RE: New "Abuse" Photo's

[CptStern]

Stern + Absinthe, this isnt about Abu Gharib. It seems you have a problem reading the first post in a topic. I think myself and most others have already denounced the Abu Gharib tatics about 101320123 times.

it is relevant. The article mentions Abu Gharib but it's focus is on how the CIA is attempting to distort the meaning of "torture" to legitamize what they do to detainees

 

[gh0st]

it is relevant. The article mentions Abu Gharib but it's focus is on how the CIA is attempting to distort the meaning of "torture" to legitamize what they do to detainees

he's saying that abu gharib has nothing to do with the current situation, which it doesnt. all conspiracy theories aside, your medieval/greatly sensationalized definition of torture simply doesnt apply to this situation. when will you realize that people are simply saying "torture" for dramatic effect?

 

[burner69]

he's saying that abu gharib has nothing to do with the current situation, which it doesnt. all conspiracy theories aside, your medieval/greatly sensationalized definition of torture simply doesnt apply to this situation. when will you realize that people are simply saying "torture" for dramatic effect?

The point just sails over your head hur?

OK, so if Iraqis are torturing our soliders, its ok for us to do it?
Hey, our enemy use suicide bombers, lets get a regiment of them. And they behead people too, FOX news here we come.

Please. We're meant to be raising the standads of the world, not copying them.

 

[gh0st]

The point just sails over your head hur?

OK, so if Iraqis are torturing our soliders, its ok for us to do it?
Hey, our enemy use suicide bombers, lets get a regiment of them. And they behead people too, FOX news here we come.

Please. We're meant to be raising the standads of the world, not copying them.

my argument is that 1) torture is wrong: soldiers who are going against laws of the world and united states should be punished. my article backs this assumption up.
2) that these people particular people did nothing wrong, as those pictures do not show anything remotly close to "torture"
3) and no, its not okay for us to 'torture' people just because insurgent terrorists do it.

 

[burner69]

I've found out why I feel I'm arguing a losing battle. YOU thought we were soley on about Abu Gharib, when in fact, we were on about the widespread, generally ignored, and soon to be legal torturing going on.

You said it yourself, we shouldn't be doing it.

 

[gh0st]

You said it yourself, we shouldn't be doing it.

the torturing wide spread being.. abu ghraib. and of course we shouldent be doing it, what kind of monster do you think i am? ;(

 

[ryanmw]

How is this even remotely similar to that situation?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

GG nub....the dude is pry punching him cause this is the soldiers wife...and in background of the next picture is the dude getting punched...he seemed much happier back then

 

[gh0st]

GG nub....the dude is pry punching him cause this is the soldiers wife...and in background of the next picture is the dude getting punched...he seemed much happier back then

i think i speak for all of us when i say

what the hell are you talking about and why are you here?

 

[burner69]

the torturing wide spread being.. abu ghraib. and of course we shouldent be doing it, what kind of monster do you think i am? ;(

No, it's being made legal, ergo it will occure in many places, perhaps even back home eventually.

It is also being reported all over, not just AG.

I don't think you're a monster dude. Sorry for being confrontational.

 

[burner69]

i think i speak for all of us when i say

what the hell are you talking about and why are you here?

To test our faith?

 

[CptStern]

he's saying that abu gharib has nothing to do with the current situation, which it doesnt. all conspiracy theories aside, your medieval/greatly sensationalized definition of torture simply doesnt apply to this situation. when will you realize that people are simply saying "torture" for dramatic effect?

dear god man we're talking about 2 different articles ..havent you clued in that I'm saying that the CIA are attempting to push the envelope as to what is considered torture?

from the geneva conventions

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.



but ...big but here, the US weaseled it's way out of adhering to the conventions because of this:


Article 4

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:


2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "


yet I submit to you that despite the fact that the "insurgents" are not covered by the accords (because they do not all fit the criteria) they are still human beings and deserve the same treatment as if they were an organized army ...dont you see the hypocracy of it all?

