEVA CONVENTION REFERS TO. Anybody can still win a war while NOT VIOLATING it. it has almost nothing to do with WAR TACTICS and everything to do with WAR PRISONERS. And dont pretend you know what its like to be in an army unit unless you have been in an army unit.

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 1:19 AM

Okay I was being nice Spent 3 years active and 4 years in the National Guard. So I know all about the Army (Well M1 and M1A1 tanks anyway) And I think you need to brush up on your Geneva convention rules .... badly.

Geneva Convention rules regarding prisoners is ONE section the others are regarding WARFARE!

(PS I expect an apology as you so blatantly blew it)

I take it you have NO IDEA WHAT THE GENEVA CONVENTION REFERS TO. Anybody can still win a war while NOT VIOLATING it. it has almost nothing to do with WAR TACTICS and everything to do with WAR PRISONERS. And dont pretend you know what its like to be in an army unit unless you have been in an army unit.

Geneva Convention I

For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Geneva Convention II
For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Geneva Convention III (The ONE you THOUGHT was the only ONE)
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Geneva Convention IV
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War , 12 August 1949
PROTOCOL I

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977.
PROTOCOL II
Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977.

Full text of which is here http://www.genevaconventions.org/

I can accept your apology on here or via email :D

FoF

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 1:25 AM

I might as well add as how this can affect the outcome of a battlefield, we "have" to follow the Geneva conventions where they do not, they fire from a crowd knowing we will not shoot blindly into the crowd (Where as me as a WANT TO LIVE person thinks that if that damn crowd is out there throwing stuff burning our flag and hiding the gunman well, collateral damage)
The conventions have a lot more then what was posted go ahead and read up on it some more, some of it may shock you as to what a "fair" war is all about and why we are one of the few that actually follow it... sadly in cases where our enemies are not.

FoF

DontBeAfraid

Jun 13th, 2004, 1:29 AM

DontBeAfraid

Jun 13th, 2004, 1:31 AM

if the crowd is protecting the combatant willfully then they are combatants. geneva convention has nothing to do with it.

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 1:38 AM

Please point out which part of the geneva convention regulates war tactics? it seems to have everything to do with non-combatants and the treatment of them and nothing to do with actual war. Oh wait it does limit the use of "cruel" weapons when the effects can be achieved without the cruelty.

I dont apologize to pogues. You are lucky I even notice you.

War tactics LMAO so suicide bombing civilians is a war tactic now you sir our delusional and not a good loser.
I didn't ask you to notice me, I must of embarassed you enough though you had to respond again, Sometimes if you don't write anything the fact your wrong will disappear off the front page :grin

Once again I will quote you okay

and everything to do with WAR PRISONERS.

Now one article out of many deals with WAR PRISONERS you where wrong suck it up, even the best of us make mistakes, its the ones who cannot admit to them that look dumb.

FoF

DontBeAfraid

Jun 13th, 2004, 1:53 AM

Please explain to me how any of my comments would lead anyone to the conclusion that i believe suicide bombings are a war tactic and not a terrorist tactic. Are you suggesting that WE the united states of america should start terrorist bombings just because the other guy does? That is the impression i got. We should target non combatants because they do?

OK I said war prisoners when I should have said non combatants. That does not make you right and only makes me slightly less correct. Just because the geneva convention states a great deal about how to treat wounded victims in addition to prisoners does not mean it says anything more about regulating war tactics.... Unless of course YOU consider non combatants legit military targets, which is what you seem to be advocating. Are we terrorists FoF? Are you?

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 2:08 AM

Okay let me go slow (For myself as I need to get to bed)

1: If we cannot effectively destroy the extremist base we will lose, they can hide in there Mosques without fear (As per the other sections of the Geneva conventions clicky clicky the link http://www.genevaconventions.org/ read them all I told you there where more then I posted) They do not have to be firing from them to be hiding in them.

2: To "prove" the citizens knew they where protecting combatants is asinine and will never be able to be done. They can and do, do this with impunity.

3: When they want to attack us they come and attack us then slither back into there homes as innocent civilians we cannot go and strip them and humiliate them, pull there fingernails, smash there toes to find out what else they are hiding and who.

Those all make for bad mojo when your fighting a war against an invisible enemy. And to answer your question I consider ANYONE supporting, whether its moral support, equiptment support, fighting support, food support ENEMIES they are assisting those who want me dead and therefore should be dead first. Terrorist tactic maybe but my life and my families is far more important then following the "conventions" Whatever it takes should be done!

And yes after 9-11 when the Palestianian crowds where cheers I was so hoping to see Israel drop a bomb on there heads, they want us dead, I want them dead first.
And yes when in Falluja (And many other instances) where the news crews stood and watched after a roadside bombing the crowd of jumping up and down happy bastards, I hoped to see an Apache gunship drop a load in the middle of them.

If they want me dead, I want them dead.... first!!!! I think we should do whatever it takes to win, this is not a friendly game of checkers this is a group of people who want me, you, your family, mine, dead. If it takes people like me to protect people like you so be it, I will gladly put their blood on my hands to protect all that I love.
If someone was holding your wife/mother/father/child hostage would you yank his fingernails out until he told you where that person was? I sure as hell would. No different just a much larger scope.

FoF

DontBeAfraid

Jun 13th, 2004, 2:21 AM

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 2:28 AM

You are a terrorist. I dont fight for terrorists. You are right next to evil. You are the kind of lame pogue that abuses prisoners, gets his picture taken giving a thumbs up while abusing prisoners put on the internet and disgraces an entire country because of his fear. Im done with you.

Thats fine, I never said you had to "fight" with me it was an uneven battle from the "POW Geneva Convention" post you made. One cannot make someone understand when they are so firmly entrenched in falsehoods such as you are disposed to. Fear? No its about survival, I never defended what those guards did by "thumbs up" nah thats tasteless I would of took them into a cell and got the information needed to save American lives in private.

