PDA

View Full Version : Extremely Disturbing Account of Abu Ghraib Torture



OB Kenobi
07-31-2004, 03:54 AM
If this doesn't sicken you, you'd probably feel right at home in the Nazi party. The people responsible for this shouldn't even be loose in the streets, let alone in the military (or the Pentagon)...

The Secret File of Abu Ghraib
New classified documents implicate U.S. forces in rape and sodomy of Iraqi prisoners
By OSHA GRAY DAVIDSON

It has been months since the now-infamous photographs from Abu Ghraib revealed that American soldiers tortured Iraqi prisoners -- yet the Bush administration has failed to get to the bottom of the abuses."There are some serious unanswered questions," says Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican on the Armed Services Committee. The Pentagon is stalling on several investigations, and congressional inquiries have ground to a halt. The foot-dragging is astonishing, given that Congress has access to classified documents detailing the abuses outlined by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba in his report on Abu Ghraib. Rolling Stone obtained those files in June and offers this report on their contents. -The Editors

The new classified military documents offer a chilling picture of what happened at Abu Ghraib -- including detailed reports that U.S. troops and translators sodomized and raped Iraqi prisoners. The secret files -- 106 "annexes" that the Defense Department withheld from the Taguba report last spring -- include nearly 6,000 pages of internal Army memos and e-mails, reports on prison riots and escapes, and sworn statements by soldiers, officers, private contractors and detainees. The files depict a prison in complete chaos. Prisoners were fed bug-infested food and forced to live in squalid conditions; detainees and U.S. soldiers alike were killed and wounded in nightly mortar attacks; and loyalists of Saddam Hussein served as guards in the facility, apparently smuggling weapons to prisoners inside.

The files make clear that responsibility for what Taguba called "sadistic, blatant and wanton" abuses extends to several high-ranking officers still serving in command positions. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who is now in charge of all military prisons in Iraq, was dispatched to Abu Ghraib by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last August. In a report marked secret, Miller recommended that military police at the prison be "actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees." After his plan was adopted, guards began depriving prisoners of sleep and food, subjecting them to painful "stress positions" and terrorizing them with dogs. A former Army intelligence officer tells Rolling Stone that the intent of Miller's report was clear to everyone involved: "It means treat the detainees like **** until they will sell their mother for a blanket, some food without bugs in it and some sleep." In the files, prisoner after prisoner at Abu Ghraib describes acts of torture that Taguba found "credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses." The abuses took place at the Hard Site, a two-story cinder-block unit at the sprawling prison that housed Iraqi criminals and insurgents, not members of Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. In one sworn statement, Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, detainee number 151108, said he witnessed a translator referred to only as Abu Hamid raping a teenage boy. "I saw Abu Hamid, who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid's ass," Hilas testified. "The kid was hurting very bad." A female soldier took pictures of the rape, Hilas said.

During the Muslim holy period of Ramadan, Hilas saw Spc. Charles Graner Jr. and an unnamed "helper" tie a detainee to a bed around midnight. "They . . . inserted the phosphoric light in his ass, and he was yelling for God's help," the prisoner testified. Again, the same female soldier photographed the torture.

Another prisoner, Abd Alwhab Youss, was punished after guards accused him of plotting to attack an MP with a broken toothbrush. Guards took Youss into a closed room, poured cold water on him, pushed his head into urine and beat him with a broom. Then the guards "pressed my ass with a broom and spit on it," Youss said.

Mohanded Juma, detainee number 152307, testified that on his first day at Tier 1A, the west wing of the Hard Site where prisoners were brought for interrogation, he was stripped and left naked in his cell for six days. Graner, the guard in charge of the tier, entered Juma's cell at 2 a.m., cuffed his hands and feet, and took him to the shower room, where a female interrogator questioned him. After she left, Graner and another man threw pepper in Juma's face, beat him with a chair until it broke and choked him until he thought he was going to die. The assault lasted for half an hour. "They got tired from beating me," Juma told investigators. "They took a little break, and then they started kicking me very hard with their feet until I passed out." In another instance, Graner and a fellow guard reportedly beat a detainee until his nose split open.

Torin Nelson, one of thirty-two private contractors who worked as interrogators at Abu Ghraib, told investigators that he spoke with an interpreter who witnessed an interrogator toss a handcuffed prisoner from a car. "The interrogator then yells at him for falling on the ground and starts dragging or pulling the detainee by the cuffs," Nelson testified. He believed the story, Nelson added, "based on the stuff that I have heard and seen."

The sworn statement of Amjed Isail Waleed, detainee number 151365, is especially graphic. On his first day at the Hard Site, he told investigators, guards "put me in a dark room and started hitting me in the head and stomach and legs." Then, one day in November, five soldiers took him into a room, put a bag over his head and started beating him. "I could see their feet, only, from under the bag. . . . Some of the things they did was make me sit down like a dog, and they would hold the string from the bag, and they made me bark like a dog, and they were laughing at me." A soldier slammed Waleed's head against the wall, causing the bag to fall off. "One of the police was telling me to crawl, in Arabic," he testified, "so I crawled on my stomach, and the police were spitting on me when I was crawling and hitting me on my back, my head and my feet. It kept going on until their shift ended at four o'clock in the morning. The same thing would happen in the following days."

Finally, after several beatings so severe that he lost consciousness, Waleed was forced to lay on the ground. "One of the police was pissing on me and laughing at me," the prisoner said. He was placed in a dark room and beaten with a broom. "And one of the police, he put a part of his stick that he always carries inside my ass, and I felt it going inside me about two centimeters, approximately. And I started screaming, and he pulled it out and he washed it with water inside the room. And the two American girls that were there when they were beating me, they were hitting me with a ball made of sponge on my ****. And when I was tied up in my room, one of the girls, with blond hair, she is white, she was playing with my ****. I saw inside this facility a lot of punishment just like what they did to me and more. And they were taking pictures of me during all these instances."

In the classified files, some of the photographed soldiers also provide firsthand accounts of the abuses. Pvt. Lynndie England testified that on November 8th -- the evening of her twenty-first birthday -- she went to the Hard Site to visit Spc. Graner, her boyfriend. Just after midnight, seven Iraqi detainees accused of taking part in a fight at one of the many tent compounds used to house prisoners at Abu Ghraib were brought to Tier 1A. For England, the evening was a break from the tedium of her job processing prisoners. For Nori Al-Yasseri, detainee number 7787, it quickly became a "night which we felt like 1,000 nights."

Al-Yasseri and the other prisoners arrived at the Hard Site with empty sandbags over their heads to prevent them from seeing where they were and their hands bound behind their backs with plastic handcuffs. The guards threw the men against the walls until they collapsed on the floor in what England called a "dog pile." Some of the MPs took turns running across the room and leaping on top of the men. "A couple of the detainees kind of made an 'ah' sound, as if this hurt them or caused them some type of pain," Spc. Jeremy Sivits testified in a sworn statement. While the Iraqis were on the floor, England and Sgt. Javal Davis stomped on their fingers and feet. Sivits was certain that the men felt pain this time because he heard them scream.

So did Sgt. Shannon Snider, who was working in an office on the top tier. Drawn by the cries of pain, Snider leaned over the railing and in a fury yelled down to Davis to stop abusing the prisoners. Davis stepped away from the men, and Snider left.

"I believe that Sgt. Snider thought it was an isolated incident," Sivits testified, "and that when he ordered Sgt. Davis to stop, it was over." But it was just getting started.

After Snider had gone, the MPs pulled the prisoners to their feet one by one and removed their handcuffs. Graner, who had learned a few key phrases in Arabic, ordered the detainees to strip. As one prisoner took off his clothes, Graner cradled the man's head in one arm and smashed his fist into the naked and hooded man's temple. "Damn, that hurt!" Graner complained, waving his hand in the air. The prisoner went limp, and someone removed his hood. "I walked over to see if the detainee was still alive," Sivits testified. "I could tell that the detainee was unconscious, because his eyes were closed and he was not moving, but I could see his chest rise and fall, so I knew he was still alive."

According to England, Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick made an X on another prisoner's chest with his finger and said, "Watch this." Then the six-foot-tall Fredericks punched the man in the chest. The hooded prisoner lurched backward and fell to his knees. He gasped for air. "Frederick said he thought he put the detainee in cardiac arrest," Sivits later told investigators. England was asked why she thought Frederick assaulted the man. "I guess just because he wanted to hit him," she said.

