America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by dccrens. 25 replies replies.
Atrocities at Abu Graib
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Robby Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 6:59 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Members of the media were invited to watch videos of torture at Abu Graib. The tapes reportedly show guards grabbing prisoners tongues with pliers and pulling them out of their heads? Cutting off their hands? Beating them to death? You can hear them screaming at the top of their lungs and BEGGING for mercy.

However, virtually ALL of the press members declined the invitation. Why would they decline the invitation you might ask?

It’s because the tapes were of Sadam’s henchmen torturing political prisoners… And if the reporters went and viewed this, they would be required to write some sort of report. This would make the “atrocities” committed by our troops in the prison pale by comparison and therefore make Teddy Kennedy look like an a$$ for saying that the prison was just open under new management and people were still being tortured there.

They couldn’t go see the videos because they don’t want to report something that could bolster the administration’s position that Sadam was evil and that what we’ve done is “nothing” by comparison. Can’t let that get out… Nope…
johnfs Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 8:37 AM EST
Joined: 01-01-2003
Posts: 2,993
two wrongs don't make a right?
Robby Offline
#3 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 8:38 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Was it right to bomb the Japaneese? Or wrong? If I kick you in the nads, will you extend a handshake and forgive me? If we can get information from terrorists, should we interogate them? Or give them flowers?
Robby Offline
#4 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 8:39 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
And John, my point wasn't that two wrongs make a right, my point was that the media didn't cover it! Because it would make what America did look pale by comparison to the "real" atrocities that took place there... The liberal left wing media "ignored" the story "period". That's the point, what are your thoughts about that?
johnfs Offline
#5 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 9:00 AM EST
Joined: 01-01-2003
Posts: 2,993
Old news
Robby Offline
#6 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 9:15 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
No it's new news, it happened within the last week. The footage was recently released and it was of Sadam's people torturing political dissidents. The theme may be old, yes there is rampant left wing bias, however, this is illustrative of that FACT.
johnfs Offline
#7 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 9:31 AM EST
Joined: 01-01-2003
Posts: 2,993
It's still old news. What members of media attended?
Robby Offline
#8 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 10:02 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Here you go, from Neals newz

"The worst is how the media completely ignores Saddam Hussein's abuse at the same prison. Let's take a look at the score. A few coalition soldiers, who have been or are being disciplined, took photos of prisoners in humiliating positions. Those prisoners suffered no lasting physical damage. Were the photos and the behavior of those few bad apples wrong? Of course, and the military is dealing with it.

Here is what happened under Saddam's rule at Abu Graib. Decapitations, fingers chopped off one at a time, tongues cut out with a razor blade and prisoners being fed alive to Saddam's Dobermans. We know this took place because there are videos the media is not showing. In fact, the American Enterprise Institute held a little showing on Tuesday. Journalists were invited to come view the videos taken by Saddam's henchmen in the Abu Graib prison as Saddam's torturers actually did their work. Only a very few of our esteemed "journalists" showed up to see the video.

The problem here is if these journalists show up to watch the videos then they will feel some sort of a responsibility to actually report to their viewers or readers what they saw. If they then print stories about Saddam's atrocities it will make the actions of American Reservists at Abu Ghraib look like child's play. This would dampen the constant drumbeat of damnation being heaped on our troops and the Bush administration. In short ... it doesn't fit the template."

Now I ask you, is Abu Graib "old news?" If so, why does the liberal media beat it like a dead horse EVERY SINGLE NIGHT! Night after night after night after night, over and over and over and over again we're told of the horrible abuses we committed on the Iraqis... Yet here's a chance for them to witness Sadam's savagery, and what do they do? The don't RSVP. Why? It would make Bush look justified in his actions and the Libbys certainly don't want to see that... So if Sadam's torture is old news, why isn't Abu Graib old news? Hummmmm? And if it is old news, why do they keep reporting it day after day after day after day, unless they have an agenda? Hummmm?
johnfs Offline
#9 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 10:27 AM EST
Joined: 01-01-2003
Posts: 2,993
US torture at Abu Graib is old news.
Robby Offline
#10 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 10:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
It is, Ted Kopel did a full show on it just last night. Why would he continue to cover old news? 3 guesses and the first two don't count...
johnfs Offline
#11 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 10:46 AM EST
Joined: 01-01-2003
Posts: 2,993
Why do they replay Hitler all the time on TV?
428cj Offline
#12 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 11:04 AM EST
Joined: 04-26-2003
Posts: 741
"two wrongs don't make a right?" I take it you're talking about our 'torture' of terrorists and others fighting against our troops?