As I said many posts ago and it rings even more true now

Point is we cannot allow others to fight dirty and beat us, we can go down as Muslim States Of America and in 100 years other countries history books will say " The once proud USA fought brave, fought diligently and most importantly fought by the "rules" and lost, as Muslim extremists killed there women and children off, violating every Geneva Convention rule, the USA stood by them and still managed to hold them off for a decade"

FoF

DontBeAfraid

Jun 13th, 2004, 2:34 AM

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 2:41 AM

When I said I dont fight for terrorists I meant that I dont fight FOR you not with you. This is a discussion not a fight. You are entrenched in fear and that is how you want everyone else to be. Your fear would lead you to do terrible things. You are like a cowardly dog whimpering in the corner from some imagined threat. Pogues just like you defaced the army. Thanks a lot.
You said it takes guys like you to protect guys like me..... I dont hide behind evil, thanks.

Ah okay I told you I was tired, I misconstrued your words. As for Pogues I am unsure what that means, slang is so awfully popular nowadays cannot keep up. I know after searching they are a Irish band? You think I sing good :grin Why thanks but my daughter disagrees as she usually screams when I sing her a lulluby perhaps though if I do it with an Irish accent hmmm

Thats fine you do not have to hide behind "evil" and your right, I am sure it is against even Christian views to think like myself, but thats okay, I value this life, not the afterlife and I will do what it takes to keep this life, but not only for me for my family, and yes yourself included.

As for an imagined threat no it is a quite verbal and visible threat, make no mistake UBL and many other extremists do not hide the fact that they want you dead.

So answer my question posed earlier my new friend

If someone was holding your wife/mother/father/child hostage would you yank his fingernails out until he told you where that person was?

And let me make it clearer for you, you know they will not be alive in 1 hour if you do not get to them... what would you do? Oh you can think about it as I am off to bed.

FoF

DontBeAfraid

Jun 13th, 2004, 2:47 AM

not knowing what a pogue is proves just how much of a pogue you are. lol
Your situation is irrelevent to the topic at hand as none of these prisoners were holding anybody hostage.

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 2:54 AM

not knowing what a pogue is proves just how much of a pogue you are. lol
Your situation is irrelevent to the topic at hand as none of these prisoners were holding anybody hostage.
Not quite sleeping yet time for one more spar, I am not defending the actions of the guards "Caught On Tape next on Montel" er anyway I am defending the orders to the guards to make the life of certain special case prisoners horrid. I agree with that. (BTW If you read all there is in mainstream news you will see most of the "guards" say they where told to do this to some of the prisoners and got confused and did it too them all instead in a roundabout way trying to defend there actions) which is wrong! I agree if someone is in the prison because he stole a cookie he shouldn't be tortured, but if a prisoner is a known insurgent well kid gloves hit the floor along with a few of his nails until you find out who else he knows, where the IED's are being made and deployed ect. and that IS like holding a hostage. Sounds mean I understand that but I still shoot those purty lil' deer an bunnies and eat them. So I am a pogue I suppose (WTH is that) but I do believe in doing whatever it takes to live.
REALLY going to bed now! Its 4AM EST

FoF

DontBeAfraid

Jun 13th, 2004, 2:58 AM

Im all for their chain of command taking a bigger bite of the pie than them.... I know how it works.

MetalMilitia

Jun 13th, 2004, 3:26 AM

Those at the top must be held responsible for the abuses along with those at the bottom.

That important point is obscured by all the rhetoric about the few "rotten apples" whose prosecution should close this episode. The honor, decency and courage of the great majority who serve don't excuse the failures of the Pentagon and the White House. Vague and unlawful orders, inadequate or nonexistent training, confusing command structures, inadequate resources and incompetent leadership intensify the probability of atrocities by occupiers in wartime.

We now know that certain Bush administration and Pentagon officials have undermined American compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and that is the bottom line. Argue the morales behind it all you want, what we did to those that were innocent is wrong as hell, and according to the law, what we did to those that may have been guilty was just plain illegal.

Article 84 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits housing prisoners of war and "persons deprived of liberty for any other reason" with general criminal populations. The rules also require that enemy prisoners be kept in facilities "affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness."

The rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war are spelled out in the third Geneva Convention of 1949. The Convention requires that POW?s ?must at all times be treated humanely,? and goes on to list a number of specific requirements: they must not be killed, seriously endangered, mutilated or subject to medical or scientific experiments. Furthermore, they must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation, and against ?insults and public curiosity? (Article 13).

Where does this leave us? Aparently we aren't supposed to walk them around naked and beat the living hell out of them. Go figure.

-MM- :crs:

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 9:29 AM

Article 84 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits housing prisoners of war and "persons deprived of liberty for any other reason" with general criminal populations. The rules also require that enemy prisoners be kept in facilities "affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness."

The rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war are spelled out in the third Geneva Convention of 1949. The Convention requires that POW?s ?must at all times be treated humanely,? and goes on to list a number of specific requirements: they must not be killed, seriously endangered, mutilated or subject to medical or scientific experiments. Furthermore, they must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation, and against ?insults and public curiosity? (Article 13).

But your missing the whole point MM these are not soldiers we are fighting if they wore damn uniforms they would of been dead already, they are barbarians and deserve to be treated as such. These where not uniformed Iraqi soldiers these are cowards who fear what we represent and want us dead. They are not protected by the Geneva conventions as Prisoners of War and in-fact should be shot when captured.

As for what we did to the "innocent" thats a claim that one can make anywhere at anytime, which one was innocent the one with the weapons cache or the one using the weapons? I said it before and it got lost in the mess, I think everyone who supports the enemy, with words, with weapons, with supplies, or with food are just as guilty. Does that make me wrong? Who cares it makes for Americans lives being saved.

FoF

MetalMilitia

Jun 13th, 2004, 6:44 PM

But your missing the whole point MM these are not soldiers we are fighting if they wore damn uniforms they would of been dead already, they are barbarians and deserve to be treated as such. These where not uniformed Iraqi soldiers these are cowards who fear what we represent and want us dead. They are not protected by the Geneva conventions as Prisoners of War and in-fact should be shot when captured.

WASHINGTON - Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70% to 90% of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year "had been arrested by mistake," according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-04.htm

There was a war, they are prisoners OF war. I guess it's ok to bend the rules whenver it suits us? How about treat them like humans? Treat others as you wish to... bla bla bla. Cowards?

