I'm not seeing this so called abuse here.

[Joeslogic]

Guardian decided it is an opportune time to bring back up New 'Abu Ghraib abuse' images screened


Wrote a whole article about new pictures of abuse.

Only there is not one abuse picture in the whole stack.

[XerxesX]

I just was some sickening turture pick of that. Really bad case of brutalisation and lack of empathy. Poor neighbours when those responsible get back to the states.

[XerxesX]

They are probably censored somewhat in anglo media.

[Joeslogic]

The first pic was of some guy receiving medical assistance. I guess they are making some giant leap that it means he received injuries in the prison instead of the battle field. And that the injuries were received from American soldiers not his fellow cellmates. And that also if the injuries were received from the American soldiers he was being a peaceful little innocent lamb forced through a series of painful torture.

That’s a far leap to take to say the picture is depicting torture. It’s amazing how conditioned people are to take that and run with it. Hold it up as a banner of proof.

[XerxesX]

The pics I saw was the real thing. Brutal ! Ill try find a link :wink:

[XerxesX]

Looks like they are from the original scandal though.
The Sun s angleamerican sensored pics look inocent untill you count the hours :cry:
http://aftonbladet.se/ gives a few more but its the same torture-scandal that was unveiled and it comes now because journalists are what they are and that :wink:

[Nursey]

I bet these pictures won't get much media attention..
Data is emerging, no matter how the administration attempts to hide it, that the new photos and video of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison include the torture of children.link (http://watchingthewatchers.org/story/2005/7/23/121327/078)

Iraq's Child Prisoners (http://www.sundayherald.com/43796)


A Sunday Herald investigation has discovered that coalition forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib. Witnesses claim that the detainees – some as young as 10 – are also being subjected to rape and torture
By Neil Mackay


It was early last October that Kasim Mehaddi Hilas says he witnessed the rape of a boy prisoner aged about 15 in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. “The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets,” he said in a statement given to investigators probing prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib. “Then, when I heard the screaming I climbed the door … and I saw [the soldier’s name is deleted] who was wearing a military uniform.” Hilas, who was himself threatened with being sexually assaulted in Abu Graib, then describes in horrific detail how the soldier raped “the little kid”.

In another witness statement, passed to the Sunday Herald, former prisoner Thaar Salman Dawod said: “[I saw] two boys naked and they were cuffed together face to face and [a US soldier] was beating them and a group of guards were watching and taking pictures and there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners. The prisoners, two of them, were young.”

[smurfslappa]

Nothing I can do about it. Why should I give a damn what the Guardian puts up?

[XerxesX]

That IS a good point by the Slapper. There are to many of these cute little parasites running around. The human scourge and all that. One should have to choose between nature and culture ( like kids ) .

[diogenes]

No doubt the shit is fucked up, and the entire world should hold the U.S. feet to the fire over this shit until we've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that torture is no longer an acceptable means of gathering intel. How the fuck can the Bush Administration present itself as an honorable government when Cheney is lobbying for limitations on torture bans? Answer me that, Joe?

[smurfslappa]

It's all a show. In this coming apocalypse, we need all the rest of the world to see that we're evil, and that we need to be destroyed for them to be happy again.

It's not just the Bush administration, they want as many stupid fucks and camera saying "Hell yeah, I think we should just kill all these goddam A-rabs and Muhahidoos and towel-heads. Just nuke the goddam place."

[XerxesX]

Torture is not a good way of gathering intel, but its a good way of scaring potentials home to mama.

[smurfslappa]

sure it is, you give them the ol' "I'm gonna ask you some questions, and I already know the answers to a few of them, if you lie on those I'll really really hurt you," and they won't want to lie. If they do, and you think they are and catch it, you cut something off. It'll reinforce their belief that you know what the hell you're talking about. Or maybe you actually do know some of the answers, then the whole spiel works better.

[smiles]

well they're authentic http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_armed_forces

[diogenes]

More liberal media lies. Oh wait, confirmed by the military. Nevermind.

[smiles]

More liberal media lies. Oh wait, confirmed by the military. Nevermind.

heh you think that'll stop joe form discrediting it?