Eventually, all seven Iraqis were standing naked and hooded, and the MPs got out their cameras. A few pictures had been taken earlier in the evening, but now the abuse turned into a photo-op. Men taught to be ashamed of appearing naked in front of other men were forced to assume a series of humiliating and bizarre poses. Graner had them climb on top of each other to form a human pyramid, and the MPs took turns taking each other's picture standing behind the men. In one photo, Graner and England smile and give the thumbs-up sign behind the men, who are naked except for the green sandbags covering their heads. The Iraqis were made to crawl across the floor on their hands and knees while the guards rode on their backs. Two were posed as if performing oral *** on each other, and others were lined up against the wall and forced to masturbate while England pointed at their genitals and leered. And all the while, the Americans were laughing, cracking jokes and taking pictures.

An Army investigator later asked one of the seven Iraqis how he felt that night. "I was trying to kill myself," replied Hussein Al-Zayiadi, detainee number 19446, "but I didn't have any way of doing it."

The secret files make clear that day-to-day living conditions at Abu Ghraib were "deplorable" for soldiers as well as prisoners. The facility was under constant attack from mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. The files make no reference to the number of attacks, but a partial list obtained by Rolling Stone indicates that there were more than two dozen explosions between July and September alone. Six detainees and two soldiers were killed, and seventy-one were injured. But officers at Abu Ghraib told Taguba that their repeated requests for combat troops and armored vehicles to protect the facility were ignored by top brass. "I feel, and my soldiers feel, that we're just sitting out there, waiting to die," said Cpt. James Jones of the 229th MP Company. "As a commander, I'm charged with bringing my soldiers home, but how do I control that? It's frustrating. It's frightening."

The prison was filled far beyond capacity. Some 7,000 prisoners were jammed into Abu Ghraib, a complex erected to hold no more than 4,000 detainees. Prisoners were held in canvas tents that became ovens in the summer heat and filled with rain in the cold winter. One report found that the compound "is covered with mud and many prisoner tents are close to being under water." Another report described the conditions in one compound: "The area is littered with trash, has pools of water standing around latrines, and the bottles of water carried by detainees for water consumption are filthy. The tents lack floors and are inadequate to provide protection from the elements." Detainees wore soiled clothes because laundry facilities were inadequate; mentally ill detainees were "receiving no treatment."

In a series of increasingly desperate e-mails sent to his higher-ups, Maj. David DiNenna of the 320th MP Battalion reported that food delivered by private contractors was often inedible. "At least three to four times a week, the food cannot be served because it has bugs," DiNenna reported. "Today an entire compound of 500 prisoners could not be fed due to bugs and dirt in the food." Four days later, DiNenna sent another e-mail marked "URGENT URGENT URGENT!!!!!!!!" He reported that "for the past two days prisoners have been vomiting after they eat."

Officers reported that their repeated pleas for adequate food and supplies went unheeded, even though prisoners were attacking soldiers. "I don't know how they're not rioting every day," Jones told Taguba. The worst riot occurred on November 24th. According to an internal investigation, prisoners in one compound "were marching and yelling, 'Down with Bush,' and 'Bush is bad' and other slogans to that effect." The detainees threw rocks at guard towers and at soldiers on the other side of the concertina wire. One guard said that "the sky was black with rocks"; another added that he "feared for his life." The riot quickly spread to other compounds, where several guards were injured by flying debris. The soldiers fired nonlethal ammunition at the mob but quickly exhausted their meager supplies. Fearing they were on the verge of a mass prison break, the guards were given the go-ahead to use deadly force, and they opened fire with live ammunition. Three detainees were killed and nine were wounded. Nine soldiers were also injured in the riot.

That same evening, a detainee in Tier 1A told an MP that a prisoner had a gun and several knives. The informant even knew where he was: Cell 35. The guards instructed every prisoner on the tier to put their hands through the cell bars to be handcuffed, a standard precaution before searching a cell or moving a prisoner. But when the MPs came to Cell 35, the man inside refused to put his hands out. Instead, he told the guards he "had no gun."

No one had used the word gun around the prisoner. Sgt. William Cathcart, one of the MPs on duty that night, immediately made a grab for the man's wrists. The prisoner pulled away and fell to his knees to say a prayer. "At that point," Cathcart told investigators, "I knew it would be a gun battle." He was right. The detainee suddenly turned, withdrew a 9 mm pistol from under his pillow and opened fire on Cathcart from close range. A bullet struck the MP in the chest. Fortunately, before beginning the search, Cathcart had put on his "full battle rattle" - a Kevlar vest with pockets holding ceramic plates - and wasn't injured. Another MP shot the inmate with two nonlethal rounds, knocking the man down. But the prisoner jumped back up and continued to fire. An MP finally ended the incident by firing a load of buckshot into the man's legs.

How did a detainee in the Army's toughest prison in Iraq get his hands on a gun?

According to an internal Army investigation contained in the secret files, the civilian-run Coalition Provisional Authority had hired at least five members of Fedayeen Saddam -- a paramilitary organization of fanatical Saddam loyalists -- to work as guards at the prison. An Iraqi guard, probably one of "Saddam's martyrs," had smuggled the gun and two knives into the prison in an inner tube, placed them in a sheet and tossed them up to the second-story window of Cell 35. In May, when Taguba testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen.Wayne Allard asked him a direct question: "Did we have terrorists in the population at this prison?" Taguba answered, "Sir, none that we were made aware of." His own files make clear, however, that a more accurate response would have been: "Yes, sir -- but only among the guards."

Taguba was only authorized to investigate the role of military police in the torture at Abu Ghraib -- even though the Hard Site was controlled by military intelligence when the worst abuses occurred. Nevertheless, the classified annexes indicate that responsibility for the torture extends at least as high as several top-ranking officers in Iraq who have yet to be disciplined or removed from command. Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, who remains director of military intelligence in Iraq, was aware of the conditions at Abu Ghraib and received regular reports from officers at the prison. Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, who directed intelligence at the prison, admitted to Taguba that he did not actually report to the British colonel who was supposedly his supervisor. "On paper, I work directly for him," Jordan told Taguba. "But between you, me and the fence post, I work directly for General Fast." Fast is currently under investigation, but unlike lower-ranking officers and soldiers, she has not been reprimanded or charged in the abuses.

Miller, who was sent by Rumsfeld to speed up interrogations at Abu Ghraib, spent ten days in Iraq touring prisons and meeting with intelligence officials. The two-star general was commander of the military prison at Guantenamo Bay, Cuba -- known as Gitmo -- where "enemy combatants" were already being subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including the use of military dogs to frighten prisoners. According to Col. Thomas Pappas, who commanded the military intelligence brigade at Abu Ghraib, Miller spoke with him about using dogs on prisoners: "He said that they used military working dogs, and that they were effective in setting the atmosphere for which, you know, you could get information." Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of all military prisons in Iraq, told Rolling Stone that Miller described his plan to "Gitmo-ize interrogation operations" in Iraq and boasted that prisoners at Guantenamo "were treated like dogs, because you can never let them be in charge."

Miller has denied making either statement. But whatever he said, his plan to "rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence" was quickly adopted at Abu Ghraib. A slide presentation in the classified files spells out the new "Interrogation Rules of Engagement," specifying that soldiers, with proper approval, may subject prisoners to dietary manipulation, sleep deprivation, stress positions and the "presence of mil working dogs." In at least one instance documented by Taguba and photographed by soldiers, a prisoner at Abu Ghraib was bitten by a dog. Most of the MPs who have been charged with crimes say they were told by military intelligence officers to "soften up" prisoners prior to interrogations. "MI wanted to get them to talk," Spc. Sabrina Harman told investigators, saying she was told to keep detainees awake. Sgt. Davis, who jumped on the pile of seven detainees on November 8th, said intelligence officers would tell guards to "loosen this guy up for us" and "make sure he has a bad night."

The classified files also show that intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib felt pressured to produce results. "Sir," Lt. Col. Jordan told Taguba, "I was told a couple of times . . . that some of the reporting was getting read by Rumsfeld, folks out at Langley [the Central Intelligence Agency], some very senior folks."

In May, after photos of the torture were published, Rumsfeld declared that he would take "all measures necessary" to ensure that such abuse "does not happen again." But the defense secretary had already sent a clear signal to commanders in Iraq about his position on the proper way to interrogate prisoners. In April, Rumsfeld transferred Gen. Miller from Guant?namo to Baghdad, putting him in charge of all military prisons in Iraq. Instead of court-martialing the man who authored the plan to subject prisoners at Abu Ghraib to harsh abuses, Rumsfeld has left him in charge of the facility.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we have changed this," Miller told reporters in May. "Trust us. We are doing this right."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=6388256&pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1091216021626&has-player=true&version=6.0.11.780

Dennis G
07-31-2004, 04:12 AM
You try so hard. :petting:

ShotOver
07-31-2004, 04:18 AM
"Boo hoo, were terrorists and finally being treated like them, boo hoo."

