Iraq POW photos

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:28 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/ ... 4063.shtml

Talk about photos that will incite violence against us. You have to wonder how this could even happen. You could make a good case that those responsible will be responsible for a few more dead American soldiers in the near future.

Second topic, should CBS have shown them? For this one, I have to say no. If the media found this to be the norm, I would say yes. But if it is an isolated incident that they stumbled on, then the bad out weighs the good.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:38 pm

Should they show them? Yes, as long as it remains in context. As far as I can determine, six individuals were responsible. Place that against 250,000 American soldiers who have done their job honorably and it's an aberration that doesn't deserve as much ink as it's getting. But it should still be noted and the persons responsible should be prosecuted and appropriately punished.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:41 pm

I'm tempted to say we should turn the guilty ones over to the new Iraqi government for punishment but that would create more problems than it would solve, for them as well as us.

I think the story needed to be reported, or more to the point, the story shouldn't be hushed up once it got out. The pictures shouldn't be shown except the pictures are how the story became known, so I guess it's unavoidable.
It would be better for all concerned if ABC just reported the facts without showing the pictures though.

The army really needs to dish out some serious swift punishment and even then it wont measure up to what the Iraqi's are used to so we will come off looking like hypocrits.
When you consider the big picture of what we are trying to accomplish over there what these punks did is the equivolent to aiding the enemy.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:46 pm

I'm sorry, but I don't sign on to the censorship bandwagon. The harsh realities of war and our mistakes should not be repressed. I guess I seem like a negative harper at times here, it's just that I sometimes pipe up when I feel things need to be said that are not.

The censorship is getting out of hand. I heard Ted Koppel is going to read the names and show pictures of american soldiers who have died in Iraq on the air. Someone was trying to say his broadcast was somehow a *political message*. It's just rediculous.

We shouldn't be so afraid of our mistakes. I'm glad Lt. Cowan at least has some courage:
"We went into Iraq to stop things like this from happening, and indeed, here they are happening under our tutelageâ?

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:07 pm

An Iraqi Perspective:

* * *

Hi Friends,

Of course the behavior at Abu Ghraib is terrible and I think everybody agrees; and most certainly the few who perpetrated these actions do not represent anybody but themselves. They have betrayed the Coalition soldiers and all the friends of democracy, before anybody else. However, the Media, and especially the famous Al Jazeera, Al Arabia & Co. are having great time with this affair. Itâ??s like Christmas over there. Saturation coverage, trying all the time to sound objective and merely reporting what the western media are saying.

Well I am an Iraqi, and hate what I saw, but I would like to say in all honesty that compared to the practices of the old Baathists, this is a drop in an ocean. The terrors of Saddam torture houses make this isolated condemned practice by a small group of perverted individuals seem nothing, awful as it is. And more important, the outrages of the Saddam regime were sanctioned and perfectly well known and approved from the highest levels of the state and there was no question of any criminal investigations of the practices, the victims simply buried in any convenient ditch near by. But we never heard any righteous and noisy protests from Any Jazeera or Arabiya, nor did we witness much â??Arabâ?

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:19 pm

blogs can be a useful insight into a situation far away. or it can be complete bullshite. there is no way to confirm any of it. but i've been reading that intelligence agencies are gonna monitor them for clues.

that blog could be a shiite acecombat for all you know.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:28 pm

um, Beefis, everything he is saying has been confirmed many times over. Saddam's legacy of terror in that very same prison is well documented and the mass graves are still being unearthed daily.

http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:35 pm

bash,
i understand what saddam was. i wasn't discounting the blog at all, it could be the persons real thoughts, i just read them with skepticism. and by "confirm" i mean if someone is mis-representing themselves... not saddam's attrocities. give me a shread of credit.

not trying to start a weekend sling fest deal.

out.

*edit 8:58pm central* i listened to the mp3 on that site bash. it was quite good imho.. the words could suck for all i know because my arabic is nil... but it had a lot of feeling *edit*

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:13 pm

While their fellow soldiers were out there fighting for their lives and freedom for the Iraqi people, they were in a prison recording porn.

I say dump them into Falluja, in front of the angry insurgents, and let them face their penalty. This is more than merely offensive; this is a tremendous disgrace to our forces, a veritable slap in the face of the men and women who have died, and the people responsible should face far, far harsher penalties than the normal person would for such a crime. They should be heavily reprimanded, to show the Iraqi people that we won't stand for this.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:47 pm

some people are shitz regardless of uniform

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:04 pm

Really

we take some pictures of very sad and humiliating acts and yet somehow it's equated to tortures that rendered flesh from the body and left those who received such tortures to die a slow and miserable death.

Don't get me wrong, this was just plain stupid of those people serving to pull something like this and it shouldn't have happened. I feel bad for the people involved but I don't feel, for one second, that this incident represents our military as a whole at all. It does make us look bad, but this is typical of the media to make it seem like this is even remotely close to Saddam and his torture fetishes.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:24 pm

Tyranny wrote:Don't get me wrong, this was just plain stupid of those people serving to pull something like this and it shouldn't have happened. I feel bad for the people involved but I don't feel, for one second, that this incident represents our military as a whole at all. It does make us look bad, but this is typical of the media to make it seem like this is even remotely close to Saddam and his torture fetishes.

it's more than plain stupid. it's criminal, counter-productive, and sick.

this incident does not represent the united states military. i don't think anyone on this planet (without an agenda) would disagree. the human race has rejects that act in unbelievable ways, it's our common bond.

bush ain't stupid. he will make an example of these rejects... i mean, he has to. the behavior of america's troops have been seriously "almost perfect" in contrast to all warfare in the history of the human race.

make these rejects pay... for they are missing the point of these wars. we want the world to be "perfect", right?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:37 pm

this incident does not represent the united states military. i don't think anyone on this planet (without an agenda) would disagree.