[Joeslogic]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060215/capt.c4c6f55b0fea474aa736a07cdffe0952.australia_ir aq_prison_abuse_lon808.jpg?x=200&y=155&sig=CinljF.iys4DikavT8atpg--

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_armed_forces

This is torture?

you got to be kidding me

[Joeslogic]

http://www.wits.ac.za/trauma/images/Photos/Abdominal%20injury%20Blunt-sml.jpg

http://www.wits.ac.za/trauma/images/Photos/Abdominal%20injury%20Penetrating-sml.jpg

http://www.wits.ac.za/trauma/images/Photos/Amputation-sml.jpg

http://www.wits.ac.za/trauma/images/Photos/Bloodstained%20floor-sml.jpg

http://www.wits.ac.za/trauma/images/Photos/Bogota%20Bag-sml.jpg

http://www.wits.ac.za/trauma/images/Photos/Evisceration-sml.jpg

http://www.wits.ac.za/trauma/images/Photos/Facial%20injury-sml.jpg

http://www.wits.ac.za/trauma/images/Photos/Stabs%20-%20multiple-sml.jpg

http://www.wits.ac.za/trauma/images/Photos/Stab%20-%20face-sml.jpg

You guys are right and look whats more alarming even look at the torture happening stateside.

[Joeslogic]

Cannot deny the truth of a photo yep its proof alright torture happening under our own noses.

[smiles]

joe don't you think your reply is a little hasty? we haven't even see the pictures yet, there's just that one on yahoo, and it in combination with a few others would at least constitute abuse

[Joeslogic]

I have looked at all the available photos. Take the guy in the stretcher. WTF how the hell can you say that’s torture? Let’s just think about it, he was probably the guy on the video that was banging his head on the wall. These insurgents are radical. Do you actually even pretend to believe that they would not for the sake of publicity make there own wounds? Much less would they lie about abuse? Not to mention the type of people doing the abuse inspections there actually people like Smiles and Nursey. Their anti-war, anti-American and just itching for some type of propaganda to use. There probably asking prisoners that reported that they were treated well "Are you absolutely sure?" There likely leading them on to admit abuse that did not even exist. Also once again I'll say that I was in the Marine corps. Don't ask me why the hell there in but there are plenty of anti government types in every unit just itching to blow the whistle on anything they could find that would possibly stick be it legit or not. The only thing I possibly see is psychological techniques and sleep deprivation. Big deal if they deprive someone of sleep. The guy who smeared shit on himself...what am I supposed to say. Are you believing that some military guy is walking around smearing shit on detainees? Now that would indeed be the proverbial shit detail. It was the detainee that did that to himself in order to make it more difficult for the guards. Of course there was the humiliation techniques used in the first round of photos. I already know why they were used. You got an over crowded prison and guards at likely a 50 to 1 ratio you have to make things stabile. If there are a few troublemakers giving the guards shit and becoming hero’s that’s simply how you quickly make a hero a zero. Now things are smooth and stabile again.

What Cheney wanted to do was very legitimate and that was to look at changing simply the definition of torture. If putting panties on a guys head and making him be submissive to a little female is torture then there is a problem legitimate problem that is with the way we are defining torture.

[diogenes]

Dick Cheney just wants to be able to shoot them in the FACE.

[DrBungle]

HAHA!

Nice one...still chucklin.

[diogenes]

thank you. I love this whole Dick Cheney thing. He's the new Chuck Norris.

[XerxesX]

I hope you dont deny that they have killed people during interrogation Joe. Do you ? ( At least in Afghanistan) Cause if you follow that. Maybe you should think about how many they have beat up ? Sleepdeprivation ? A friend from that big extended clan Reza of Iran was getting sleepdeprivation and a little stand up/lie down :evil: You dont need more than that.
The pure inadulterated truth is that USA uses methods that most of the world ( including most of the US population ) find repulsive. Its sort of silly to continue in denial.
Its like : "They didnt do it and besides those types deserved it" Have you heard that before ? I hope you get it! Its the same logical fault that makes you claim someone is guilty by showing the violent nature of a crime. A logical fault you presented as argument with that "Tookie" Williams case.

[smiles]

joe we've had this debate before and i'm not going to get into it.... you claim all they;re doing is sleep deprevation and ridicule but when i posted the article about the german guy who was beaten and detained for weeks you assured me that even though he was released he was most certainly a terrorist :roll:

[XerxesX]

If he ( That german-arab kinapped by CIA ) goes public he will be a terrorist since that will be an "attack" on the war on terror. More rightly called, the war of terror.

And as for Tookie Williams. You must remember what kind of people controlled your nation at that point of time. Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy shot a month apart. J.F.Kennedy shot NINE days after his speach that Nursey provided

Quote:
"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizens of this plight." President John F. Kennedy - Nov. 13, 1963 - Prior to his assassination, tells a Columbia University audience


Sorry man, but the picture here is clear as day. The militaryindustrialist complex killed of niggras and niggra-lovaz while the head of the FBI was strutting around in gartherbelt and nylons.(Remember the gaybomb ?).