Shit, I would be a little scared if I was picked up minding my own business, beaten, walked around nude, threatened with dogs and had been innocent the whole time. That would make me feel real nice. There was an 8/10 chance that was the case. Somwhow I don't think the US would've won over my heart or my mind. Call me crazy.

What happened to those people was just plain perverted
-Prisoners being forced to stick their fingers in their anuses then lick them.
-Prisoners being force to put shoes in their mouths - The worst insult in the Muslim world.
-Prisoners beaten to death.
-Prisoners sexually violated with flashlights.
-Prisoners tortured by having phosphorus from glow lights poured on their skin.
-One prisoner's son was abused in front of him to get him to talk.
-And the list of the sick deeds from these correctional perverts goes on and on.

That's justifiable to you? If you think using these methods on an 80% innocent crowd is justified, you're no better than those "barbarians."

How about Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Minimum=9436 | Maximum=11317

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm

Can you justify those losses? I suppose they mean nothing to you? Just numbers, figures, 'cause whatever the US does is justified.

We're not susceptible to the same International laws as the rest of the world apparently.

-MM- :crs:

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 9:38 PM

Number one not every prisoner was subject to the abuse that was "recorded" in history. And how do you know that same guy that had his finger up his ass was not pulling the trigger on our troops the day before. NO NO NO it does NOT justify what the guards did, as I stated more then once, if you can read please pay more attention rather then picking and choosing your arguments.

I am not defending the actions of the guards "Caught On Tape next on Montel" er anyway I am defending the orders to the guards to make the life of certain special case prisoners horrid. I agree with that. (BTW If you read all there is in mainstream news you will see most of the "guards" say they where told to do this to some of the prisoners and got confused and did it too them all instead in a roundabout way trying to defend there actions) which is wrong! I agree if someone is in the prison because he stole a cookie he shouldn't be tortured, but if a prisoner is a known insurgent well kid gloves hit the floor along with a few of his nails until you find out who else he knows, where the IED's are being made and deployed ect.

You have a chance to get put to death in America and be wrongly accused, it happens, though from all accounts I have seen not all prisoners where treated as those you described, so explain to me how you know which ones where innocent? As for there methods I found them utterly disgusting other then the dog attacks, which after fingernails would be pretty effective.

-Prisoners tortured by having phosphorus from glow lights poured on their skin

And when you quote content from such reliable sources as http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=50870&highlight=

You are bound to copy something that is utterly stupid, as glow lights do not and never had "phosphorus" while being very dangerous and used in different arsenal situations it is not something used ina "glow light" which by the way used non-toxic substances as me and many other soldiers used to break them open and spread them everywhere including in our mouths (Nasty tasting though)

White phosphorus is both a smoke producer and a particularly nasty incendiary agent, known as WP. Its white smoke has the highest total obscuring power (TOP) of any smoke. It was widely used in World War I in grenades and trench mortar rounds to screen troop movements. Most military smokes are now of other types, often colored with dyes. The 4.2-in. "Chemical" mortar of World War II was developed to throw white phosphorus shells, as well as whatever other chemical or biological agents might be required, but was later also found valuable as a general heavy mortar. This was a simple, light, portable weapon of great power, equivalent to a 105 mm howitzer, but of lesser range. It consisted of a tube about 5 ft long, a steel baseplate, and a bipod support with screws for elevation and traverse. The cylindrical round was simply dropped down the tube, and it sailed away on a high trajectory. The phosphorus sticks to whatever it hits, burns, and if what it has hit is combustible, sets it on fire. White phosphorus burns quickly and cooly and so is not a very effective incendiary agent. It is generally mixed with rubber or polystyrene to slow down the burning. Water will put out white phosphorus temporarily, but as soon as the phosphorus has access to air, it will start burning again. White phosphorus wounds are very unpleasant, since the phosphorus must be thoroughly washed out with a nonpolar solvent that is also noninflammable, for obvious reasons, before the burn can be treated. Carbon tetrachloride would be suitable, but it is dangerous because of the cancer hazard

And glow sticks

Glow sticks rely on the reaction between two non-toxic chemicals contained within in order to produce their glowing light. If these chemicals escape their vials due to a break or leak, the chemicals will not cause much harm if they come in contact with skin. However, here are a few safety precautions to consider before using a glow stick or light stick:

If the chemicals within come in contact with skin or eyes because of a broken vial, wash the area with water immediately. The chemicals are non-toxic, but will cause mild discomfort to eyes if they come in contact.

These chemicals will also stain clothing upon contact and are very hard to wash out.

Paint and surface finish may also be affected by the chemicals upon contact.

Most products encourage parental supervision under the age of 5, and discourage use for toddlers under 3 years old.

Why you may ask am I focusing on such a minor detail? Because in order to be believed you have to be believable and minor details such as that have caused people to think Elvis is still alive.

We're not susceptible to the same International laws as the rest of the world apparently.

Are you aware of the world events? The "rest" of the world as in everyone but us follow the international laws?
Whats Russia doing to Chechnya right now?
What are those pesky Chinese doing to political opponents hmmm
Oh and those darn Iranians can you believe they have the gall to murder its political opponents both in country and abroad.
Turkey and the whole Kurdish, Cyprus issues...
India and her "largest democracy in the world" and the extra-judicial executions.

Now you want us to be the only ones following the "law" Which someone like you disagrees with just by your nick on here "MetalMilitia" I mean most people in Militia's think that the UN and all the laws and such are just out to take away Americans rights? But anyway back on track here I think it works like this, when a powerful nation like ourselves gets in a fight, other people scream that we are breaking laws, but yet when they do the same thing its okay. Case in point, Hama's will bomb innocent civilians, and the world keeps quiet the Israels counter by killing Hama's leaders and get shunned. They are biased and worthless in this context.

Any innocent life is a saddening loss MM and if there was a way to avoid it while still doing the right thing then thats what must be done. What are we to do, not defend ourselves not wage a just war because there will be some innocent lives lost? In Utopia perhaps but in the real world if you want all of us to be like that you better read the Koran because your either going Muslim or getting your head sliced off......

FoF

DontBeAfraid

Jun 13th, 2004, 10:23 PM

When that is your philosophy you would not make any better a leader than saddam did FoF.

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 10:38 PM

When that is your philosophy you would not make any better a leader than saddam did FoF.