**** em`.

100_Percent_HOOAH
07-31-2004, 04:20 AM
You know OB, he has a hard on for terrorist.

Kilgor
07-31-2004, 04:20 AM
I think dumb asses like you should read more about how the SS and nazis treated prisoners before comparing them to modern day soldiers.

OB Kenobi
07-31-2004, 04:29 PM
Heheh, you guys are hilarious.

MEGR
07-31-2004, 04:34 PM
Old news.

American Patriot
07-31-2004, 04:40 PM
Seymour Hersh talking **** again?

agcsy
07-31-2004, 05:15 PM
OB Kenobi i guess if he was gay then he would only be objecting to the fact that they failed to properly lubricate the light bulb.

WTF is with people who keep posting this crap i dont think anyone in America celebrates these peoples behavior. They will get their asses handed to them when they goto trial. You act as this is the norm amongst all the troops in Iraq.

OB Kenobi
07-31-2004, 05:18 PM
I would just like to know why you are defending these sick child molesting sadists and degenerates.

OB Kenobi
07-31-2004, 05:19 PM
OB Kenobi i guess if he was gay then he would only be objecting to the fact that they failed to properly lubricate the light bulb.

WTF is with people who keep posting this crap i dont think anyone in America celebrates these peoples behavior. They will get their asses handed to them when they goto trial. You act as this is the norm amongst all the troops in Iraq.

I posted it because a few members of this forum still deny that the torture was widespread and systematic. It's obvious that it was standard policy.

Yosy
07-31-2004, 05:41 PM
This report is shocking. Well done OB Kenobi .

Abu Grahib destroyed all the moral high-ground that the US had in Iraq.

Deuterium
07-31-2004, 05:49 PM
I would just like to know why you are defending these sick child molesting sadists and degenerates.

You are so completely wrong in this. NO ONE IS DEFENDING any inappropriate actions taken against prisoners, regardless if they were terrorists, armed insurgents, or even just plain criminals. I don't get where you're coming from.

Many people in this forum have the "f*ck3m, their terrorist" attitude. DO not equate this to the fact that those of us in the military are not sick of the blight this has put on my military. The actions of a few, AND I MEAN A FEW, compared to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, who have served in the GWOT do not reflect my values as an American or my values as an AMerican soldier.

F*ck You very much.

Kilgor
07-31-2004, 05:52 PM
yeah.. the terrorists cut off heads, string up burned up torsos on wire, suicide bomb areas full of civilians, suicide bomb the UN building and red cross... But america is judged as one and labeled a terrorist and having no moral authority when someone sticks a glowstick up someones ass.

lovely.

:roll:

oops.. edit ;)

Deuterium
07-31-2004, 05:52 PM
This report is shocking. Well done OB Kenobi .

Abu Grahib destroyed all the moral high-ground that the US had in Iraq.

Complete and utter BS. There have been hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The actions of a few people do not equate to this. Have you been in Iraq? Have you dealt daily with Iraqi's after the incident became public? My bet is that the answer is no. I have, I did. THAT's how I know it hasn't destroyed the moral high ground.

Deuterium
07-31-2004, 05:53 PM
yeah.. the enemies cut off heads, string up burned up torsos on wire, suicide bomb areas full of civilians... but america loses all its of its moral authority when someone sticks a glowstick up someones ass.

lovely.

:roll:

Well said.

Kilgor
07-31-2004, 06:00 PM
Do you honestly expect any army to conduct itself with total moral and ethical perfection in a war ?

Its a stupid and idealistic expectation if you do

Im sure there were numerious war crimes commited by the americans in world war 2, but they sure as hell were on your "moral high-ground" side in that conflict.

Dont throw the baby out with the bath water idiot... ! :bash:

DE_Six
07-31-2004, 06:16 PM
Heheh, you guys are hilarious.

So are you, with your delusions. "Fighting the Empire"... :roll:

Whatever you need to feel good about yourself...

Seriously though, what are you doing? Why do you post that stuff here? You know most will disagree with you. You have a complex to overcome or what? Or you just like to stir sh*t up?

Do you feel like you're enlightening the blind? Have you considered for a second you might be wrong, that you could very well be the one swallowing propaganda hook, line and sinker? Maybe you should, and lose the "holier-than-thou" attitude.

If you do, be constructive and go discuss your "finds" with whoever it interests. Maybe then you'll achieve something. All you do here is negative. You're trolling. You're so self-infatuated you actually find pleasure in seeing others disagree with you, convinced that you are the one who's right.

I don't think you're a "pinko-commie-terrorist lover". You probably (I hope) hate terrorism as much as the next person. However, your ideas belong in the opposite extreme of the spectrum. You see the world in a very different light. Fair enough, just don't come here and yank chains just for the kick. Or some other purpose. You sound like an intelligent person, but damn you don't act like it.

oldsoak
07-31-2004, 07:25 PM
These allegations are being investigated by the US military. OK so theres a few bad eggs, the fact of the matter is that the US is investigating this , and the guilty will be deallt with. That strikes me as indicative of an army that has a moral concience. Whats the problem here ? If anything, the US should be lauded that there is an investigation - which is a tad more than the prisoners would have got under the previous regime. Grow up fellas, it got flagged as being wrong and the US is investigating it. What more do you expect ?

Sayeret
07-31-2004, 08:23 PM
I would just like to know why you are defending these sick child molesting sadists and degenerates.

Yes, OB we all know, Bush is evil and even tortured some of the Iraqis himself. :cantbeli:

Yosy
07-31-2004, 09:19 PM
This report is shocking. Well done OB Kenobi .

Abu Grahib destroyed all the moral high-ground that the US had in Iraq.

Complete and utter BS. There have been hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The actions of a few people do not equate to this. Have you been in Iraq? Have you dealt daily with Iraqi's after the incident became public? My bet is that the answer is no. I have, I did. THAT's how I know it hasn't destroyed the moral high ground.

The problem is that it isn't the actions of a few people (if that were the case, then the US would still have the moral high-ground). It ran through all the chain of command. Generals, top military and civillian leaders knew about this and gave the thumbs-up. I mean, do you really expect that a bunch of 20 year-old kids would do such a thing if they weren't ordered to? And look at that their methods - they put the men simulating ***, playing as a dog, use females to point and laugh at the prisoners: all things that are specially degrading for an arab. If you notice the reports, the physical violence (although violent) is kept to a minimum. The psychological violance, on the other hand, is constant: stress positions, white noise, sleep deprevation blindfolding the prisoners. This kind of torture was developed first by the russian and chinese after WW2: they discovered that the threat of coercion is better than the coercion itself.

The tortures were ordered by people who knew their stuff. They knew how to crack the prisioners and make them talk. It isn't a case of a bunch of prison guards having fun. Besides this doesn't happen only in Abu Grahib - there are soldiers that say that this happens throughout Iraq and A-stan

In summary: the US did loose the moral high-ground.

OB Kenobi
07-31-2004, 10:07 PM
I would just like to know why you are defending these sick child molesting sadists and degenerates.

You are so completely wrong in this. NO ONE IS DEFENDING any inappropriate actions taken against prisoners, regardless if they were terrorists, armed insurgents, or even just plain criminals. I don't get where you're coming from.

Many people in this forum have the "f*ck3m, their terrorist" attitude. DO not equate this to the fact that those of us in the military are not sick of the blight this has put on my military. The actions of a few, AND I MEAN A FEW, compared to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, who have served in the GWOT do not reflect my values as an American or my values as an AMerican soldier.

F*ck You very much.

Deuterium, I recall we discussed this before. I posted several links with historical, factual reports backing up my allegations that the CIA has been at this kind of thing since Vietnam. Private contractors and foreigners were also involved. You have yet to provide any proof that this is just an isolated incident and not standard Pentagon policy, while all the evidence so far suggests the opposite. Don't play dumb and pretend things don't get covered up, most people in this forum know how this works.

You keep telling me this doesn't reflect the attitude of the US military, it doesn't for most in the military, but it is the attitude of the civilian leadership, and the intelligence agencies which answer to them. Just like they had the CIA take the blame for the "faulty intel," which largely resulted in no one taking the blame, they have these soldiers taking the blame for following the orders of DIA/CIA interrogators and contractors.

OB Kenobi
07-31-2004, 10:08 PM
I would just like to know why you are defending these sick child molesting sadists and degenerates.