In utopia you're correct. In reality, no. Getting information out of people in order to SAVE LIVES is right. I'm sorry that some of you don't agree, but that's your opinion and that's fine. If you were in the business of protecting lives and national security you'd understand that sometimes extreme measures ARE required.

Instead of complaining a lot of people should appreciate the fact that many people out there are doing their absolute best in protecting their lives and their rights to complain.

Don't forget that the same people and methods of protecting our lives and ways of life have been operating for an awful long time now. Complaining nothing was done (that could have prevented it) BEFORE something happens and complaining about what IS done to prevent and protect the same things is getting real OLD.

We wouldn't need to sometimes resort to drastic measures if there weren't so many people INCREDIBLY determined to kill us for being nothing more than Americans. And yet to you we're the bad ones...
johnfs Offline
#13 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 11:09 AM EST
Joined: 01-01-2003
Posts: 2,993
I never said we were bad.
428cj Offline
#14 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 11:19 AM EST
Joined: 04-26-2003
Posts: 741
No, I didn't mean you in particular. The people I'm talking about know who they are.
ducati996 Offline
#15 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 12:46 PM EST
Joined: 01-02-2000
Posts: 3,477
It was right to bomb the Japanese, it saved possibly as many as 1 million JAPANESE lives. I realize this is obvious, but it looks like once again the obvious must be stated.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#16 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 1:03 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
ducati996

i know you are refering to hiroshima and nagasaki.

many japanese leaders agree that the loss of those lives, saved possibly the population of japan, who would have fought until they were all dead.

sad but true.

but of what value is interogating people who probably don't even know what they are fighting about, or who their leaders are, or what their leaders have planned.

and please they are worse then us, doesn't cover it.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#17 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 1:08 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
no one doubts the evil sadam and his two sons did. they are and were two sadistic bastards.

if we wanted to do something, why didn't we have him assasinated instead.

if we couldn't find him, we could have asked isreal intelligence where he was. they seem to be able to hunt down and kill the leaders of the terrorists with minimal collateral damage.
billyjackson Offline
#18 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 1:22 PM EST
Joined: 08-19-2002
Posts: 2,860
Rick,

I usually know better than to comment on these types of things, but re: your above post....

...Sadam is now out of power. Yet the BS is still thick over there. I fail to see how a simple assassination would have solved the problem. Whether one believes the war in Iraq is justified, managed correctly, etc. it is hard to get away with a simple solution (an assassination) to a problem.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#19 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 4:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
billyjackson

i completely agree with you. i did say if we wanted to do something.

take away the oil and we would have no more interest in sadam's iraq then the myriad of dictators around the world. we put the shaw of iran in power and sheltered him when he absconded with his countries wealth. we have a history of coups to install our "friends" in power as dictators all over the world.

sadam was a threat to his own people. he had shown no interest in enlarging his sphere of influence and posed no threat to anyone outside his borders, not with standing, the administration's BS and his friends and faithful followers on these boards.

it was not our business. it is not our business. and the iraq'a who are temporarily in charge until the next car bomb, want us out.

let's bring home the soldiers (men and women) and take care of our own business like repairing our infrastructer, fixing the physical problems with our schools, correcting the health care in this country, and maybe we might even consider eliminating poverty, and helping our homeless. in case anyone has forgotten, the homeless problem started with reagen emptying mental institutions and dumping people on the streets who could not take care of themselves.

i hope we can aree on at least a few things because i respect your opinion.

rick

dccrens Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 4:45 PM EST
Joined: 04-04-2004
Posts: 721
Rickamaven,

"he had shown no interest in enlarging his sphere of influence and posed no threat to anyone outside his borders"

That is right... Kuwait is just Southern Iraq...

usahog Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 7:24 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
FUGIT... I'm retired military now.. I can slap a pair of fruit of the lume underware on my head grab me a 50 calibar with a 35" baynett and start driving a truck in Iraq.. I'll make allot of tax free cash and I can send allot to ALA!!!!

it would be justified with the underwear on my head "RIGHT?" or do I need to cash that in for a Rag and wipe my ass with my left hand and start tossing gernades into crowds would this be ok for CNN, ABC,NBC and the american Left Public?? would I be counted as a Martar???

the fight we are in now digs the deepest into the American Morals and Ethics of how we were raised and taught... just as I have said... we have to lower our standards to figh these SOB's and as I have also said.. have to lower ourselves to argue with an idiot (and this is a borrowed statement) to their level to be beat by experience...