Lets review how I would not make a "better" leader the Saddam because I disagree with you I am positive I would not of had to kill thousands upon thousands of people because well I would of been elected in a open election one not based on fear, nor would of my children raped and killed with impunity. I would have allowed the UN to inspect my country and not hid and played games because I would of wanted to be a member of the international community, the atrocities that he did I would of never done and to say I would of is blatantly false. All I have said numerous times is, torture under some circumstanses is okay. Making someone strip naked is not torture, having them think they will be killed or other means f they do not tell us where weapons or other information is torture and acceptable to me.

FoF

MetalMilitia

Jun 13th, 2004, 10:50 PM

ets review how I would not make a "better" leader the Saddam because I disagree with you I am positive I would not of had to kill thousands upon thousands of people because well I would of been elected in a open election one not based on fear, nor would of my children raped and killed with impunity.

We have killed somewhere between 9,000 and 12,000 civillians and we call it "collateral damage." I'm sure all of them were smuggling those WMD's and plotting attacks on us though.

All I have said numerous times is, torture under some circumstanses is okay

From the moment that photos documenting prisoner abuse in Iraq came to light seven weeks ago, the Bush Administration has stuck to the claim that the crimes were the vile acts of a few bad soldiers. But the effort to blame a few individuals has faltered as evidence has mounted of abuse in U.S. detention centers from Cuba to Afghanistan to Iraq. Last week the scandal seemed to drift ever closer to implicating policymakers at the highest levels of the U.S. war council.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040621-650689,00.html

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib2.jpg

Yeah that looks perfectly justafiable to me.

-MM- :crs:

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 11:12 PM

Okay MM like how you jumped right by my response to your FALSE claims about Glow Lite's and other myths/falsehoods/lies/propaganda into something else, thats the problem I have with some people they wear blinders where as I go over everything someone says and respond (Though not everytime as if someone wants to argue they should read prior posts to get what they need rather then me repeat it)

We have killed somewhere between 9,000 and 12,000 civillians and we call it "collateral damage." I'm sure all of them were smuggling those WMD's and plotting attacks on us though.

And my same answer applies

Any innocent life is a saddening loss MM and if there was a way to avoid it while still doing the right thing then thats what must be done. What are we to do, not defend ourselves not wage a just war because there will be some innocent lives lost? In Utopia perhaps but in the real world if you want all of us to be like that you better read the Koran because your either going Muslim or getting your head sliced off......

I am not defending the actions of the guards "Caught On Tape next on Montel" er anyway I am defending the orders to the guards to make the life of certain special case prisoners horrid. I agree with that. (BTW If you read all there is in mainstream news you will see most of the "guards" say they where told to do this to some of the prisoners and got confused and did it too them all instead in a roundabout way trying to defend there actions) which is wrong!

Emerald_Dragon

Jun 13th, 2004, 11:16 PM

Quote from DBA:
>You are entrenched in fear and that is how you want everyone else to be.

Yeah, that pretty much pegs him for me. almost as OTT as Moishe. I need an injection of 'hate' to be as elevated and hyped as he is. Maybe he knows better than I do. I haven't been where he is. And hope not to be.

>Lets review how I would not make a "better" leader the Saddam because I disagree with you

ever hear the term, "Power corrupts"? We can all pledge our commitments to a nobler cause and spew hopeful promises of doing good, but well, once you get that power, what inevitably happens? Another thought comes to mind, "the worst harm, has come from the best intentions".

cliched though my thoughts may be, these idioms have rung true to human civilizations over time. it may be time for ours to decline. we were great, once.

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 11:22 PM

deleted until I put it on one of my websites Clicky clicky for another pic (edited to change URL)

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/03/31/international/31fallujah.7.274.jpg

Yeah that looks perfectly justafiable to me.

Works both ways...

FoF

MetalMilitia

Jun 13th, 2004, 11:28 PM

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 11:29 PM

Yeah, that pretty much pegs him for me. almost as OTT as Moishe. I need an injection of 'hate' to be as elevated and hyped as he is. Maybe he knows better than I do. I haven't been where he is. And hope not to be.

>Lets review how I would not make a "better" leader the Saddam because I disagree with you

ever hear the term, "Power corrupts"? We can all pledge our commitments to a nobler cause and spew hopeful promises of doing good, but well, once you get that power, what inevitably happens? Another thought comes to mind, "the worst harm, has come from the best intentions".

cliched though my thoughts may be, these idioms have rung true to human civilizations over time. it may be time for ours to decline. we were great, once.

Fear? Nope don't fear anything except ignorance, In actually like the liberals views because they are sugar coated, being a realist sucks, knowing that the FACT NOT OPEN FOR DEBATE that Muslim extremists want all us "infidels" dead nothing can change that not leaving Iraq not letting them kill all the Jews not anything. It is there life period and once again IT IS NOT OPEN FOR DEBATE AS IT IS NOT THEORY IT IS NOT ASSUMPTION IT IS FACT.

But that does not make me afraid, because I know that as an American the city dwellers are the predomintly liberals (Check election stats if you doubt that) the one's that believe America is wrong in all she does and I also believe the cities will be the first places getting attacked by terrorists, nothing to change there views like a good ole ass whuppin. And why should I fear that? I don't because I know deep down before America gets totally destroyed those citizens who denounce America will be begging for help from us reality based people.

FoF

FactsOverFiction

Jun 13th, 2004, 11:32 PM

thats a lovely "image hosted by tripod" picture.

I dunno what it is, but just because they resort to brutalization doesn't mean we should stoop "to their level" to speak, especially when law condemns such actions.

-MM- :crs:

Huge damn difference between burning and mutilating humans and making them stand around naked don't ya think?

(edited to add)

Notice you jumped the other posts again... Can I borrow your rosy colored glasses please

MetalMilitia

Jun 13th, 2004, 11:56 PM

...so how will history judge us for all of this? America is going to look really good in the history books after this mess!

Huge damn difference between burning and mutilating humans and making them stand around naked don't ya think?

Yeah, but you totally ignored the fact that remains : What we did is illegal. Period. Don't use what they do to us to justify what we do back, especially when it goes against the laws that we agree to follow in a messy war. The international rules governing treatment of POWs are against you on this one.