And that is why this hyperpatriotic "we never donne it and besides they disserved" it does not cut it. Its way beyond that.

[XerxesX]

Quote:
"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."- President Eisenhower - January 1961


Thanks again Nursey :wink: Get it joe :wink:

[diogenes]

I agree with President Eisenhower. Time to send the Neo-cons back to hell. They're quickly losing ground. The dream of the Reagan conservative movement is mostly dead, hopefully well on it's way to dying, give it up Joe, compassionate conservativism is gone. Let it die.

[Joeslogic]

Take a long hard look at yourselves. My point was regarding the media trying to use pictures to imply that they were depicting torture when that was not that case. Really it was an oppertunity to put pout a soapbox for the anti-war anti-American. Like the reactive little puppets you did your duty. Ant the media is not left leaning?

Anyone who wants to read the Post regarding the German terrorist that was let go I invite them to read my post I think I soundly made my point then. :roll:

[smurfslappa]

Well sorry Joe if those in the media realize the people just don't give a damn about anything anymore, and so they got to scrape together whatever they can to make a buck. News just isn't sensational anymore. Hmmm... I think there'll be plenty to report soon enough, though.

[diogenes]

I don't understand how your posts have proven anything Joe. All you've proven is that you can get a bunch of fuglyites to say something. Not exactly impressive, now is it?

[XerxesX]

There are sixty pics or so out. It sure looks like torture. The fact that they have killed during interrogation indicates that pther have been messed up as well. ( As in : Not all torture leads to death ).

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:25 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take a long hard look at yourselves. My point was regarding the media trying to use pictures to imply that they were depicting torture when that was not that case


Take a look at yourself Joe. They have KILLED people in jail. We know they used torture in Abu Graib , and here you are, telling us the earth is flat and that the starts are litty bitty windowe that the angels look down from.

What will be possible toi argue though,, is that the USarmed forces use less[i] torture than the Saddam-regime or the Iran-regime. Maybe torture is considered a neccesary evil, or like in the official news, something that happened out of controll. Gov stated that they were against such practice and they have sentenced US troopers to time because they used TORTURE

( On another note. What indications exist of insurgent torture ? ).
( Non-rethorical question ) :)

[diogenes]

What indications exist of insurgent torture, how about videos of them sawing someones head off?

[XerxesX]

That is indeed torture if the hostage is alive. If the killing is fats though, its not. No matter how long it takes to get the head of.
In that case its desecration of the dead.

[smiles]

What indications exist of insurgent torture, how about videos of them sawing someones head off?


i see so you want a level playing field? how about this..... give the insurgents some aircraft carriers and cruise missles and in turn they'll allow you to saw a few heads off, deal?

[diogenes]

Just talking about whether or not the insurgents practice inhumane forms of torture, I would think sawing someones head off would constitute that. And they choose to fight a guerilla war. I don't think they're asking for planes and aircraft carriers. Those are too big to park in front of a building and blow up, duh.

[smiles]

come on now tho honestly joe tried to argue the same thing about how the insurgents dont wear military uniforms they;re not entitled to treatment as POW's.... history is usually what decides weather someone is a freedom fighter and a martyr or a terrorist........ you have them out manned, out gunned, out financed, out trained, and out equipped.. just because they refuse to all check off "terrorist" on their income tax return so you can conduct a cencus does not mean their cause is illegitimate

[diogenes]

when the fuck did I say their cause was illegitimate. We're talking about whether or not they use torture, which is never legitimate, regardless of cause. And Osama Bin Laden is a freedom fighter, Ronald Reagan said so.

[Nursey]

With this latest leaking of torture photos, it would be considerate of 'them' (you know...the "insurgents" (www.judicialinc.com);)) to do another of those beheadings, just to assure us in the civilised world that THEY=BAD and US=GOOD. Maybe Mr. Negroponte (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/) could have a small word? You did not read that.

[diogenes]

It would be interesting to see. If the insurgency was as adept at polemics and spin control as the current administration the U.S. would have pulled out already.

[smurfslappa]

Who gives a shit diogenes, goddam really. As long as there is war and people hate each other there will always be torture. Why the fuck is our administration trying to get laws passed to allow it? That's just showing off to the goddam world, trying to piss off the Muslims. Everyone else tortures but keeps a lid on that shit, and that's the way it ought to be. Those guys are lucky they were only getting beatings and sleep deprivation.