 

[CptStern]

the torturing wide spread being.. abu ghraib. and of course we shouldent be doing it, what kind of monster do you think i am? ;(

no for gods sake it's not just abu gharib ..guantanamo bay as far back 2002, Nasiriya, Qaim, Samarra, Mosul, Camp Cropper

source

source

source

source

source

 

[gh0st]

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "
like hacking peoples heads off? they dont deserve the protection of the geneva convention, and they wont get it. why? they dont fit under it. enough of the geneva convention, youve tried to bring it up consistantly but it simply doesnt apply to terrorists, as much as you would like it if we treated terrorists as well as they treat us

--

i dont deny that actual abuse goes on. simple matter of mass, of course unlawful things are going to go on when you have (soon to be) 150 thousand troops there. all violations of the law should be punished by the law, which as i see they are being. as to my comments of THIS thread, they (amazingly!) pertained to THIS THREAD. not an umbrella of abuse, which i acknowledge most likely goes on. my abu ghraib comment was simply commenting at the frequency with which its used to discredit the united states at any opportunity.

 

[burner69]

The people we see being humiliated are Iraqi soliders, they aren't beheading anybody.

Even if they caught the guy organising the beheadings I still wouldn't condone mindless humiliation/ torture because

a) It is bringing the war down to his level
b) It will create more hatred against the coalition
c) It breaks my moral code of practise.

If they did it to extract info, then let them get on with it.

PS: Gh0st, sent u a PM, hope u got it

 

[gh0st]

no i didnt.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The people we see being humiliated are Iraqi soliders, they aren't beheading anybody.

How do you know that?

 

[Kommie]

..................DELETE

 

[Korgoth]

Thats ok, methinks this whole torture situation is about to get a lot worse considering we have alberto gonzales (sp?) coming in... You know, the guy who considers the geneva accords "quaint" and "out of date"....

He is also one of the founding fathers of the patriot act, and is leading the push to legalize some 10 million + illegal immigrants.

 

[CptStern]

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "
like hacking peoples heads off? they dont deserve the protection of the geneva convention, and they wont get it. why? they dont fit under it. enough of the geneva convention, youve tried to bring it up consistantly but it simply doesnt apply to terrorists, as much as you would like it if we treated terrorists as well as they treat us

...why are 650 people being imprisoned with no trial no hearing no charges ...some as long as 2 years. During which they are interrogated and tortured.
Only to be set free after they've served their purpose ..if they were terrorists why would they set them free?

i dont deny that actual abuse goes on. simple matter of mass, of course unlawful things are going to go on when you have (soon to be) 150 thousand troops there. all violations of the law should be punished by the law, which as i see they are being.

sigh, how many times do I have to make this point?

"no for gods sake it's not just abu gharib ..guantanamo bay as far back 2002, Nasiriya, Qaim, Samarra, Mosul, Camp Cropper" - Me

- doesnt that tell you something? It's not a bunch of soldiers randomly abusing prisoners. They're all, coincidently, using the exact same same methods, therefore they are following orders, which implies that the order came from up high. Really, the reasoning isnt all that difficult to grasp, try to keep up

 

[burner69]

How do you know that?

The people doing the beheadings are a part of a small terror organisation ran by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. There aren't many members, it's an elite. An evil, sick, elite.

Abu Musab does most of the beheadings himself, and the rest are done by other senior members of his group. As far as I'm aware, only one person has been captured who is believed to have committed a beheading. I read it in the papers two weeks ago, you may be able to prove me wrong though.

As Cpt Stern points out as well, many of those tortured are released at the end.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The people doing the beheadings are a part of a small terror organisation ran by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. There aren't many members, it's an elite. An evil, sick, elite.

I thought we were referring to terrorism in general. There is no way to tell from the photos whether they really were terrorists or not. Terrorists can plant roadside bombs, attack civilians, kidnap, and perform many other actions, not solely beheadings.

 

[burner69]

If we're talking terrorism in general, look at Cpt Sterns links.

 

[Shad0hawK]

so ..in other words you're justifing the use of torture? but I thought you were there to "help"?

that would depend on if you considered anything sterner than "pretty please" torture would it not?

BTW you sure can read alot into a simple sentence ,you should change your tag to "ad hom"

 

[burner69]

that would depend on if you considered anything sterner than "pretty please" torture would it not?

'Pretty please' doesn't hurt them.

Being beaten, electrocuted, stripped, made to believe they are going to be killed, being killed, and being humilated (which leaves them often wishing to die, it has much more stigma than in the west) is the torture we refer to. Especially when it has been shown this is happening to people who SHOULDN'T BE TORTURED.