From the moment that photos documenting prisoner abuse in Iraq came to light seven weeks ago, the Bush Administration has stuck to the claim that the crimes were the vile acts of a few bad soldiers. But the effort to blame a few individuals has faltered as evidence has mounted of abuse in U.S. detention centers from Cuba to Afghanistan to Iraq. Last week the scandal seemed to drift ever closer to implicating policymakers at the highest levels of the U.S. war council.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040621-650689,00.html

NEW YORK, NY -June 10, 2004 - The Bush Administration is committing war crimes and other serious violations of international law in Iraq as a matter of routine policy, according to a report released today by the Center for Economic and Social Rights. The report, Beyond Torture: U.S. Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq, documents ten categories of war crimes and rights violations regularly committed by U.S. forces. The report can be downloaded here. The Executive Summary can be downloaded here. (http://www.cesr.org/beyondtorture.pdf)

"Torture is only the tip of the iceberg," said Roger Normand, an international lawyer who directs the Center. "From unlawful killings, mass arrests, and collective punishment to outright theft and pillage, the U.S. is violating almost every law intended to protect civilians living under foreign military occupation."

This goes beyond the prisoners, but it emphasizes my point.

-MM- :crs:

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 11:20 AM

Yeah we target people like this in shopping malls huh, as I said before we cannot fight these people conventionally or we will lose.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a7TmCqRDCAqM&refer=us

They cannot win head on so they will attack our malls, so brave.

FoF

MetalMilitia

Jun 14th, 2004, 1:24 PM

Doing back to them what they have done to us is just as bad, if not worse, considering we're supposed to be the good guys.

Spin it however you want.

-MM- :crs:

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 1:40 PM

Doing back to them what they have done to us is just as bad, if not worse, considering we're supposed to be the good guys.

Spin it however you want.

-MM- :crs:
Once again I ask you how is making prisoners (Who you have yet shown to be innocent) stand around naked worse then or just as bad as trying/succeeding in killing civilians? If these where an organized resistance fighters ala Viet Cong then I would be a little less willing to allow harsher treatment but these are not Iraqi liberators they are a mix of Iraqi and foriegn terrorists hellbent on killing both Iraqi's and ourselves not "liberating" Iraqis from us.

This is not a war this is a loose group of extremists trying there damndest to create a war.

FoF

humanhybrid

Jun 14th, 2004, 1:53 PM

Fear? Nope don't fear anything except ignorance, In actually like the liberals views because they are sugar coated, being a realist sucks, knowing that the FACT NOT OPEN FOR DEBATE that Muslim extremists want all us "infidels" dead nothing can change that not leaving Iraq not letting them kill all the Jews not anything. It is there life period and once again IT IS NOT OPEN FOR DEBATE AS IT IS NOT THEORY IT IS NOT ASSUMPTION IT IS FACT.

But that does not make me afraid, because I know that as an American the city dwellers are the predomintly liberals (Check election stats if you doubt that) the one's that believe America is wrong in all she does and I also believe the cities will be the first places getting attacked by terrorists, nothing to change there views like a good ole ass whuppin. And why should I fear that? I don't because I know deep down before America gets totally destroyed those citizens who denounce America will be begging for help from us reality based people. "Reality based people " LOL! Lets examine this idea of reality based people. The whole rationale behind going to war was based on WMD and them being used. We had the very people "reality based people" tell us its important that we find the WMD before they fall into the hands of terrorists. I think its proof that infidels are occupying their land and controlling everything indirectly. Hey dont forget we opened a can of whip ass for being infidels, their is no doubt they will attack and its because of the Bush and freinds that it happens. "reality based people" What a bag of B.S.
Yeah we target people like this in shopping malls huh, as I said before we cannot fight these people conventionally or we will lose. Yes we Americans have had our day in Iraq what day will be theres? :shot: :dead:

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 2:00 PM

Hey dont forget we opened a can of whip ass for being infidels, their is no doubt they will attack and its because of the Bush and freinds that it happens.

Lets see where Bush and company in power during the first WTC attack....

You are your blinding hate for Bush has shown your biased and nothing in your discussions can hereby be valid.

http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb032.gif your theory

FoF

MetalMilitia

Jun 14th, 2004, 2:07 PM

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 2:28 PM

Quit looking at what they do back, and focus on the laws for this messy war.

Tyrants and brutal dictators justify torture.

The real question being: is the use of torture LEGAL?

Under US law, it is not.

Just your first comment makes it show your feelings "what they do back" and not "what we do back" which would of showed a little more compassion and truth. But thats irrelevent granted as we all know where each other stand. Torture is illegal and I have never said otherwise, its that I do not think it should be that is the key to our arguments. I believe whatever it takes to win is fair, ethically morally and emotionally I have NO problem with pulling a few fingernails to save American lives, as I posed this earlier to someone else.
If someone had your child, your parents or someone you love dearly and they had one hour to live unless you found them, and you got the man, would you do whatever it takes to find the person you love if only he knows? It is illegal though so I guess your love can just die.....

And yes this is relevent, if those dogs got someone to tell where the next suicide bomber was, where they laid down IED's, who is supporting them, where a weapons cache is, you have saved lives.

FoF

humanhybrid

Jun 14th, 2004, 3:03 PM

And yes this is relevent, if those dogs got someone to tell where the next suicide bomber was, where they laid down IED's, who is supporting them, where a weapons cache is, you have saved lives.
Yes we did take Saddam out for doing this very thing "TORTURE" Bush will have the record for killing the most innocent civilians. Who is the infidel?

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 3:24 PM

Yes we did take Saddam out for doing this very thing "TORTURE" Bush will have the record for killing the most innocent civilians. Who is the infidel?

Are all you liberals alike? Do you have some sort of secret code to bypass certain posts that you cannot say anything about? When you find out the truth do you admit it to yourself and hide it away or just not see it? (I cannot fathom not seeing it, it must be like a game now you know the truth but yet you want to argue anyway)

As for the response to your post, you are the infidel unless your Muslim? I am the infidel and yes Bush is an Infidel(a person who does not acknowledge your God
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
The noun "infidel" has 1 sense in WordNet.