People die, it's fucking war. More people starve every fucking day or get their tits lobbed off in Africa just for being in a different tribe. You're just crying about this shit because it's all over the news and it's a hot fucking topic. And the sad shit is you can't even realize it. Instead you feel like you're doing your part to speak out about it, but chances are outside these forums you don't say shit.

[diogenes]

You're right, outside the forums I masturbate to pics of Barry. Just because I don't rant like I got my balls stuck in a mousetrap the way you do doesn't mean I don't speak out.

[smurfslappa]

Doesn't change the fact that your discussing what's all over the news, like your opinion really matters to these guys. In the end, it's same ol' pattern. Some hot new item pops up, the masses mill over it, and in the end it hardly even matters. Torture will go on no matter how many people post about it on the internet, or gripe about it over their coffee with their neighbors. But thanks for letting us know you're Anti-torture.

[diogenes]

The world notices revolution, but the actual change happens through evolution. Were it not for conversations like this nothing would ever change. Would you rather we sweep the issue under the rug and worrie about scars on mars caused by ancient gods and their intergalactic beef?

[smurfslappa]

Hell yeah, if that shit were the hot topic like it'll never be, people might actually realize our true history and what we must do. This apocalypse could have been avoided, and I wouldn't have to worry about my nieces and nephews and cousins and babies of cousins or my dad or all the people of the world or what the hell will happen to our planet. We could enter a golden age instead, and everything would be a million times better than it is now, if only we knew our true history.

That's why these old guys work so hard to make sure we forget, and don't ever remember.

[diogenes]

Take your lithium and go to bed.

[XerxesX]

Smiley



[/quote]i see so you want a level playing field?


Were did the level playing field come from ? Is it a game ?

I have the impression that many insurgent groups try for a "honorable" behaviour. And many hostages speak of a good treatment. ( After their release ).
Beheadings are not common in the US or Europe. But electrocution ? Cutting someones head of is not torture. Its execution. I saw only one picture of beheading at the ogrish-site. Malaysian christian girls on their way to school. I doubt they suffered much. Exept the one that survived. And even with her its not torture. Its fanatical violence and cruel behaviour. Inspired by really old books supposed to give us eternal bliss and brimfire.

[XerxesX]

The Fuckin quotefucks no good :cry:

[smiles]

the level playing field came from joes, and now dio's, incessant bitching about how america should be able to torture and arbitrarily detain people because the insurgents are kidnapping and executing people.... that argument would be a valid one if we were talking about world war two or the american civil war but this is now a guerilla war where one side has every advantage possible and complains that the other isn't playing by the rules

[XerxesX]

Hi Smiley :D
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the level playing field came from joes, and now dio's, incessant bitching about how america should be able to torture and arbitrarily detain people because the insurgents are kidnapping and executing people.... that argument would be a valid one if we were talking about world war two or the american civil war but this is now a guerilla war where one side has every advantage possible and complains that the other isn't playing by the rules


There is no level playing field in war. You are supposed to turn everything to your advantage and win.
If it looks cool ( propagandawise ), and does not hurt your logistics you can be nice to prisoners.
Like Saladin during the crusades, or the germans and british on the westfront.
And unlike Richard the Lionhearted and the germans and russians on the eastfront.

I think it should be understood that the geneva-convention was shaped by the equilibrium of the western-european states, and their common code of conduct.


bitching about how america should be able to torture and arbitrarily detain people because the insurgents are kidnapping and executing people....

Its not because they kidnap and execute. Its because they are strong and ingenious and strain the US military.

It still seems they are a minority of the population in most muslim countries :wink: But if ten % of european pop had supported Baader-Meinhof and RoteArmeFraktion the west would not have won the cold war.

[smiles]

as true as that may be xerx you keep getting away from the heart of dios and joes arguments....... which is: Terrorism is bad, terrorists are bad, terrorists do bad things, why should terrorists be allowed to worse things than us?

my response to that was: Don't worry the things you do are just as bad. your methods are just as inhumane.

the end

[XerxesX]

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:58 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as true as that may be xerx you keep getting away from the heart of dios and joes arguments....... which is: Terrorism is bad, terrorists are bad, terrorists do bad things, why should terrorists be allowed to worse things than us?

my response to that was: Don't worry the things you do are just as bad. your methods are just as inhumane.


Then it just comes down to a field of cost / gain. ( Do they/us have backing in their/our population ? )

[diogenes]

Smiles wrote...

the level playing field came from joes, and now dio's, incessant bitching about how america should be able to torture and arbitrarily detain people because the insurgents are kidnapping and executing people.... that argument would be a valid one if we were talking about world war two or the american civil war but this is now a guerilla war where one side has every advantage possible and complains that the other isn't playing by the rules

When have I supported U.S. actions in Iraq. I think both sides are wrong, and I seem to be the only person saying that. Don't fuck with me over Joes bullshit, comparing apples with oranges.