Yes, OB we all know, Bush is evil and even tortured some of the Iraqis himself. :cantbeli:

He's too much of a pussy to do anything himself.

Deuterium
07-31-2004, 10:10 PM
I would just like to know why you are defending these sick child molesting sadists and degenerates.

Yes, OB we all know, Bush is evil and even tortured some of the Iraqis himself. :cantbeli:

He's too much of a pussy to do anything himself.

And you know this how? Before you call into question ANY man's honor I think you should know the man. I don’t know Kerry. I don't like his politics. But I sure wouldn't call the MAN a pussy without the benefit of personally knowing him. You impress me even less with each post.

DixieDude
07-31-2004, 10:37 PM
Deuterium owns you all. :D

penna
07-31-2004, 11:08 PM
the well known abu ghraib prison abuses are disgusting and tragic, but we can't blame all the brave young americans giving their lives on foreign soil. american soldiers are brave young heroes that wipe out terrorists who want to wipe out my country!

and i will take the word of an american soldier over the word of anyone else anyday!

Operation Ivy
07-31-2004, 11:31 PM
there are soldiers that say that this happens throughout Iraq and A-stan


You do know that if they were prisoners under the taliban or Saddam they would get it a lot worse

DE_Six
08-01-2004, 12:53 AM
You keep telling me this doesn't reflect the attitude of the US military, it doesn't for most in the military, but it is the attitude of the civilian leadership, and the intelligence agencies which answer to them. Just like they had the CIA take the blame for the "faulty intel," which largely resulted in no one taking the blame, they have these soldiers taking the blame for following the orders of DIA/CIA interrogators and contractors.

First off: If we agree (I do) that the work of interrogators and the attitude towards torture in both the civilian and military intel community is a consequence of decisions and postures adopted by the civilian leadership, and that it is a known fact that such methods have been in use for a long time (you say Vietnam, I think it goes back farther), why do you seemingly insist on pinning this on the current administration? This is my biggest point of contention with those who have been, along with asking for retribution at the higher levels of leadership, have also been asking for Rumsfeld's head.
First, interrogation is a proven method of intelligence gathering ( I do not wish to discuss the moral aspect of the question at this point), but what happened at Abu Ghraib was not interrogation, it was torture. Sadistic abuse. Interrogation is not based on coercion, it is based on seduction. Physical harm is highly ineffective in extracting complex information from a suspect, for the pian and fear of more pain will induce the subject in confessing whatever the interrogator wants to hear (which is why dictatorships rely on it, not for information, but for terror purposes and to extract false confessions). The detainees at Abu Ghraib were not privates from which a field commander wished to extract the position of artillery emplacements. They wanted more in-depth information from them. Therefore, it is logical to assume that physical torture was not meant as a mean of interrogation. Humiliation can be used as a mean to break an individual or maintain him in a state of shock, but to expect reliable from that individual afterward is dubious. That case has been made often enough, I fully expect any professional military to know that. In fact, there is an excellent book that deals with the subject, called The Interrogators (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316871125/qid=1091334407/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-1357017-2030253). It is clear, reading this book, that methods displayed at Abu Ghraib are not only an exceptional incident, it is counter-productive. There is also an excellent article by Mark Bowden in October '03 Atlantic Monthly, titled The Dark Art of Interrogation. It is obvious that the Abu Ghraib scandal (if there is one behind the media circus) is about abuse, not military interrogation procedures.

So, the problem is not about the civilian or military leadership condoning interrogation of prisonners. It is about a few bad apples that took their job a little too far. Deuterium is correct, and he should know better than I, he knows first-hand what I only read. The Abu Ghraib guards have committed an abuse, they will be punished. Note that there was no or little attempt to cover it up, in fact it was revealed by the US military. Wether or not they did so because they wanted to do some damage-control on something they feared might leak is entirely left to one's guess. There are no proof to support not counter this assumption at the moment.

Wouldn't it be fair then to have the real culprits (the abusive guards) punished, rather than an entire establishment by association? Because this is what I see. A torture case is pushing some people to question the intel community's reliance on prisoner interrogation altogether when it is a proven method? That is throwing the baby with the bath water. Interrogation works, it is ugly, but it is also true. And the US, just like every other country in a similar situation, relies on it. I might even extend a little and argue that it takes place in most police precinct in the world. Interrogation, that is. And given the exceptional situation of the war on terrorism and counter-insurgency in Iraq, it is even further justified. Torture is not, that's why those guilty of it will be punished, but not at the expense of the whole system. Turning our backs on information would be a step in the wrong direction, further away from the most reliable source of information in an asymmetrical war, human intelligence. In fact, I would not blame the intel establishment for using interrogation and other HUMINT methods, because it is in part for shunning it that the intel community started this war with a handicap. In his book See no evil, Bob Baer denounces this over-reliance on high technology at the expense of old-fashioned but effective methods in central Asia.

Which brings me to the second point, is the current administration really lying about faulty intel? Considering how the CIA and other agencies provided a certain early warning against the threat of Al-Qaeda, but were ignored by two successive administrations, one Dem, one Rep, and the admitted failures to adapt to the post-Cold War period, as decried by former agents and politicians alike, could it be that the intel on Iraq was actually faulty, misinterpreted or ignored out of mistrust towards the CIA? Did the Bush administration had to lie to make their case for the war, a case which by all mean was self-evident? No, wether they used faulty intelligence or ignored actual reports is more worthy of questioning wether they lied or not, I believe.

OB Kenobi
08-01-2004, 04:08 AM
[quote=OB Kenobi]Heheh, you guys are hilarious.



Seriously though, what are you doing? Why do you post that stuff here? You know most will disagree with you. You have a complex to overcome or what? Or you just like to stir sh*t up?

I don't want to see my country turn into a piece of ****. I don't like how they're spending our taxes. I don't like the policies of our leaders, our corporations' behavior, and our dependence on oil, and the hatred some in the US have for the rest of the world. Hatred that has been cultivated by the Bush administration to suit their purposes. Freedom Fries? What the hell is wrong with you people?


Do you feel like you're enlightening the blind? Have you considered for a second you might be wrong, that you could very well be the one swallowing propaganda hook, line and sinker? Maybe you should, and lose the "holier-than-thou" attitude.

Or maybe I'm right?


If you do, be constructive and go discuss your "finds" with whoever it interests. Maybe then you'll achieve something. All you do here is negative. You're trolling. You're so self-infatuated you actually find pleasure in seeing others disagree with you, convinced that you are the one who's right.

I do agree that this forum might not be the best place to post these things, but then, what would you talk about? :D

Without me posting, you revert to a Republican love-in and post "Nuke 'em all, Amen!" messages repeatedly. Even worse, this isn't an "American" forum, it's an international one. So what exactly are you complaining about? Why don't you go hang out in freerepublic.com if you want to hear a bunch of bull****?

I also don't just post about America, I'm critical of alot of things, it just happens that the US is at the center of things right now.


Fair enough, just don't come here and yank chains just for the kick. Or some other purpose. You sound like an intelligent person, but damn you don't act like it.

Who says I'm yanking chains? Some of us have completely civil discussions about current events here and don't get offended by it. We talk about it to know what's going on, not to try to piss someone off. Just because you can't stand criticism of the Bush administration, or whatever your problem is, doesn't mean you can go around telling people to shut up.

OB Kenobi
08-01-2004, 04:56 AM
First off: If we agree (I do) that the work of interrogators and the attitude towards torture in both the civilian and military intel community is a consequence of decisions and postures adopted by the civilian leadership, and that it is a known fact that such methods have been in use for a long time (you say Vietnam, I think it goes back farther), why do you seemingly insist on pinning this on the current administration? This is my biggest point of contention with those who have been, along with asking for retribution at the higher levels of leadership, have also been asking for Rumsfeld's head.

I say this because someone in the Bush administration decided that most prisoners were to be herded into Abu Ghraib, regardless of age, gender or proven guilt and given to the mercy of the staff there. People have asked for Rumsfeld's head in particular because there are allegations that he specifically asked for "quick results" and an intensified interrogation process. Furthermore, Rumsfeld and Bush have lied (as usual it seems) about the extent of the incidents. Not surprisingly they claimed it was just a "few" isolated cases, yet it is clear at this point that is was widespread. Widespread because that is the kind of culture Rumsfeld's (or whoever it was) policies created. It's a reflection of how the whole war was handled: half-assed, and arrogantly. Iraqis were treated like conquered people when we were supposed to be "liberating" them.

Latest article about Abu Ghraib:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5569687/site/newsweek/


So, the problem is not about the civilian or military leadership condoning interrogation of prisonners. It is about a few bad apples that took their job a little too far.