1. heathen, pagan, gentile, infidel -- (a person who does not acknowledge your God)

Even conservative reports by human rights organizations show that at least 1.5 million Iraqis have been killed to keep Saddam in power. And somehow I could not find any numbers nearly that large for Bush...... You really do hate Bush put the fire out, and look at the facts.

FoF

MetalMilitia

Jun 14th, 2004, 3:35 PM

You weren't calling me a LIEberal were you?

humanhybrid

Jun 14th, 2004, 3:38 PM

Even conservative reports by human rights organizations show that at least 1.5 million Iraqis have been killed to keep Saddam in power. And somehow I could not find any numbers nearly that large for Bush...... You really do hate Bush put the fire out, and look at the facts.
And to think that we put Saddam in power
Are all you liberals alike? Do you have some sort of secret code to bypass certain posts that you cannot say anything about? When you find out the truth do you admit it to yourself and hide it away or just not see it? (I cannot fathom not seeing it, it must be like a game now you know the truth but yet you want to argue anyway) There is no game my freind between me and you. But I think Bush has his army men out killing and destroying "transgressing" innocent people. And I think its pathetic that you coin me as a liberal as if its supposed to negate facts. good day

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 4:12 PM

And to think that we put Saddam in power There is no game my freind between me and you. But I think Bush has his army men out killing and destroying "transgressing" innocent people. And I think its pathetic that you coin me as a liberal as if its supposed to negate facts. good day

Saddam came to power as president of Iraq in 1979 and we had someone other then the "evil" Bush in power then who was it oh yeah Democrat Jimmy Carter.... I coin you a liberal based on your views I coin you flimsy based on your statements. First its Bush is evil then its the US is evil next its going to be who? I commend others who do not carry my views when they stick to there guns, you though have yet to stand on both feet you continue to dance around the facts like they are fire and changing your argument everytime.

FoF

MetalMilitia

Jun 14th, 2004, 4:39 PM

That's what you get when you judge people. I don't believe in political labels...

Where did I say they were evil?

I just don't buy everything that is spoon fed to me, coin me however you want. I'm all for closing the borders and kicking the illegal ****ers out of our country, how liberal is that?

Your arrogance make me want to believe you all that much more.

-MM- :crs:

Nice Avatar by the way.

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 4:45 PM

MetalMilitia

Jun 14th, 2004, 4:48 PM

The United States government, in conjunction with key allies, is running an 'invisible' network of prisons and detention centers into which thousands of suspects have disappeared without trace since the 'war on terror' began.

In the past three years, thousands of alleged militants have been transferred around the world by American, Arab and Far Eastern security services, often in secret operations that by-pass extradition laws. The astonishing traffic has seen many, including British citizens, sent from the West to countries where they can be tortured to extract information. Anything learnt is passed on to the US and, in some cases, reaches British intelligence.

The practice of 'renditions' - when suspects are handed directly into the custody of another state without due process - has sparked particular anger. At least 70 such transfers have occurred, according to CIA sources. Many involve men who have been freed by the courts and are thus legally innocent. Renditions are often used when American interrogators believe that harsh treatment - banned in their own country - would produce results.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4946125-102275,00.html

Try to excuse and justify it all they want but fact is fact; torture and "disappearing" people and violating US and international laws, the Geneva Cons, the USC, and plain human decency is JUST WRONG.

I don't care what anyone else is doing. The people doing it represent the US and I don't htink it makes us look like the good guys we claim to be.

-MM- :crs:

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 4:56 PM

I don't care what anyone else is doing. The people doing it represent the US and I don't htink it makes us look like the good guys we claim to be.

Now we are talking, I don't want us to be good guys I want us to win. See I think you think I am for the torture they did in the prison, which I am not as I stated before if they are terrorists, insurgents, bad guys take them into a cell and pull there fingernails for the intel needed, stripping them is well worthless and sick, that was a pure powerplay by the guards.

I do not want to be the good guy and lose, I want to be the bad guy and win.

(edit to add) BTW about labels if Lieberman would be the democrats choice he would of had my vote. Read my bio :grin
FoF

Defiant Noquisi

Jun 14th, 2004, 9:39 PM

nothing to change there views like a good ole ass whuppin. And why should I fear that? I don't because I know deep down before America gets totally destroyed those citizens who denounce America will be begging for help from us reality based people. So, what you are saying is that anyone who speaks negatively against something about the US should get their ass kicked right? Seems to me the Nazi's and Communists did something similar. While we are at it, Ill bet that guy holding the grocery bags standing in front of the tank and begging for the killing to stop in Tienenman Square needed his ass kicked too right? He spoke against his government so what the hell, why not bring that up. Of course, he DID get his ass kicked by the tank running over him.

Just because someone speaks against the torturing of prisoners doesnt constitute speaking against the country entirely. That fact must have slipped by you while you were mulling over some of the facts you have branded as fiction. Or are you of the opinion that if someone speaks against one thing they speak against everything? Ever heard of balance? You appear to lead something of a sheltered life with those opinions. I have been to many places and met many people of all walks of life and I have yet to meet a US citizen who hates "all she does".

Let me clue you "conservatives" in about something you seem to have forgotten. Our political base was created with more than one party in mind and more than one thought in mind and it has been that way since the seeds of it. I find it interesting how on one hand you condemn liberal views while on another hand you condemn those who speak against "something" (and even resorting to calling those people liberals). Has it ever occured to you that when you speak against those whose views are not your own, you speak against the US yourself? Or is utopia lacking oxygen? It appears to me that a few of you holier than thou conservatives need a super size can of whup ass yourselves.

I do not want to be the good guy and lose, I want to be the bad guy and win. The possibility of us being decent guys AND winning must have slipped your mind as well. I dont see the neccessity in torturing people to win. Your concept screams of winning the battle and losing the war. How would you justify winning this war and end up having virtually every Middle Eastern person hating us as a result? Where is your reality in that?

Leaving out the WMD fiasco, the reality is that Saddam was labeled a dictator and the torture and murdering of his own people was used as evidence against him and rightfully so. The US and a few of it's allies step in to save the Iraqi people from the evil dictator then turn right around and do something similar, torture people, some even to death.

If the US is such a super power, so much so that it can dictate to another country how they are supposed to treat their own, how is it that the US cannot hold itself to the same? Do what I say and not what I do?