[Nursey]

Smiles wrote...

the level playing field came from joes, and now dio's, incessant bitching about how america should be able to torture and arbitrarily detain people because the insurgents are kidnapping and executing people.... that argument would be a valid one if we were talking about world war two or the american civil war but this is now a guerilla war where one side has every advantage possible and complains that the other isn't playing by the rules

When have I supported U.S. actions in Iraq. I think both sides are wrong, and I seem to be the only person saying that. Don't fuck with me over Joes bullshit, comparing apples with oranges.

Tell me how Iraq was in the wrong? It complied with the U.N. even though the goal posts kept being moved repeatedly becuz they hedda find those gaddamn weapons. Until, when it was obvious to many they were never going to find any weapons they did what they had intended all along and destroyed the country anyway. You don't get any more sordid, really.

[diogenes]

When did I ever say the U.S. should have invaded Iraq?

[Nursey]

I think both sides are wrong

President Bush of the United States (on the eve of war (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html)) - "Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed." (Lie).

Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq (Feb. 2003 (http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_1/04_saddam_benn.html)) - "This is an opportunity to reach the British people and the forces of peace in the world. There is only one truth and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever." (Truth)


Iraq = right
America = wrong

[diogenes]

Saddam Hussein = no longer fighting+

Insurgency = not saddam hussein+

Weapons of Mass Destruction = lie+

George W. Bush = idiot

You're saying that Saddam Hussein has anything to do with the Al Sadr brigades. How about Zawahiri. The "War on Terror" has a broader scope than Iraq Nursey. You of all people should be acknowledging that. Quit being such a dumb shit. I've never supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Criticism of the insurgency is not support of the U.S. led invasion and occupation, and vice versa. Unless you can find posts where I've said, I think the U.S. was right to invade Iraq then quit trying to bust my balls. I agree that the U.S. was wrong. Where we disagree is that you seem to think that it's fine for Iraqi's to use any means possible to get their point across. There are ethical limits to protest, and the insurgency is not honoring those limits.

[XerxesX]

After Saddam was assfucked into submission by trying to fuck Khomeini, just to wank off America, then got the go-signal to hump Kuwait by US special envoy whatshername ( Nursey ? ), after wich the US military got to use their stuff and check it against the soviet stuff and get paid doing so.
During that war Saddam made the mistake of sending his remaining mig29s. ( At that time the best fighterplane in the world ), to Iran. The reason this was a mistake is its a clear signal that now suddenly Iran and Iraq are fuckbuddies and they want some american ass. They should have scrapped the planes. Pretended animosity and slowly built the combo of energy-power, and strategic weapons capability that they needed to challenge US-Israeli superiority in the region. ( Probably would not have worked anyway. Hard to slip under the radar nowadays ).

[diogenes]

Like I said Nursey, when did I ever support the invasion of Iraq? You post things that George W. Bush said, to refute my arguments? Does that make sense to you?

[XerxesX]

Nursey !
Do you have a link to that special envoy that had talks with Saddam before the invasion of Kuwait ?

[Nursey]

Like I said Nursey, when did I ever support the invasion of Iraq? You post things that George W. Bush said, to refute my arguments? Does that make sense to you?

Now now, diogenes! I haven't even had a chance to reply to you and you're coming back in to rant the same thing at me! It's like you are so riled up over this that you are returning to the scene of the traumatising accusation and throwing punches at phantom Nurseys! But i can't blame you. I too would find the accusation deeply insulting! But seeing as i wasn't accusing you of it, you can calm down now, 'dumb shit'. It had looked to me as though you were saying that Iraq was equally to blame for the invasion, which was what i was in disagreement over.

Saddam Hussein = no longer fighting+

Insurgency = not saddam hussein

I was referring to the circumstances of both countries as they stood at '0 hour' of the present conflict.


Where we disagree is that you seem to think that it's fine for Iraqi's to use any means possible to get their point across. There are ethical limits to protest, and the insurgency is not honoring those limits.

There's the mass consumed spin...that the people of Iraq who have nothing left but to fight for their country, beliefs and dignity are called 'insurgents'. How can they be 'insurgents' when they are fighting an outside agressor?