These "few" bad apples seem to have managed to amass a rather large amount of victims.


Wouldn't it be fair then to have the real culprits (the abusive guards) punished, rather than an entire establishment by association? Because this is what I see.

First we have to find out if it was abusive guards, or if someone created those conditions for a reason. Or if it was just complete negligence and bureaucracy.


A torture case is pushing some people to question the intel community's reliance on prisoner interrogation altogether when it is a proven method?

Except there were many innocent or insignificant people in Abu Ghraib that should not have been treated like they were members of Al Qaeda.


Which brings me to the second point, is the current administration really lying about faulty intel? Considering how the CIA and other agencies provided a certain early warning against the threat of Al-Qaeda, but were ignored by two successive administrations, one Dem, one Rep,

That doesn't explain why Bush pulled out inspectors even though Saddam was cooperating, said he was cooperating, Blix said things were proceeding "ok" and THERE WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT.

Nothing in the intelligence said there was an imminent threat, nothing said there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. This was all Bush's faith-based intelligence.



and the admitted failures to adapt to the post-Cold War period, as decried by former agents and politicians alike, could it be that the intel on Iraq was actually faulty, misinterpreted or ignored out of mistrust towards the CIA? Did the Bush administration had to lie to make their case for the war, a case which by all mean was self-evident? No, wether they used faulty intelligence or ignored actual reports is more worthy of questioning wether they lied or not, I believe.

The question is not faulty intelligence, it WASN'T faulty, the CIA never said any of it was conclusive--the question is whether the Bush administration misrepresented that intelligence to get their war. The Pentagone put together that intel, they made the conclusions, the CIA didn't come up with the claims Bush made because they only provided some of the intelligence. Tony Bliar provided the rest, especially the "imminent threat" part.

gilgoul
08-01-2004, 05:12 AM
Mking comparaisons with Nazis is stupid OB, you belittle the Nazi deeds (and I cannot allow that), and and you give credibility to people, based on single handed witnessing, and this is a joke.

What might have hapened in abu ghraib needs to be investigated, yes, the people found guilty of any misbeaviour should be punished, yes.
But in no way do you have evidences to coroborate your "information".

BTW, If the people you re talking about were the "nazi" you say they are, do you really think you`d had people "victim" able to witness anythithing.

gilgoul
08-01-2004, 05:26 AM
In summary: the US did loose the moral high-ground.


Just because every one is very pleased, especially in europe, to bring down the coalition efforts there.
Drawing conclusions from half truth and demi lies doesn`t bring you and me anywhere, and if we need to know the truth, about Abu Grhaib, and wish the culprits punished, in no way can you accuse the army as a system of any wrong doing for now.

Yosy
08-01-2004, 11:28 AM
In summary: the US did loose the moral high-ground.


Just because every one is very pleased, especially in europe, to bring down the coalition efforts there.
Drawing conclusions from half truth and demi lies doesn`t bring you and me anywhere, and if we need to know the truth, about Abu Grhaib, and wish the culprits punished, in no way can you accuse the army as a system of any wrong doing for now.

Read my post again - these aren't lies.

Jack Mehoff
08-01-2004, 12:14 PM
Without me posting, you revert to a Republican love-in and post "Nuke 'em all, Amen!" messages repeatedly. Even worse, this isn't an "American" forum, it's an international one. So what exactly are you complaining about? Why don't you go hang out in freerepublic.com if you want to hear a bunch of bull****?

Actually, you are wrong on that. MP.net server located on American soil and in U.S. jurisdiction. It just means that the FBI and secret service will be knocking on Hood's door if you make any stupid threats toward Americans and the President.



Target :www.militaryphotos.net



Registrant:
Registrant, Domain (XTJRXVRYQD)
1 aixgaming lane
deserted island, IL 60076
US

Domain Name: MILITARYPHOTOS.NET

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Registrant, Domain (DW20473) webmaster@aixgaming.com
1 aixgaming lane
deserted island, IL 60076
US
312-555-1212 fax: 123 123 1234

ShotOver
08-01-2004, 12:21 PM
I dont get this whole ****, these terrorists are getting beaten up, and glowsticks up their arses and what not, but you hippies dont stop and think that these guys blew woman, men and children up.

They made bombs, which blow people apart, shrapnel and glass cutting through innocent peoples bodies, killing them quick, cutting off legs, mortally wounding them and letting them bleed to death in a street, because they chose to go and buy somthing in that part of town.

What these bits of coward **** are getting in that prison is a holiday compared to what they need to have done to them, and that the bottom line.

OB Kenbi, get your **** sorted right now, we don't want your **** here. This is hood's house, and he shares it with us, and we have voted you off the island of mp.net and you will be gone soon. Oh yes freedom of speech has no damn place here, so cry to your mum if you feel like you are being mistreated.

penna
08-01-2004, 01:00 PM
these barbaric insurgents slit peoples' throats and cut their heads off, that is their idea of diplomacy.

DE_Six
08-01-2004, 02:19 PM
You don't like me much, do you? ;)




I don't want to see my country turn into a piece of ****. I don't like how they're spending our taxes. I don't like the policies of our leaders, our corporations' behavior, and our dependence on oil, and the hatred some in the US have for the rest of the world. Hatred that has been cultivated by the Bush administration to suit their purposes. Freedom Fries? What the hell is wrong with you people?

You have every right to disagree with current policies. But you are a little extremist in your views. Politicians will never formulate perfect policies, and they will always lie. What do you propose?
By the way, I eat French fries, thanks for the generalization.


Or maybe I'm right?


But maybe you're not. That's my whole point, your guess is just as good as mine, because neither of us know the truth. So stop acting like you do, it makes you sound like an a**.


I do agree that this forum might not be the best place to post these things, but then, what would you talk about?

About military things maybe? Have you ventured in the other forums? That's where I prefer to hang out.


These "few" bad apples seem to have managed to amass a rather large amount of victims.

Agreed. But a thousand bad apples is still a few in regard of the total number of servicemen and women.
You should really read The Interrogators, you'd love it.


First we have to find out if it was abusive guards, or if someone created those conditions for a reason. Or if it was just complete negligence and bureaucracy.

That is why there is a criminal investigation underway.


Except there were many innocent or insignificant people in Abu Ghraib that should not have been treated like they were members of Al Qaeda.

This as yet to be demonstrated beyond doubt. Everyone's innocent in their own opinion, right?


That doesn't explain why Bush pulled out inspectors even though Saddam was cooperating, said he was cooperating, Blix said things were proceeding "ok" and THERE WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT.


Blix has a famed record for not delivering when assigned missions. He's utterly incompetent. But he was the EU's choice (for obvious reasons). The US candidate, also approved by Kofi Annan, Rolf Ekeus of Sweden, was vetoed by France obviously because since 1991, he had a record for actually finding things (which the US wanted, but not France). Blix, for his part, certified Iraq and North Korea as fully compliant...do I smell bullsh*t Blix was lenient with Hussein, he could have had a century to inspect Iraq, his team was so thouroughly infiltrated by Baathist agents, he'd never found anything.


Nothing in the intelligence said there was an imminent threat, nothing said there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. This was all Bush's faith-based intelligence.

Nothing, except a certain Mr. Zarkawi and his entourage, and also a fringe group fleeding Afghanistan named Ansar al'Islam, who decided the next target of jihad would be the Kurds. Hussein didn't stop them. How convenient.




The question is not faulty intelligence, it WASN'T faulty, the CIA never said any of it was conclusive--the question is whether the Bush administration misrepresented that intelligence to get their war. The Pentagone put together that intel, they made the conclusions, the CIA didn't come up with the claims Bush made because they only provided some of the intelligence. Tony Bliar provided the rest, especially the "imminent threat" part.

How would you possibly know that? Are you a high-ranking member of the CIA or MI5? See, when you talked about how information-age media changed the way politicians could no longer censure the truth, you forgot to mention that speed is not always good in information. A lot of bullsh*t circulate on the Internet, people believe that because more information is available, everything is transparent. But reality is that a lot remains shrouded in secrecy, especially matters of national security. What you know is what they agree to let you know. There is no underground information network that spreads the truth, it's an illusion created by the huge amount of news outlet available, most of them unchecked or spreading their own propaganda.




Without me posting, you revert to a Republican love-in and post "Nuke 'em all, Amen!" messages repeatedly. Even worse, this isn't an "American" forum, it's an international one. So what exactly are you complaining about? Why don't you go hang out in freerepublic.com if you want to hear a bunch of bull****?