Please, tell me how two wrongs make a right in your reality?

MetalMilitia

Jun 14th, 2004, 9:48 PM

That fact must have slipped by you while you were mulling over some of the facts you have branded as fiction.

:rolling: :Bow:

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 9:55 PM

So, what you are saying is that anyone who speaks negatively against something about the US should get their ass kicked right? Seems to me the Nazi's and Communists did something similar. While we are at it, Ill bet that guy holding the grocery bags standing in front of the tank and begging for the killing to stop in Tienenman Square needed his ass kicked too right? He spoke against his government so what the hell, why not bring that up. Of course, he DID get his ass kicked by the tank running over him.

Just because someone speaks against the torturing of prisoners doesnt constitute speaking against the country entirely. That fact must have slipped by you while you were mulling over some of the facts you have branded as fiction. Or are you of the opinion that if someone speaks against one thing they speak against everything? Ever heard of balance? You appear to lead something of a sheltered life with those opinions. I have been to many places and met many people of all walks of life and I have yet to meet a US citizen who hates "all she does".

Let me clue you "conservatives" in about something you seem to have forgotten. Our political base was created with more than one party in mind and more than one thought in mind and it has been that way since the seeds of it. I find it interesting how on one hand you condemn liberal views while on another hand you condemn those who speak against "something" (and even resorting to calling those people liberals). Has it ever occured to you that when you speak against those whose views are not your own, you speak against the US yourself? Or is utopia lacking oxygen? It appears to me that a few of you holier than thou conservatives need a super size can of whup ass yourselves.

The possibility of us being decent guys AND winning must have slipped your mind as well. I dont see the neccessity in torturing people to win. Your concept screams of winning the battle and losing the war. How would you justify winning this war and end up having virtually every Middle Eastern person hating us as a result? Where is your reality in that?

Leaving out the WMD fiasco, the reality is that Saddam was labeled a dictator and the torture and murdering of his own people was used as evidence against him and rightfully so. The US and a few of it's allies step in to save the Iraqi people from the evil dictator then turn right around and do something similar, torture people, some even to death.

If the US is such a super power, so much so that it can dictate to another country how they are supposed to treat their own, how is it that the US cannot hold itself to the same? Do what I say and not what I do?

Please, tell me how two wrongs make a right in your reality?

Must I go through and cut and paste every post I made before you "people" stop looking at one post and judging everything I say off that one post. And no we cannot win a unconventional war conventionally, it just does not happen. We have to fight it the same way they do, in the trenches is a thing of the past. Two wrongs if one of those wrongs makes my life, well alive then I think that makes it right in itself.

Labelling me because of my stand on one topic is rather shallow duncha think? I seriously doubt the Limbaughs would agree with you, but then you would of known that had you not read one post and jumped in without looking at any thing else I have written.

Coming into an argument without researching your quarry must be something a lot of you do, I on the other hand search past posts to see how and what the person has to say, because someone can be for something and against something else not going the "party" lines ..... All but HH who I label because all FACTS from there posts point that way.

FoF

FoF

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 9:59 PM

That fact must have slipped by you while you were mulling over some of the facts you have branded as fiction.

Since this was obviously a humor point for MM you show me where I any FACTS I brand as fiction occur, or was that just another one of those "It looks good I will say it" kind of things, that our more common then the facts in these threads. I recall saying for people to use better judgement when grabbing info from elsewhere or at least admit there mistake I mean Glow Lites?

FoF

Defiant Noquisi

Jun 14th, 2004, 10:09 PM

DontBeAfraid

Jun 14th, 2004, 10:11 PM

I have HH on ignore right now......

VegasRonin

Jun 14th, 2004, 10:14 PM

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 10:16 PM

We have seperate topics and threads for a reason, to keep them seperate. If you want me to NOT respond to the posts you have made in this thread because you say I havent read your other posts, then why dont you start up a thread of your own and make all your posts in there? Then I can read them all and make my comments using ALL of your "insightful" banter. Obviously my post made such an impact you copied the whole thing so it wouldnt be missed. :yikes:

Until then, I will comment as such within the context of where the post is placed and what it is about. Get a grip.

Speaking of shallow, you have already proved yourself eligible for that title yourself with your narrow-minded views of people who speak out against what they see as "wrong" to them, just like yourself. :yes:

Actually its cause I feel like just hitting "quote" and not taking just parts of your argument and thats done FOR you not for myself thats done so if I try to take part of what you say and twist it the others can see I am in on the spin, you know something others in here like to do. Grab a bit and respond to it while ignoring the rest of the post.
No I am not shallow in the least I am rather vastly open to other views other then my own, not only to learn but to see how people think. What I may be considered shallow on is the fact I like facts, not make-believe you know FACT MUSLIM EXTREMISTS WANT US DEAD you know things like that, not open for debate but somehow people try to make that into a debatable subject where as extremists make there point rather clear they want us dead. You see what I am talking about?

The point is the thread is here to read all of it not just where you want to jump in as thats like going to your families for Thanksgiving after the bird is eaten. And to go a bit further, if you want to "label" someone YOU have to look farther into them then just one area, that shows ignorance by not doing such correct?

FoF

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 10:21 PM

Personally, I think this thread has been beat to death. Both sides (Libs & Conservs) have already admitted that they don't condone torture of prisoners. The conservatives seem to be wanting a more aggressive approach to the conflict. While the Libs desire the opposite. Neither wants to torture people. I don't think so anyway.

Well I am the black sheep as I do think torture is acceptable in certain situations as I made it clear to others with this problem,

Someone you love is kidnapped and if you do not get to them in one hour they will die, if you caught the person responsible and need to find the person you love would you do whatever it takes up to and including torture (beating them up pulling there nails ect) to find the person you love ...even though its not legal.

I did NOT however condone the actions of the guards at the prison who where doing it more for fun and thrills then intel gathering purposes as I said in a brief earlier, if I was to do it, they would not be naked they would be hidden in a cell with me and tweezers. If it saves American or civilian lives I think we need to be more aggresive then passive. Because it is similar to the above analogy, if you get the right intel you have saved innocent lives from IED's from car bombs ect....