I consider the term 'insurgency' as one of the west's great propaganda triumphs. Please don't use their 'doublespeak' unless you really aren't fussy about accuracy because such twisted language distorts our perception of reality. The term i find better describes those fighting to drive out an invading aggressor in an attempt to win their freedom is 'resistance'.
Rhetoric and War: Who are the insurgents? (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/rhetoric_and_war.html)


In war, he who rules the rhetoric controls the high ground.

Take the current term for people we are fighting in Iraq. Previously, Washington officials called them Saddam sympathizers and foreign terrorists. But most are Iraqis and many never liked Saddam. So now they're "insurgents.''

If you ask Google for a definition of insurgent, you get "a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions).''

That's not so bad. But my Random House Thesaurus associates insurgent with synonyms including rebel, traitor, turncoat, deserter, anarchist, dissenter, malcontent, maverick and upstart.

Those sound like bad guys to me. But if the Iraqis are the insurgents, how come we're the ones shooting up their country and trying to get them to adopt our kind of government?


Where we disagree is that you seem to think that it's fine for Iraqi's to use any means possible to get their point across. There are ethical limits to protest, and the insurgency is not honoring those limits.

First of all, unlike the bloodthirsty fanatics who have, from their ivory tower, summoned the demons of war and gone completely out of their way (9996 km to be precise) to create and exist within (or rather, plunge their 'expendable rubbish' into) the situation, this is life or death for the *Iraqis* who never asked to be dragged into the neocon corpse-filled nightmare in the first place.

Second, how would you like them to operate, old chap? How about... having these unruly rabble-rousers standing back to back with the United Sates of America, both taking 15 steps in opposite directions (one in their tatty gym shoes, the other on land, sea and air), turning and drawing their rusty kalashnikov to face the colossal mountain of U.S. military might and a full arsenal of the most mind-bogglingly high-tech conventional and unconventional deathnology ever to have existed, wot!? And even then, you can bet the Americans would STILL cheat, turning around and vapourising their opponent after the 14th step citing the need for the massive pre-emptive strike in order to defend themselves from impending annhilation with their best show of Hollywood-style sincerity. America set the limits of what was acceptable...and the message is...anything goes, really!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/nukeboom2.gif (http://www.tsbolton.com/wavs/)http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/cootani.gif (http://tsbolton.com/wavs/Ct_get.wav)http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/funtoshoot.jpg (http://tsbolton.com/wavs/Ln_blow.wav)http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/daisyani.gif (http://tsbolton.com/wavs/Ch_2468.wav)http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v185/dstrictnursey/exxon.gif (http://tsbolton.com/wavs/Sb_lord.wav)

Click pics for audio! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/thumb.gif

Thirdly, and seeing as this is really what you were really referring to by 'the unethical behaviour' of the 'insurgents' (though i am only really addressing it here in this final part of my post) we come to the brutally sensational video beheadings that have played such a powerful and lasting role in formulating the Western populace's view of the Resistance. I already gave a hint as to my opinion on this matter which you seem to have missed, so i'll repost:

With this latest leaking of torture photos, it would be considerate of 'them' (you know...the "insurgents" (www.judicialinc.com);)) to do another of those beheadings, just to assure us in the civilised world that 'THEY' = *BAD* and 'US' = *GOOD*. Maybe Mr. Negroponte (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/) could have a small word? You did not read that.

And just to clarify:

On executions, beheadings, and other propaganda operations (http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=31553)

A comprehensive overview of CIA - MI6 -Mossad black propaganda operations masquerading as "Islamic terrosim" from 9-11 to the Margaret Hassan kidnapping in Iraq.

November 20, 2004—The pattern has been consistent and obvious. Every news report or scandal that has been detrimental to the Bush/Anglo-American war agenda has been followed, within hours, with shocking executions (real and staged) that are attributed to "terrorist insurgents," despite questionable circumstances, non-verifiable evidence and unreliable sources, such as "unnamed" intelligence and military officials.

The parties responsible for these acts have not and likely will not be identified, thanks in large part to deliberate US/Pentagon blackouts of reporting from war zones, and disinformation-laden and Bush-controlled corporate media.

What is clear, regardless of the identities of the perpetrators, is that the results have exclusively benefited the US/Bush administration war machine, while completely undermining the political and public relations objectives of anti-US/anti-occupation opposition movements and groups. The methods used in the kidnapping and murder of Margaret Hassan, Nick Berg and others neatly fit the profile of classic western intelligence and counterinsurgency operations.


then got the go-signal to hump Kuwait by US special envoy whatshername ( Nursey ? )

April Glaspie (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html). (See also: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps? (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2005-daily/25-12-2005/world/w2.htm))

[diogenes]

The fact that the insurgency is attacking and kidnapping civilians makes them morally reprehensible. If you base your ethincs on the ethics of your opponent than you have no ethics. Neither the U.S. military nor the "resistance" follow any kind of ethical limits. I don't see that as acceptable. Regardless of circumstances. And maybe dumb shit was a little too far. Sorry about that. I tend to cuss way to much, so it's not really as bad as it sounds since I toss them off like they were nothing.