Do you even begin to realize how self-important you sound? "Without me..." Without you, this forum was doing very well, thank you.
Again, you generalize. I challenge to find one of my posts were I say things like "Nuke 'em all, Amen!". I think you came here expecting to confront such people, when obviously you don't care about the real position of your interlocutor.

This place never was a Republican love-in, and if it was, what is you purpose coming here and disrupt it with your propaganda?
I don't hang out anywhere, you provide me with plenty of bull.

And I should know it's an international forum, I'm Canadian so go play with yourself, eh?


Who says I'm yanking chains? Some of us have completely civil discussions about current events here and don't get offended by it. We talk about it to know what's going on, not to try to piss someone off. Just because you can't stand criticism of the Bush administration, or whatever your problem is, doesn't mean you can go around telling people to shut up.

Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. I've been here for about two years, I know what kind of discussion goes around. And I know you're seldom part of the good ones. I couldn't care less about Bush criticism, I have no particular love for the politician, but at the same time, I'm able to see resentful ramble against the man when I read it. My biggest beef with Bush-bashers (as well as Kerry-bashers) is that you have drifted so far in conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks you're not even criticizing his actual policies anymore, you bash a monster you have created in your minds. Attack Bush if you will, but find legitimate targets instead of hard-charging every little conspiracy theory about him you can find out there or trying to pin every problem of the planet on him.


I also don't just post about America, I'm critical of alot of things, it just happens that the US is at the center of things right now.

Bollocks. You have a chip on your shoulder an it shines like a beacon. You mainly concentrate your efforts on the US administration and anything goes in your attacks.
You never post about North Korea blackmailing the UN, about civil liberties in Saudi Arabia, about repression in Egypt, about massacres in Africa, about Turks occupying half of Cyprus, about France using international law and diplomacy as a blanket for its national interests, about China threatening moves on Taiwan, about just about everything worth criticizing in the world. You always bring it back to the good ole USA. You sound like a self-hating westerner, a communautarian Chomskyist. The US is at the center of everything because you choose to see it this way.

Oh, one last reading suggestion, A Long Short War, by Christopher Hitchens (hardly a neocon pundit). I loved it, maybe you won't but it's worth the read.

Have a good one.

ShotOver
08-01-2004, 02:24 PM
Booya, nice going DE6 woot

American Patriot
08-01-2004, 02:32 PM
What do you have against www.freerepublic.com? Are you a www.democraticunderground.com fan?

Secret Squirrel
08-01-2004, 02:34 PM
Agreed. But a thousand bad apples is still a few in regard of the total number of servicemen and women.

I agree with this point but its really just smoke and mirrors when you compare those already charged with abuse in the face of the entire force. The entire force in Iraq doesnt involve 130,000 prison guards. So i think it's more pertinent to examine the 90+ investigations of abuse as it relates to those who had direct access to prisoners. I'm not saying the abuse was wide spread or arguing any particular side here. But i dont agree with the argument/statement thats often repeated that the abuse was miniscule in the face of 130,000 plus in Iraq. It's just a strong statement that's taken out of context.

Sayeret
08-01-2004, 02:34 PM
Great post DE6, I was going to reply but you already covered everything.

Yosy
08-01-2004, 02:51 PM
I dont get this whole ****, these terrorists are getting beaten up, and glowsticks up their arses and what not, but you hippies dont stop and think that these guys blew woman, men and children up.

They made bombs, which blow people apart, shrapnel and glass cutting through innocent peoples bodies, killing them quick, cutting off legs, mortally wounding them and letting them bleed to death in a street, because they chose to go and buy somthing in that part of town.

What these bits of coward **** are getting in that prison is a holiday compared to what they need to have done to them, and that the bottom line.

OB Kenbi, get your **** sorted right now, we don't want your **** here. This is hood's house, and he shares it with us, and we have voted you off the island of mp.net and you will be gone soon. Oh yes freedom of speech has no damn place here, so cry to your mum if you feel like you are being mistreated.

Hey PT, hold on mate. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he should be kicked out. What do you mean "freedom of speech has no damn place here"? And you're going to vote him off because you don't agree with him? Hell, I don't agree with you, but I wouldn't want to see you go. A lot of users in here don't agree with each other in various subjects, but we have something in common: we are all military buffs. And this would be a pretty boring place if everybody shared the same political opinions.

"What these bits of coward **** are getting in that prison is a holiday compared to what they need to have done to them, and that the bottom line."

Might be, but if you descend to their level, you're just as bad as they are.

OB Kenobi
08-02-2004, 03:51 AM
[quote]Without me posting, you revert to a Republican love-in and post "Nuke 'em all, Amen!" messages repeatedly. Even worse, this isn't an "American" forum, it's an international one. So what exactly are you complaining about? Why don't you go hang out in freerepublic.com if you want to hear a bunch of bull****?


Actually, you are wrong on that. MP.net server located on American soil and in U.S. jurisdiction. It just means that the FBI and secret service will be knocking on Hood's door if you make any stupid threats toward Americans and the President.

I meant that it is not a forum centered strictly on the American-Republican point of view. It's supposed to be about the military from around the world. Some people on here act like the Republican party owns this forum.


Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Registrant, Domain (DW20473) webmaster@aixgaming.com
1 aixgaming lane
deserted island, IL 60076
US
312-555-1212 fax: 123 123 1234

Hehe, nice fake address and phone.

ShotOver
08-02-2004, 04:14 AM
Yosy, he is not a military buff, as fas as i can see he has no interest in anything to do with the military, he is only after a flame war and the chance to have a go at some Americans.

OB Kenobi
08-02-2004, 05:08 AM
You don't like me much, do you? ;)

What makes you say that?


You have every right to disagree with current policies. But you are a little extremist in your views. Politicians will never formulate perfect policies, and they will always lie. What do you propose?
By the way, I eat French fries, thanks for the generalization.

What the 9/11 commission proposed is a start. We also need to crack down on corporate crime. Then we have to break the ties between corporate lobbyists and the government. Next we need to stop doing business with terrorists, letting in millions of illegal aliens, and outsourcing so many jobs.

That ought to keep you busy for the next decade.


But maybe you're not. That's my whole point, your guess is just as good as mine, because neither of us know the truth. So stop acting like you do, it makes you sound like an a**.

The truth about what? What happened in Abu Ghraib? The reasons for the war in the first place? Who's really behind Al Qaeda? Or something else?


Blix was lenient with Hussein, he could have had a century to inspect Iraq, his team was so thouroughly infiltrated by Baathist agents, he'd never found anything.

Um... so where's the WMD now that we have unfettered access to Iraq? Maybe Blix wasn't lenient, maybe there wasn't any there!?



Nothing in the intelligence said there was an imminent threat, nothing said there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. This was all Bush's faith-based intelligence.

Nothing, except a certain Mr. Zarkawi and his entourage, and also a fringe group fleeding Afghanistan named Ansar al'Islam, who decided the next target of jihad would be the Kurds. Hussein didn't stop them. How convenient.


Zarqawi works for Saddam? Any proof of that? As for the Kurds, well no kidding, sure Saddam would like to have them gone, so would Turkey and Iran. But what does this have to do with an IMMINENT THREAT to the US?

Ok, so we got rid of Saddam. NOW WHAT? There's lots of places we can just go into and bomb, imprison people arbitrarily on suspicion alone, ruin lives, make thousands of enemies out of those who had nothing against us before.

Iraq is not Afghanistan. The world supported going into Afghanistan, few supported going into Iraq, because they are either anti-American, or they thought it was simply a bad idea destined for failure. Bush simply failed to get international support, and in part because of his arrogant attitude towards Europe.




The question is not faulty intelligence, it WASN'T faulty, the CIA never said any of it was conclusive--the question is whether the Bush administration misrepresented that intelligence to get their war. The Pentagone put together that intel, they made the conclusions, the CIA didn't come up with the claims Bush made because they only provided some of the intelligence. Tony Bliar provided the rest, especially the "imminent threat" part.

How would you possibly know that? Are you a high-ranking member of the CIA or MI5?

That's all public info, maybe you ought to do a bit more reading.


See, when you talked about how information-age media changed the way politicians could no longer censure the truth, you forgot to mention that speed is not always good in information. A lot of bullsh*t circulate on the Internet, people believe that because more information is available, everything is transparent.

What are you talking about? Are you telling me Bliar's "45 minute" claim never happened? You must be in some serious denial if you are.


But reality is that a lot remains shrouded in secrecy, especially matters of national security. What you know is what they agree to let you know.

Unless it's from a foreign news source. Or maybe a forum where someone posted something a little too revealing. Or Usenet, where the info was leaked. Or a Republican think tank that posted some documents that mentioned some things eerily similar to a war we found ourselves in later.