 

[Shad0hawK]

'Pretty please' doesn't hurt them.

Being beaten, electrocuted, stripped, made to believe they are going to be killed, being killed, and being humilated (which leaves them often wishing to die, it has much more stigma than in the west) is the torture we refer to. Especially when it has been shown this is happening to people who SHOULDN'T BE TORTURED.

like the people who were theree when saddam ran that prison?

where were your objections to abu gharib when saddam and his cronies were using it to cut people tongues out, cut off hands and feet, or simply kill people who refused to co-operate? was it not politically expediant therefore not deserving of your attention?

i know one arab man who pointed out that many of the former guards are now(or were at the time) prisoners in the very same prison they used to run...doing the things i described. he seemed to feel it was "poetic justice" that men who really tortured people got a little payback, and i could not really disagree with him much...he had been there and went through it.

i would really like to see you pontificate to this man, i really would.

 

[burner69]

What was done was sick, you know I think that.

If the prison guards hadn't done that, no doubt they would have had it done to them. I doubt any of them particularly enjoyed hacking up their fellow countrymen, and if they did they need help, not torture - which will only fuel their insanity.

Saddam should have never been allowed in power; when he did start his reign of terror it should have been stopped...

..we cannot justify going into Iraq at such an unstable time by saying Saddam has been toppled. doing it now is the worst possible time - and is just breeding hatred for the Coalition.

 

[burner69]

where were your objections to abu gharib when saddam and his cronies were using it to cut people tongues out, cut off hands and feet, or simply kill people who refused to co-operate? was it not politically expediant therefore not deserving of your attention?
.

Also, I was not aware of this at the time.

Why?

Itwas swept aside cuz Saddam was an ally of the US.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Itwas swept aside cuz Saddam was an ally of the US.

Thats why we fought him back in 91 right? He was an ally during the Iran Iraq War becuase of our problems with Iran at the time. You are taking that out of context.

 

[CptStern]

that would depend on if you considered anything sterner than "pretty please" torture would it not?

so you're saying being defecated on, beaten, forced to perform sexual acts on fellow inmates, intimidated with dogs slightly above "pretty please"?

stop evading the question: do you condone your fellow soldiers torturing and abusing prisoners?

 

[seinfeldrules]

so you're saying being defecated on, beaten, forced to perform sexual acts on fellow inmates, intimidated with dogs slightly above "pretty please"?

What about having your picture taken next to a man smiling with his thumbs up? That one must have left deep emotional scars. Then we have the man with blood dripping down his face, which could have been caused by any number of things. Then again, it is Mr. Anti America we are talking to here, so it must have been our fault. What was I thinking.

 

[CptStern]

What about having your picture taken next to a man smiling with his thumbs up? That one must have left deep emotional scars. Then we have the man with blood dripping down his face, which could have been caused by any number of things. Then again, it is Mr. Anti America we are talking to here, so it must have been our fault. What was I thinking.

stop evading it by throwing in your speculation ...the Geneva accords strictly forbids taking "trophy" shots of prisoners (dont give me that "they're not protected by the GA" hypocracy)

oh and why dont you ask that man if the blood is his or that of someone elses. It disgusts me seinfeldrules how you are completely washing your hands of the abuse and torture of human beings. Look dont ever use the argument of the american beheadings cuz I cant stomach your moral depravity where one type of human is worth more than another simply because of what country they call home.

 

[Absinthe]

Thats why we fought him back in 91 right? He was an ally during the Iran Iraq War becuase of our problems with Iran at the time. You are taking that out of context.

So it's okay to ally yourself with a shit bag in order to fight another shit bag? I see. Hooray for Moral America.

GG nub....the dude is pry punching him cause this is the soldiers wife...and in background of the next picture is the dude getting punched...he seemed much happier back then

What in the blue bloody Hell are you going on about?

 

[seinfeldrules]

So it's okay to ally yourself with a shit bag in order to fight another shit bag? I see. Hooray for Moral America.

Since when has politics ever been pretty? Its similar to us allying Osama to fight the USSR. We chose to take down the seemingly bigger enemy.

 

[Absinthe]

Since when has politics ever been pretty? Its similar to us allying Osama to fight the USSR. We chose to take down the seemingly bigger enemy.

But it just undermines your accusations of "What were you doing against Saddam when he was murdering his own people?", as if anybody anti-war is somehow a flip-flopper.