[smiles]

you're right following "any kind of ethical limits" should be the insurgents number one priority, they can CLEARLY afford that luxary

[Nursey]

you're right following "any kind of ethical limits" should be the insurgents number one priority, they can CLEARLY afford that luxary

Exactly. And the Resistance aren't specifically targeting civilians with their actions...unless you mean THESE KIND (http://www.judicialinc.com/). Divide and conquer.

[Nursey]

Exactly. And the Resistance aren't specifically targeting civilians with their actions...unless you mean THESE KIND (http://www.judicialinc.com/). Divide and conquer.

That was an inadequate explanation, but i'm too tired to elaborate at present.

[smurfslappa]

I applaud their efforts at hitting us where it hurts. I mean, what's the tally stand at? How many of us have they killed, and how many of them have we killed? Goddam, we're ignorant assholes who don't give a shit about anything all the time.

Since we don't speak out, rush to the streets and hang our leaders for getting us into this war for some buildings that our very own leaders blew up in the first place, fuck us for that shit. They hated us being in there in the first place, so now they really hate us. Diogenes, you're an idiot.

[XerxesX]

Many civilians killed by the US are likely labeled "insurgents".

I consider the term 'insurgency' as one of the west's great propaganda triumphs.

Thats why GWB had to say that war-actions in Iraq were over. Then they have a "friendly" regime and the regime is lawfull. Its quite a piece of work. Yes :wink:

Many of the civilians killed by the insurgents are standing in line signing up for policeduty. ( their civilian-status is shady ).

The UKguys found with bomb in car, and released from iraqi prison by tank leaves some doubt as to wether the baath-insurgentsare responsible for blowing up Shiat-Ali Mosques.

But no matter the tactics used in asymetrical warfare. Most people will just wanna get by.
Does not matter much who does what. Just get it to stop :cry:

[Nursey]

The fact that the insurgency is attacking and kidnapping civilians makes them morally reprehensible.




An AP reporter revealed that US seizure of Iraqi women to blackmail Iraqi male suspects had been used in Iraq.

"In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife.""

[url=http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/t2614_2616.pdf]Click here for the officer's memo. (http://truth-about-iraqis.blogspot.com/2006/01/yet-another-us-military-crime.html)

[Nursey]

The Beheading

Recently, Iraqis have beheaded an American, dragged American corpses through the streets, and fed American corpses to the dogs. Americans claim this is an outrage. Normally, it would be. Despite evidence that the beheading execution (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/002452.php) of Nick Berg was staged (http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar/berg_beheading.htm), and that the man in the video supposedly Zarqawi was actually US Marine Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun (http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_members&Number=293458248&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=1#Post293458248), let's presume for argument's sake, that it was real and that the Iraqis did it, not the CIA.

Americans refuse to acknowledge that they brought this on themselves by pushing the Iraqis to such desperate measures to get the Americans to back off. During the sanction bombings in the decade after the Gulf War I, Americans killed one in ten Iraqis, mostly children. Americans bombed water treatment, sewage and electrical plants in violation of the Geneva convention. Many of these kids died horrible slow deaths of thirst, cholera and starvation. Most Americans don't even know they did that. Iraqis cannot forget.

Most Americans think Iraq was behind 9-11. Even Bush admitted that was not so, after tricking the American people into believing it.

Bush invaded Iraq on a lie, a pretext that Iraq had nuclear weapons and were about to use them on the USA. This was similar to what Hitler did with his phony excuse for invading Poland. Iraq was no threat at all to the USA. She was completely disarmed and destitute. The Americans have no moral legitimacy at all to invade, because the attack was totally unprovoked. America claims to be spreading democracy with its colonialistic wars, yet installs puppet dictators in its wake. Bush has acted like a bully. Why? Because he covets Iraq's oil.

The Iraqi people have every moral right to fight the invaders. The Iraqis are not terrorists; they are not even insurgents; they are the resistance or perhaps the partisans. Killing invading soldiers and mercenaries is not terrorism, no matter how gruesomely done; killing civilians is. Ironically, it is the Americans who technically are the terrorists because they are the ones butchering civilians.