"They" aren't as omnipotent as you think they are. Bureaucracies are like dinosaurs, the head doesn't know what the tail is doing half the time.


There is no underground information network that spreads the truth, it's an illusion created by the huge amount of news outlet available, most of them unchecked or spreading their own propaganda.

Well actually there is. It's the vast left-wing liberal hippie conspiracy or something. Use the Force DE6! rofl


Do you even begin to realize how self-important you sound? "Without me..." Without you, this forum was doing very well, thank you.

That was a joke. I guess you didn't get it.


Again, you generalize. I challenge to find one of my posts were I say things like "Nuke 'em all, Amen!". I think you came here expecting to confront such people, when obviously you don't care about the real position of your interlocutor.

Maybe you never said it, but several others have, on a regular basis.

I didn't come here to "challenge" anyone. I was looking at the photos here and then decided to see what people were talking about in the General forum. After reading some of that ignorant, delusional crap I couldn't resist not responding to it, the same way someone isn't going to sit quietly while they get slapped in the face.


Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. I've been here for about two years, I know what kind of discussion goes around. And I know you're seldom part of the good ones.

You just said you don't read this section often, how would you know?


I couldn't care less about Bush criticism, I have no particular love for the politician, but at the same time, I'm able to see resentful ramble against the man when I read it.

Resentful? You're god-damned right it's resentful! I think the man is a crook, a liar, and an arrogant fool that screwed up this country worse than any single president has in decades. I used to think Clinton was bad, then this weasel mother****er came along! I actually supported Bush at first you know, then Enron and the California Energy Crisis came along, that got me suspicious. Then after 9/11 it was pretty obvious Bush had a few screws loose.


My biggest beef with Bush-bashers (as well as Kerry-bashers) is that you have drifted so far in conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks you're not even criticizing his actual policies anymore, you bash a monster you have created in your minds. Attack Bush if you will, but find legitimate targets instead of hard-charging every little conspiracy theory about him you can find out there or trying to pin every problem of the planet on him.

They're not conspiracy theories, unless you think the entire mainstream media is in on the conspiracy.

I get that same response often. People love to shoot the messenger. That frees them from having to confront the facts.



I also don't just post about America, I'm critical of alot of things, it just happens that the US is at the center of things right now.

Bollocks. You have a chip on your shoulder an it shines like a beacon. You mainly concentrate your efforts on the US administration and anything goes in your attacks.

Well, maybe it's also because I live in the US and don't care as much about what goes on in Switzerland.


You never post about North Korea blackmailing the UN,

Ok, North Korea's "bad", everyone knows that. Do you have some sort of plan of dealing with them that we all haven't heard a hundred times, AKA "Nuke 'em all!"?


about civil liberties in Saudi Arabia,

What!? You obviously haven't read my other posts. Like where I said we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and Pakistan instead of Iraq. Not to "liberate" them either, but to remove the Islamic lunatics out of there.


about repression in Egypt, about massacres in Africa, about Turks occupying half of Cyprus,

I see where this is going. You seem to think I support the Muslims or something.


about France using international law and diplomacy as a blanket for its national interests,

Ok, now can you name someone who doesn't do that?


about China threatening moves on Taiwan, about just about everything worth criticizing in the world.

You sound pretty liberal for a right-wing fanatic. I try to stick to politics related to the military here not "everything worth criticizing." Have you noticed that?


You always bring it back to the good ole USA. You sound like a self-hating westerner, a communautarian Chomskyist. The US is at the center of everything because you choose to see it this way.

You mean the US isn't at the center of the "war on terror"? Who is?

mobster
08-02-2004, 05:22 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/viewimage/Old_Lady_finger.bmp
Those captured should be happy that we have a system that protects them. I say **** 'em. They should rot and die in hell.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/viewimage/payback.jpg
Our boys are over there right now trying to help out, when someone in question becomes a prisoner, treat them like a prisoner.
They ****ed with America in the first place, they should be dealt with accordingly. If I were there, Jesus Christ Almighty, there would be hell to deal with. Fry them. Make sure that the folks that lost family members of 9/11 are not around God Forbid.

ROY H
08-02-2004, 05:40 AM
amen. yosy you probally arent even a american and you arent a military buff and yes i dont like you.you don't know **** you prick war is hell.this is coming from ex marine so stfu and kill yourself

mobster
08-02-2004, 06:06 AM
http://www.nata2.info/war/AC-130U_gunship_video_lo.wmv

Fargin
08-02-2004, 07:22 AM
OB Kenobi I appreciate the read, please keep it up.

I think it's relevant, it's a military criminal investigation so it belongs here. Although adding personal comments like the "nazi" part ensures you the proviked reaction you might have hoped to create. OB you need to focus you threads more on the subject and less on adding small pieces on flamebait.

Yosy
08-02-2004, 08:40 AM
amen. yosy you probally arent even a american and you arent a military buff and yes i dont like you.you don't know **** you prick war is hell.this is coming from ex marine so stfu and kill yourself

If you have something useful to say, say it. I'm not going to spen any more time in a flamewar.

I don't give a f*ck if you are an ex-marine (which I doubt).

ROY H
08-02-2004, 08:44 AM
okay cheif whatever you say

Saranof
08-02-2004, 10:03 AM
I still find it funny that, since the US is supposed to be so muck better and civilized than the taliban och saddam, that some soldiers do these horrible things.
Then, when they get rumbled, loads of people here go "He deserved it, f***in terrorist, he deserved more"
In my world, you like get a trial first, then if you are guilty, you are convicted of being one. Then you go to jail. And since we are so much better than them, we don't torture them, abuse them, or piss on them.

Now, some people here don't seem to like the sound of people getting a fair trial before getting beaten up. But that's some people for you I guess. [/i]

DE_Six
08-02-2004, 12:22 PM
What makes you say that?

The fact you repeatedly refer to me when you attack neocons, Republicans and other Bush supporters, when, if you knew better, I have little to do with. Reread your posts.


What the 9/11 commission proposed is a start. We also need to crack down on corporate crime. Then we have to break the ties between corporate lobbyists and the government. Next we need to stop doing business with terrorists, letting in millions of illegal aliens, and outsourcing so many jobs.

Agreed on every point.


That ought to keep you busy for the next decade

See, pointing at me again. May I remind you I'm NOT American? That ought to keep you busy. And if I may, domestic problems should not lead to an isolationist US foreign policy, that would be counterproductive and potentially harmful IMHO, given the world situation and the nature of the American economy.


The truth about what? What happened in Abu Ghraib? The reasons for the war in the first place? Who's really behind Al Qaeda? Or something else?

You do not know any of these, and neither do I. None of us have first hand knowledge of any of this. All we have are reports, informations, legit or leaked, interpretations, analysis, etc. Nothing solid enough to make any of us pretend to know. So, let's not refrain from discussing it and talking about it, but let's not pretend we know either. We all poke in the dark, you too.


Um... so where's the WMD now that we have unfettered access to Iraq? Maybe Blix wasn't lenient, maybe there wasn't any there!?

Well, I could argue that some were found, but the amount is too small to be worth a war. However, I'd rather point out that no one outside the Baath regime knew this before the war. Letting Blix work on his own was a way of giving more time to already overdue inspections, thus maintaining the status quo. Maybe Ekeus wouldn't have found anything, but he would have likely came to a conclusion faster, and most importantly in the case for war, he would have renewed his reporting of Baathist attempts to bribe or deceive the inspectors, which would have been damning evidence a priori.
Here's a little more about bribery, if you care
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078512/


Zarqawi works for Saddam? Any proof of that? As for the Kurds, well no kidding, sure Saddam would like to have them gone, so would Turkey and Iran. But what does this have to do with an IMMINENT THREAT to the US?

Any proof he didn't?

About the Kurds, their struggle is not my point, my point is that Hussein accepted help from an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group, Ansar Al'Islam, to fight the Kurds. If he did, isn't possible he would also accept help from AQ to fight the US? Or rather, accept to provide support to AQ. This totally disproves the argument which sustain that Hussein's regime would have never given AQ the accolade because it was a secular, apostate regime. Nevermind the fact that Saddam built mosques after mosques since 1991 (even naming them after himself, a blasphemy), AQ will not snub their nose at help after their demise from Afghanistan.



Ok, so we got rid of Saddam. NOW WHAT? There's lots of places we can just go into and bomb, imprison people arbitrarily on suspicion alone, ruin lives, make thousands of enemies out of those who had nothing against us before.

That is a very, very simplistic portayal of the situation. So much so, I quite don't think I can answer that.