Because the pro-war backers apparently didn't give a shit back in the day either.

 

[burner69]

Thats why we fought him back in 91 right? He was an ally during the Iran Iraq War becuase of our problems with Iran at the time. You are taking that out of context.

He was still an ally, and I still didn't see the reports.

Politics isn't pretty? Pah! It's evil. Siding with people known for terrorism, genocide etc... and giving them money? And ignoring their bad side? BS


EDIT: In 91 we armed him, and Iran. So we were kinda his ally and enemy -- wonder why those two countries f*cking hate america to the core?

 

[seinfeldrules]

But it just undermines your accusations of "What were you doing against Saddam when he was murdering his own people?", as if anybody anti-war is somehow a flip-flopper.

I have nothing against them not doing anything, but I do find it ironic that they are only up in arms when America is involved. How does the saying go? Two wrongs dont make a right...

He was still an ally, and I still didn't see the reports.

Yeah, we were at war with an ally. This is some sort of practical joke right.

Politics isn't pretty? Pah! It's evil. Siding with people known for terrorism, genocide etc... and giving them money? And ignoring their bad side? BS

I think politics can be a good thing, but it is corrupt everywhere. Not just in America. Hopefully our generation can change this.

EDIT: In 91 we armed him,

In 91 we invaded Kuwait to oust Saddam. Come on now, this is basic knowledge. The Iran Iraq War was over by this point.

 

[seinfeldrules]

oh and why dont you ask that man if the blood is his or that of someone elses. It disgusts me seinfeldrules how you are completely washing your hands of the abuse and torture of human beings. Look dont ever use the argument of the american beheadings cuz I cant stomach your moral depravity where one type of human is worth more than another simply because of what country they call home.

When did I ever equate it to beheadings? I believe torture is usually wrong. I dont think smiling for a picture is wrong, nor do I believe all kinds of torture is wrong. Abu Gharib was wrong, that was intense stuff. Sleep deprevation and other forms of 'torture' that dont physically batter humans is ok in my book. If they bring in dogs to terrify the POWs that is OK in my book, as long as the dogs arent let loose.

This is all just personal opinion btw.

 

[Absinthe]

I have nothing against them not doing anything, but I do find it ironic that they are only up in arms when America is involved. How does the saying go? Two wrongs dont make a right...

Many could say the same about this war.

And I could also say that it's ironic that while the right couldn't have given a shit about Iraq back in the day, they suddenly do now.

BTW I'm not trying to say that one political group was better than the other. I just don't think that this kind of blame should be put exclusively on one. Me at that time? I was too young to have an informed opinion about what exactly what went on Iraq.

 

[burner69]

In 91 we invaded Kuwait to oust Saddam. Come on now, this is basic knowledge. The Iran Iraq War was over by this point.

Sorry, meant 1980's during the I-I conflict.

And just cuz it was over duznt mean it didnt happen. Once again US sails in on foreign policy, influences it in the way the think's best (for what motives I'll leave you to decide), and subseqently creates a lot of ppl pissed at them.

Like they're doing again now.

And did in Afghan.

Just cuz sum terrorists are getting killed, duznt mean the battle being won. The figures show greatly increased activity, and many more casualities.

Supposing twenty, fifty, one hundred years down the line we still haven't stamped out terrorism, and attacks continue to increase, then what?

 

[seinfeldrules]

And just cuz it was over duznt mean it didnt happen.

Uhhh I dont think anybody would disagree with that...
I really dont know what to say.

Once again US sails in on foreign policy, influences it in the way the think's best (for what motives I'll leave you to decide), and subseqently creates a lot of ppl pissed at them.

Again, politics. The motive was to degrade the Iranian regime which had been pissing us off.

Just cuz sum terrorists are getting killed, duznt mean the battle being won.

Do you have some military experience or some high up connections that I am unaware of? Nobody can really tell what is going on behind the scenes.

The figures show greatly increased activity, and many more casualities.

Thats what happens in wars...

And did in Afghan.

We primarily invaded Afghanistan to remove the Al Qaeda bases and the pro- Osama government. Not many people argue over this particular conflict.

Supposing twenty, fifty, one hundred years down the line we still haven't stamped out terrorism, and attacks continue to increase, then what?

Took us 50 years to 'beat' the Russians...