America needs to wake up before we're speaking another language or else!!!!

Hog
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 8:43 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
dccrens

first that was 10 or 15 years ago.

second screw Kuwait. they are one of the richest nations in the world. let them form their own army or hire a bunch of people from third world nations and fight thier own battles. are we getting some discount on oil from them after we pulled thier asses out of the fire.

who elected these white robed funky bearded leaders of their nations. why do they live in abject wealth, while thier "subjects live in garbage. without oil, they would be roaming the desert looking for a better looking camel.

100 arabs in the midst of one of their wars were encamped. the leader decided to treat them to a party and brought in 25 camels. when he told the men about the camels, they ran like hell to the camel enclosure.

why are they running asked one of the leaders and another leader responded, "they don't want to get an ugly camel"
Robby Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 9:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
"dccrens

first that was 10 or 15 years ago. "

Rick, how long ago was the holocaust?

Never mind coward, you're a coward and refuse to answer questions from me. But for everyone else here? Other thinking sane, rational readers? Please note, Rick was making a point that something that happened 15 years ago should not matter. I was making the counter point that something he should care about and should comment on (but won’t because he’s a coward) happened more than 50 years ago. And my point is that some things “transcend” time. But some people don’t care about that $h!t and don’t care if the holocaust happens again or not…

Rick, is the Mossad “them”? Coward... I hope I never grow old and cowardly...
Robby Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 9:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
2 entries found for coward.
To select an entry, click on it.
cowardCoward

Main Entry: cow·ard
Pronunciation: 'kau(-&)rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French coart, from coe tail, from Latin cauda
: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity
- coward adjective
Robby Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2004, 9:20 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
dccrens, since Maven's ba!!$ aren't big enough to answer me, could you do me a favor and ask my questions? Perhaps his depends will hold the required load if you ask the questions. The are obviously pushed beyond the breaking point for any questions I have... I understand, Larry King and all that. I'm sure Rick watches a lot of CNN...
dccrens Offline
#26 Posted: Fri, Jun 18 2004, 5:12 PM EST
Joined: 04-04-2004
Posts: 721
Rick,

I'm game... Is the Mossad “them”?

You are right that it was 15 years ago... I know, as I was there. And Saddam would not have stopped with Kuwait. Oh and let's not forget (as revealed today) that according to the Russsians, Saddam was planning attacks on American soil. Should we have waited?

As one who "served" and defended peoples right to ride lawn tractors and live in houses that could hold two families comfortably, I must ask... would we be living the life we do if some of us didn't defend our nation? I don't think so. While it is cliche, there is some truth in the saying that "freedom isn't free".

Do we as a nation always do right? No... I don't believe we do. But... We get it right, more often than we get it wrong.

Do we need mideast oil and let that "color" some of our choices? Yes... I think we do... If we didn't folks would probably not be able to afford their lawn tractors...

Point is, I see a lot of hypocrisy from Democrats and from Republicans. Some are not willing to drill for oil in our own country, don't want to use nuclear power, don't want to defend friendly mideast nations (or defend against hostile ones) and don't want to give up the "comforts" that fossil fuels allow for.

So I ask, if you were President for a day, what would you do? What ideas do you have? I don't have the answers but I KNOW I don't have all of the inteligence information that our leaders do, when they make (right or wrong) decisions.

My personal opinion (and it is just an opinion) is that we will not be successful in trying to bring peace to the middle east. They have been fighting for thousands of years and will continue to do so. The best we can hope for is to limit it when we can, help were we can, and defend our national interests. And yes, I believe the majority of the worlds oil supply IS a national interest. Unless of course, we are willing to give up our current way of life or switch to alternative forms or energy...

Cheers
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top