Iraq is not Afghanistan. The world supported going into Afghanistan, few supported going into Iraq, because they are either anti-American, or they thought it was simply a bad idea destined for failure. Bush simply failed to get international support, and in part because of his arrogant attitude towards Europe


Of course, Iraq is not Afghanistan. But because few supported the idea doesn't mean it was bad. As you stated, many countries opposed the war to make a stand against the US, regardless of the value of the case for war. And don't give too much credit to Bush when it comes to offending Europe. They're all professional politicians, they have a thick skin. France, Russia and Germany refused the war because they would lose all the lucrative contracts they had secured with the Baath regime and would never get repayment of debts from the new Iraqi regime and they knew it. Bush's arrogance (disregard the fact he did quite much to seduce the UN, including joining UNESCO after 20 years of absence, with the financial contribution it entails; he paid most of the US back-dues to the UN, which were huge; went to the UN twice to make his case in person within six months, once for the case for war on current premisces, twice to propose a new resolution, only to be rebutted twice, for the reasons above... :roll: )
As for "bad idea destined for failure"...well, what can I say? If you don't try...you get the status quo. A murderous one at that. Let Saddam reigns mean: a smothering UN embargo killing the Iraqi population more surely than war; a shameful UN "Oil for food" program (should I say "scam") that benefits the crooks in the Baathist party and not the population; the opportuniy for Saddam to maintain huge chunks of population under oppression, remain a threat for the region that needs constant monitoring, etc, etc. So was that the status quo we should tolerate in order to avoid potential failure? Well, ain't that the strategy of the ostrich?


That's all public info, maybe you ought to do a bit more reading.

Oh, I read a lot, I just don't take everything I read for rock-solid truth. And I doubt everything is public information, that's what some will try to present it as, but it's not necessarily and there is no way to check it, so carefulness is advised.



What are you talking about? Are you telling me Bliar's "45 minute" claim never happened? You must be in some serious denial if you are.


No, it did happen. But since every information outlet is first and foremost a lens through whcih the reality is distorted to support an agenda, I'm wary it really happened the way it is often portrayed. Blair did lie, but so does every breathing politician, I just don't think it was such a critical event in the course of things.


Unless it's from a foreign news source. Or maybe a forum where someone posted something a little too revealing. Or Usenet, where the info was leaked. Or a Republican think tank that posted some documents that mentioned some things eerily similar to a war we found ourselves in later.

"They" aren't as omnipotent as you think they are. Bureaucracies are like dinosaurs, the head doesn't know what the tail is doing half the time.


A foreign news source? What kind of credential is that? So, Pravda is reliable, and Al-Jazeera is reliable, because what? It's foreign? Bollocks, all media is biased, it's all unreliable. Usenet is a flowing river of crap, you have to be prescient to tell the good stuff from the rest. Think tanks? They're even more biased than media outlets. They are a good source of guidelines and studies, but be prepared to be fed a lot of skewed numbers and facts. As for coincidence, well...I didn't take a genius to know that war with Iraq would happen someday, and not much more to trace the outlines of the conflict. The rest is the work of the reader's mind who puts things together, smotth the rough edges, and voila, a war fforetold!


Well actually there is. It's the vast left-wing liberal hippie conspiracy or something. Use the Force DE6!

rofl


That was a joke. I guess you didn't get it.

No, I admit I didn't. You silly joker, you! ;)


Maybe you never said it, but several others have, on a regular basis.

Well, there are fools everywhere, on both sides of the spectrum. I usually ignore them.


After reading some of that ignorant, delusional crap I couldn't resist not responding to it, the same way someone isn't going to sit quietly while they get slapped in the face.

"Ignorant, delusional crap"? Is that how you refer to people who have an opinion that differs from yours? If again, you talk about the ignorant comments, well, as I said, nevermind. But if not, ouch...
See that's what I meant from the start. To some you are the one that sounds delusional. A little humility would help. And no one slapped you in the face. If you consider someone expressing an opinion different from yours "a slap in the face", well you have issues with freedom of speech. So if you feel like sharing your opinion, by all means do so, just don't dismiss other's as "ignorant crap" if you want to be listened to.


You just said you don't read this section often, how would you know?

Ok, silly, let me be more accurate, if you're going to take it this way: I read every forums (xcept maybe the Airsoft one, nothing to do there), but I post mostly on the Image and Videos one, because it remains my main interest. But I do once in a while participate. You certainly spurred me this time. But I read everything, I'm mostly a listener, not a ranter.


Resentful? You're god-damned right it's resentful! I think the man is a crook, a liar, and an arrogant fool that screwed up this country worse than any single president has in decades. I used to think Clinton was bad, then this weasel f*** came along! I actually supported Bush at first you know, then Enron and the California Energy Crisis came along, that got me suspicious. Then after 9/11 it was pretty obvious Bush had a few screws loose.

Ok, that's what I thought. You have a personal thing going on against the man. Could it be that it distorts your view of the world? Just saying...
It reminds me of the fiery hatred some had for Clinton, a few years ago. So angry, they could see absolutely no good in the man.
BTW, I completely share your disgust for corporate crime. The idea of a crook stealing thousands of shareholders's lifetime savings and getting away with it repulses me to an extent few white-collar crimes can. But I'm glad we're starting to see that change. Would you believe it would have happened under Clinton (not an attack, I don't dislike him), when the buzzword was corporate welfare, rahter than corporate crime? ;)


They're not conspiracy theories, unless you think the entire mainstream media is in on the conspiracy.

I get that same response often. People love to shoot the messenger. That frees them from having to confront the facts.


I think the entire media, mainstream and independant, is bound by the same "curse", they present everything with a bias. News outlets are businesses, they sell opinion, a certain view of the world. None of what comes in second-hand can ever be fully trusted. Only first-hand knowledge really matters, but it's scarce. So, I exercise caution. With the official line, with the partisan line, with the revolutionary line...

And they're are conspiracy theories. When some Frenchman writes not one, but two books explaining how no planes crashed in NYC and Washington on Spetember 11, 2001, I call bullsh*t. And conspiracy theories aren't all big plots exposed by shady whistleblowers. Most of them are simply the result of the imagination of a few bored "rebels without a cause", slightly bending the facts to make them look as if it was all planned carefully. The world is chaotic, and humans are suckers for explanations. Religion, science, etc. All institutions bound to explain everything. People like that, seeing the bigger picture, so much so they often believe anything rather than not knowing. Is foolishness preferable to ignorance? Just a rhetoric question. p-)

And I'm not shooting the messenger. Actually, I don't like to shoot people for their ideas, but I dislike people who put their opinion on a pedestal. If I have to shoot, I'll keep it fot the polemists who fuel the debate with fallacies, like Chomsky, or Ann Coulter, etc.


What!? You obviously haven't read my other posts. Like where I said we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and Pakistan instead of Iraq. Not to "liberate" them either, but to remove the Islamic lunatics out of there.

Agreed. Which doesn't mean, in my views, that the lunatic of Baghdad could go free... p-)


I see where this is going. You seem to think I support the Muslims or something.

No, I don't. And if I did, it wouldn't be meant as if it was bad. I don't see the Muslims as one monolithic entity, and I don't think they're not worthy of support, only the terrorist element I strongly dislike (read "hate"). I think the Muslim world is going through hard times, and I sincerely believe we can offer a (imperfect) support. Until now, we're mostly stabbing in the dark, but eventually things will get better. I also believe it will be confrontational, because nobody likes to be corrected by foreigners, even when he hits rock bottom.


Ok, now can you name someone who doesn't do that?

Well, the US certainly didn't when the attacked Iraq...They kinda went against it...But that isn't my point, what I meant is that when the US does it, it attracts the lowliest attacks, but when others do it, it's ok. Seemigly, the US is the only country who isn't allowed to act in its own interest.


You sound pretty liberal for a right-wing fanatic. I try to stick to politics related to the military here not "everything worth criticizing." Have you noticed that?

That is because I'm not a right-wing fanatic. Thanks for the generalization p-) . I don't like labels, because neither side of the spectrum appeals to me, and I don't like the centrist mentality. I'm all for ecletic confusion. ;)

Yes, at least you stick to military matters. In your own way, but you do.

PS This whole list wasn't meant to be exhaustive. It's just what popped to mind. Neither is it representative of my order of priorities.


You mean the US isn't at the center of the "war on terror"? Who is?

Yes, they are. But I don't quite perceives them as the main culprit, at least certainly not the only one. But you don't have to worry about it, there are other people who displays the same efforts at blaming the terrorists, as you put blaming the US.

Cheers