Watching Americans act offended by the maltreatment of unfeeling corpses is almost amusing. It is the merest flick of revenge for the infinitely greater American malice against real living Iraqi children. See the photos above.

Americans pooh pooh Iraqi outrage at the confinement, torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi civilians who committed no crime more serious that “driving while Iraqi”. What if the tables were reversed? Would you too not seek revenge?

Hamurabi said an eye for an eye was reasonable revenge. The Iraqis are taking only one eye for every twenty the Americans are taking, and that does not even count the decimation during the sanction bombings where the American lost no one and the Iraqis lost a tenth of their population. And still the Americans consider the Iraqis are being unreasonably cruel and vindictive. If kids were not being maimed and killed, you'd have to laugh at their blindness.

Of course, what the Iraqis have done is horrible, but at the same time, what the Americans have done, that brought on that revenge, is hundreds of times worse. The American public wear special filtering spectacles so they can only see the evil others do, never their own.

Source. (http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqunderstanding.html#BEHEADINGS)

[diogenes]

Presenting ethics violations by the U.S. doesn't justify ethics violations by the insurgency. Your arguments are weak, ad hominem abusive.

[smiles]

Presenting ethics violations by the U.S. doesn't justify ethics violations by the insurgency. Your arguments are weak, ad hominem abusive.


the argument isnt weak when you take into consideration that the insurgents "violate ethics" out of despiration while the US does it out of convenience

[diogenes]

Ah, so the ends justify the means. I suppose it's game on then, since there is no objective value for human life. What the U.S. is doing is justified by their goals, and the insurgency in justified by the goals they have. An ad hominem abusive argument is invalid. What you're saying is that kidnapping and violating human rights is a per se quality of a resistance movement. The vietcong were wrong to practice their "re-education" pogroms, and the Iraqi "resistance" is wrong when it targets civilians and aid workers. How about the attacks on Iraqi police recruits, officers, and military enlistees. Those are not American targets, are those actions still moral? Could they possibly be considered non-moral, since you are choosing to end someone else's life? Under what circumstances am I justified in taking a life? Is it in defense of land, property, persons, religion? If one side is excused from it's responsibility to the higher cause of protecting life then neither side is held to that standard.

[XerxesX]

Are policerecruits civilians. How much cultural relativity can one allow within ethical bounds. Seems to be a problem here. But it disintegrates into pure struggle.
The fine lines are bound to be blurred. I am more worried about the aftershock of this war, than about what happens in it.

The successful sovjet-chinese strategy of providing weapons for the vietcong gave them a victory in indochina. But more important they faced a new american strategy. The real result was the fundamentalist trouble in Afghanistan, and in the end, the fall of the USSR. The CIA-involvement in creating this fundamentalist front can be seen now.
Wars suck longtime. USA would be far better of consentrating on something else, but its hard to quit in the middle of the game :?

[smurfslappa]

Presenting ethics violations by the U.S. doesn't justify ethics violations by the insurgency. Your arguments are weak, ad hominem abusive.

Oh well. There are goals out there Diogenes that are larger than a single human life, in these people's eyes. Your opinion doesn't matter to them, because the troops representing you are all up in their booty-hole, blowing up all their shit, killing their people and diminishing their way of life. Sorry if they can't just take their huge battleships and jets and planes and come over here and remove this opressive dictator we got from power, but first bomb us back to the stone age.

There's 6 billion people on the planet, what's all going on right now is very fucked and shouldn't be, and I'm more concerned about the planet as a whole right now. All the twisted and fucked up things we remember from these times can be lost in the ages ahead, but not if we don't make it.

[Joeslogic]

I consider the term 'insurgency' as one of the terrorist sympathizer’s great propaganda triumphs. Please don't use their 'doublespeak' unless you really aren't fussy about accuracy because such twisted language distorts our perception of reality. The term i find better describes those fighting to drive out an invading aggressor in an attempt to win their freedom is 'terrorists'.

[Joeslogic]

Or this is actually more accurate.

I consider the term 'insurgency' as one of the terrorist sympathizer’s great propaganda triumphs. Please don't use their 'doublespeak' unless you really aren't fussy about accuracy because such twisted language distorts our perception of reality. The term I find better describes those fighting to drive out defenders of the oppressed in an attempt to win their freedom to cram more oppression down their throats is 'terrorists'.

[smurfslappa]

You're not very bright, are you Joe?

[TheGrimJesus]

Did I miss something or did he answer is starting post?

[smurfslappa]

You must of missed it when you were trying to skip past all of Nursey's crap. Go back and skip through a little more thoroughly.