FoF

Defiant Noquisi

Jun 14th, 2004, 10:32 PM

Since this was obviously a humor point for MM you show me where I any FACTS I brand as fiction occur, or was that just another one of those "It looks good I will say it" kind of things, that our more common then the facts in these threads. I recall saying for people to use better judgement when grabbing info from elsewhere or at least admit there mistake I mean Glow Lites? Since when does my post addressing your lack of introspect with regard to peoples opinions against the torture of Iraqi prisoners have anything to do with MM's post? Why must you pull crapola from your behind if you have nothing intelligent to counter it with?

It's obvious that contradiction is your motto.

FACT: You accuse those who post against the torture (as well as anyone who has something negative to say about the US) as people who speak against "all she stands for", yet by speaking against what these people are doing, you do the same.

FACT: You say people should use better judgement and forget to use it yourself.

FACT: This thread is about the torture of Iraqi prisoners yet you spring forth with stuff that "looks good so youll say it" thus perpetuating the intelligent persona you have built for yourself.

FACT: I have kept up on this entire thread since its inception, therefore I read all of your posts before I made any kind of comments.

FACT: In one post you make it seem as if the torture of the Iraqi's was justified and then in another post you say you dont agree with it.

FACT: Liberals do what they do and conservatives do what they do. When applied wisely, each can work in balance with each other for the betterment of many. Your posting seems to indicate that Liberals are bad, and that anyone who speaks against the US is a Liberal which may be a pleasant "fact" to you but in reality is purely fiction.

FACT: You implied that people who speak against the US need to get their ass whooped, thus further insinuating that you are no different from a dictator yourself.

The fact is that you apply some fiction in answering posts to suit your needs, proving without a doubt you will be a bad guy as long as you win. :yikes:

Defiant Noquisi

Jun 14th, 2004, 10:48 PM

Someone you love is kidnapped and if you do not get to them in one hour they will die, if you caught the person responsible and need to find the person you love would you do whatever it takes up to and including torture (beating them up pulling there nails ect) to find the person you love ...even though its not legal. No, I wouldnt even agree with it then. Even when my ex abducted my son I did not think that way. Even when it seemed that the court would not give my son back to me when everything was against me did I think that way.

When all was said and done I was a "good guy" throughout and I won .

Even when I have faced people who have threatened my sister's life did I feel that way. I gave those people the biggest fear I could possibly give them, by turning my back to them without fear.

Again I won, these people have been shamed and removed from their positions of power.

By lowering our standards to those of the people we are trying to defeat, we are no different from them. You cannot justify torture in any way, shape or form. It is unacceptable and only proves that even those who consider themselves "better" are no different than the perpetuaters. You may think that having them stripped is nothing, to them it is heinous.

You want to win? Set the example.

FactsOverFiction

Jun 14th, 2004, 10:56 PM

Since when does my post addressing your lack of introspect with regard to peoples opinions against the torture of Iraqi prisoners have anything to do with MM's post? Why must you pull crapola from your behind if you have nothing intelligent to counter it with?:

Well the only time I "That fact must have slipped by you while you were mulling over some of the facts you have branded as fiction" was when I pointed out he threw out something about phosperus in Glow Lites that was fiction, other then that I have never said a thing about the "facts" No its obvious who pulls stuff out of there "crapola" , and my bum is quite tight :D
And this intelligent thing has really tanned my hide your implying someone has to be intelligent to have facts and opinions now who is the shallow one?

It's obvious that contradiction is your motto.
:

My motto or my nickname once again you twist things how you want them.

FACT: You accuse those who post against the torture (as well as anyone who has something negative to say about the US) as people who speak against "all she stands for", yet by speaking against what these people are doing, you do the same.
:

No I have never said any such thing "as well as anyone who has something negative ect" Your once again "pretending" to have a intelligent argument to show dumbasses like myself you know big words, but that does not change the FACTS

FACT: You say people should use better judgement and forget to use it yourself.
:
Show me where? Once again thats not a fact thats your opinion

FACT: This thread is about the torture of Iraqi prisoners yet you spring forth with stuff that "looks good so youll say it" thus perpetuating the intelligent persona you have built for yourself.
:
I never spoke of being "intelligent" now you must be intelligent to be right? Wow feel bad for a lot of people. You have never shown where I spun FACT into fiction, so it looks like your the one who needs some help as well.

FACT: I have kept up on this entire thread since its inception, therefore I read all of your posts before I made any kind of comments.
:

Did you? What cannot be proven cannot be proven. So I withdraw that comment

FACT: In one post you make it seem as if the torture of the Iraqi's was justified and then in another post you say you dont agree with it.
:
Yes torture is justified in certain circumstances, never would deny that. I don't agree with the nakes crap as that was for no purpose other then fun. Thats not torture in my book the torture was the dogs and such and if they garnered information that saved lives then thats okay in my book.

FACT: Liberals do what they do and conservatives do what they do. When applied wisely, each can work in balance with each other for the betterment of many. Your posting seems to indicate that Liberals are bad, and that anyone who speaks against the US is a Liberal which may be a pleasant "fact" to you but in reality is purely fiction.
:

No Moore is a liberal in every sense of the word and (if you care to debate that lets go.) and he is bad, once again I find no sympathy for someone who speaks against our Nation and for our enemies that is treason and it should be punished by death as we our at war. That is giving support to our enemies unacceptable. If you disagree with the war thats fine and you have EVERY right to do so, but when you openly side with and wish for victory for our enemies you cross the line.

FACT: You implied that people who speak against the US need to get their ass whooped, thus further insinuating that you are no different from a dictator yourself.
:
I didn't imply it I stated it clearly, though once again you skewed it too fit your needs, but thats okay because I do believe if someone is defending the terrorists one second and gets blowed up the next they will change there minds about defending the USA's enemies.... Would of I lost any sleep of a volunteer "human shield" got a bomb on there heads... nope same logic applies, I would feel for the innocent, but not for those who are giving moral support to our enemies, they are no better then them.

The fact is that you apply some fiction in answering posts to suit your needs, proving without a doubt you will be a bad guy as long as you win. :yikes:

Never fiction, show me fiction, opinion yes but fiction now. And I admit that if you need to be "bad" to win so be it. Bad as well is an opinion what you find bad I may find good.....

FoF