New Abu Ghraib Images (WARNING: very disturbing)

reply to post by Silenceisall


Was I saying that? I think some people here need to re-read my posts.

I'm saying that Abu Ghraib has been used for torture when Saddam was in power. Everyone here seems to think that it's just been when the US invaded that it suddenly was turned into a prison.

Check with Amnesty International, as I had said in an earlier post. Saddam was using that as his personal torture chamber, yet no one was complaining too much about that then. They figure that Saddam executed something like 4000 people there in 1984 alone.

www.amnesty.org...

The link I provided outlines some of the torture that went on with Saddam. I think it's a bit worse than women's underwear on the head.

reply to post by jerico65


Saddam is not what we're discussing here. He's dead, so what's your point?

Aldo its sick these people who are in prison there would rape the children in my land just because they do not kneel down for their pedophile god so i do not give a # what happens to their terrorist asses

Originally posted by winterass
Aldo its sick these people who are in prison there would rape the children in my land just because they do not kneel down for their pedophile god so i do not give a # what happens to their terrorist asses

This is a sad, sad post, and for me sums up what is going wrong with the world today. People fed to the gills with fear and willing to allow any atrocity to feel safe. Believe me, safety through atrocity and torture is no kind of safety. The snake eventually bites its own tail.


[edit on 3-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

Originally posted by intrepid
Saddam is not what we're discussing here. He's dead, so what's your point?

My point? Well, how it seems that the US is the only country that has ever done anything like torture of prisoners, at least according to ATS. And it's brought up again and again and again.

US Soldiers abused prisoners, they were put on trial, they were sent to jail.

When Saddam was torturing Iraqis, no one said a word.

When US Soldiers are captured and tortured/executed, you really don't hear a peep out of anyone here.

I guess that's my point. Any questions?

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by jerico65

 

Saddam is not what we're discussing here. He's dead, so what's your point?

I think his point is that there is all sorts of outrage over the humiliation of these prisoners, but these same people are awfully quiet when somebody other than the USA does something wrong. There is no justification for what happened with these prisoners, but it pales in comparison to the rapes, dismemberments, electrocutions, etc... that went on there under Saddam.

reply to post by jerico65


Jerico. Why can't you understand that what Saddam did (and he was a US golden boy dictator until he fell out of favour) is not of importance in this case? We invaded a country we had no business invading and then we went about torturing suspected terrorists, who were actually just trying to fend off a foreign invasion. That is the issue. Address that.

Originally posted by jerico65
When Saddam was torturing Iraqis, no one said a word.

I guess that's my point. Any questions?

Yeah, there was plenty coming out of the crowd saying that "we liberated Iraq because he was a tyrant" (gotta forget about WMD, please). Did you forget about that? Or why are you taking criticism of some soldiers personally?

Originally posted by Silenceisall
reply to post by jerico65

 

Jerico. Why can't you understand that what Saddam did (and he was a US golden boy dictator until he fell out of favour) is not of importance in this case? We invaded a country we had no business invading and then we went about torturing suspected terrorists, who were actually just trying to fend off a foreign invasion. That is the issue. Address that.

Why can't you understand that these folks weren't just freedom fighters, defending their homeland. The Sunnis in Al Anbar can understand that, after they got tired of insurgents/terrorists killing more civilians than Americans. They understand who their enemy is- the folks trying to screw things up, not the ones trying to return normalcy.

Originally posted by Silenceisall
Why can't you understand that what Saddam did (and he was a US golden boy dictator until he fell out of favour) is not of importance in this case?

OK, gotcha.

US abuse prisoners = bad.

Saddam torturing prisoners = A-OK.

Torture is torture, no matter who does it. That's what needs to be discussed. You want to bring up Abu Ghraib, fine. I'm going to bring up what happens to US troops when they are captured, since no one else here seems to think that their lives are worth anything.

reply to post by intrepid


Oh, I'm not forgetting WMDs. I'm curious about all that traffic I saw with my own eyes that was moving from Iraq to Syria during the opening of the war. Vacationers? Kmart having a blue light special in Damascus? Just a bunch of guys making a run for the border for their Taco Bell fix??

And I take it a bit personal when some of the people here enjoy painting the US military with a very wide brush.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Bottom line: should we be there or not? Answer that.

reply to post by jerico65


I guess you missed this in regards to your query as to who said anything about Saddam, "there was plenty coming out of the crowd saying that "we liberated Iraq because he was a tyrant"'. They did so your oversensitiveness really is unbecoming. I'm not seeing a "broad brush", I'd call someone on that as well. I come from a military family as well but wrong is wrong man.

reply to post by Silenceisall


Why not? My weekends are pretty light right now, so I have some hours to fill.

OK, sorry, smart-ass remark on a serious subject. Back on topic.

Originally posted by Silenceisall
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

Bottom line: should we be there or not? Answer that.

Bottom line: we are there, so whether we should be there or not is somewhat moot. Now that we are there, should we leave under circumstances that will create more chaos and encourage would be terrorists, or should we try to make sure that we don't create a bigger mess?- answer that.

reply to post by intrepid



Ah, gotcha. I didn't quite catch what you were saying/writing. And I wasn't being "oversenstive"; I just like a level playing field.

You don't see the "broad brush"? Just re-read some of these posts and other threads.

I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of the people in my squadron agree that what happened in Abu Ghraib was wrong and that people had to be punished. It was a black eye for the military.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Bottom line: we are there, so whether we should be there or not is somewhat moot. Now that we are there, should we leave under circumstances that will create more chaos and encourage would be terrorists, or should we try to make sure that we don't create a bigger mess?- answer that.

I don't think that is the point. The troops are there and to just up and leave would create a civil war. THAT would be the fault of this Admin. With a civil war I don't think there would be more terrorist, probably less as they would be fighting amongst themselves. Power vacuum and all.

reply to post by jerico65


You misunderstand me but I'm not surprised. The US installed Saddam, gave him weapons and protected him until he got too big for his britches. Yes he used torture, which is terrible. Torture is always terrible. But again, you are evading my question. Why should we go over there and then use torture against people who were trying to defend their country? Why are we there? What good has come of it? Are 100,000 dead civilians good? What about the thousands of US soldiers? Maybe the destruction of the US economy is a good thing. We have no business being there, no matter what you have been told.


[edit on 3-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply to post by BlueRaja


I love the way you guys hop around from foot to foot when you get cornered. Let's try to stay on topic. You are arguing that torture in the case of Iraqi militants is justified. I am saying torture is never justified, period, and that it is even worse in this case because Iraq was invaded for no reason other than to secure oil supplies.

Here's a questionaire, it's very short:

1) Should the US have invaded Iraq?



[edit on 3-3-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply to post by jerico65


yes. i have a hypothetical question.
if your brother murders my brother, is it okay for me to murder you?
i ask because, you seem to have a twisted view of morality and 'logic'.