I think a majority of those who oppose us in the middle east will now view this as a norm. They allready think we are horrible, corrupted, etc. Now they have visual aids for their beliefs. This is why for this scenario I would of supported censoring it.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:38 pm

"the behavior of america's troops have been seriously "almost perfect" in contrast to all warfare in the history of the human race. "

Are you talking about the war in Iraq, or all of americas wars?

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:42 pm

Heh. /me hears Birdseye revving up the time machine.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:59 pm

i meant the wars in afghanistan and iraq. "the war on terrorism" has fronts that are "blurred" by BS slogans.

but judging by the information we have access to the US military isn't gang raping and commiting genocide. like our lovely books tell us of so many other conflicts in history.

maybe i'm wrong, but in these wars there seems to be a concerted effort to end that barbarism.

i'm just a puppet, i could never be as smart as ya'll.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:13 pm

Yeah, but at least your not one of those vegitarian puppets.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:33 pm

lol, that was years ago! and i'm glad i tried it.

does giving oral pleasure to attractive mid-20s women count as being a veggie, still?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat May 01, 2004 3:50 am

LOL bash. I still find many of your comments quite witty, although we tend to disagree on politics.

You can't really deny that we committed some atrocities in vietnam. although it wasn't close to the norm, it did happen. Plus, 2 atomic bombs in japan is worse than anything al qaeda has ever done anyway.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat May 01, 2004 3:58 am

Irrelevant.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat May 01, 2004 4:01 am

I agree, it's an off topic subject.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sat May 01, 2004 4:16 am

Birdseye wrote:Plus, 2 atomic bombs in japan is worse than anything al qaeda has ever done anyway.

[rant]

sorry birds, but don't even get me started. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the glaring differences between the two. Once again "Apples and Oranges". They might both be fruit, but that doesn't make them the same now does it? Irrelevant indeed.[/rant]

ok, resume...

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat May 01, 2004 5:08 am

hey, let's keep the thread on track.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat May 01, 2004 6:43 am

A fitting punishment might be to lock these numbnuts up in the same prison they were working at. Don't worry though, the UMCJ will be giving these dolts some serious time at Leavenworth. Besides that, these idiots put their faces in the pics and now the whole world knows them for the perverts they are.
The only good that may come of this ( if the newsies follow it) is that, unlike when Uncle Saddie's regeme committed torture, the Iraqi's will see that we do not tolerate it. Somehow I don't see the press giving the trial of these morons quite the same coverage as MJ or KB.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sat May 01, 2004 7:03 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/inter ... 2ABUS.html

just read this. maybe you haven't.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun May 02, 2004 1:25 am

Just quote the damn thing, nobody wants to sign up to read the NYT. Stupid membership logins. It's a epidemic I tell you!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun May 02, 2004 1:48 am

That site also tries to send something like 10 different cookies... ugh

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun May 02, 2004 1:55 am

The story is interesting but contains no facts. It suggests that the abuse at the prison may have been encouraged by military intelligence officers. Frankly, it reads like either the General that's getting sh[spoiler][/spoiler]itcanned is trying to pass the buck or the NYT is trying to inflate the story. In other words, if you're a conspiracy freak, it will feed your psychosis but if you're withholding judgement until a proper investigation is complete, it's a non-story at this time due to lacking any corroboration or definitive allegations. But, hey, it's fortified with unattributed third-party hearsay so it's FIT TO PRINT.

In other news, the BBC is running a story that's casting doubts of it's own on the British side of the controversey. The implication is the Brit photos are fakes. If you ask me they looked a little too convenient with no faces being shown and the *prisoner* just happening to be wearing a spanking clean Iraqi flag shirt and Western underwear. Also the images are suspiciously well-exposed and high-quality for being taken inside a dark prison by an *amateur*. I smell Al-Jazeera or one of the leftist Brit rags (same diff).

However the BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams says sources close to The Queen's Lancashire Regiment believe many aspects of the photographs are suspicious.

He says they believe the pictures may not have even been taken in Iraq.

# They believe the rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq.

# They say soldiers in Iraq wore berets or hard hats - and not floppy hats as in the photos.

# They also believe the wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3677311.stm

I do believe the American photos are legit, however. And if you've been following along with my contention that much of Arab hatred toward the West is a reaction to feelings of emasculation among Arab males, you can see how a little American girl making fun of their willies would cause such outrage among the misogynist Arabs. Whereas I don't wish for the perpetrators to be made an example of and thereby receive penalties beyond what they deserve, I do hope they get the book thrown at them in a very transparent and public way. They've cost the coalition alot of credibility and that will undoubtedly lead to a few deaths.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sun May 02, 2004 5:50 am

TheCops wrote:just read this. maybe you haven't.

ahahah.
you crackers. i thought you might want to read it, i didn't say it was gospel. how could any of us know? we are in the united states far away. but we can speculate can't we.

lol.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun May 02, 2004 5:57 am

You become more like roid everyday.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sun May 02, 2004 7:23 am

who's roid?
http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/ ... isles.html
my walk around lake of the isles was lovely this morning. wood ducks, cardinals, and squirrels all happily surviving on this planet.

everyone is so friendly walking their dogs and kicking soccer balls with their spawn.
the only downside is my lady friend is in iowa and i couldn't stop thinking about her.

have a nice day bash.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun May 02, 2004 8:12 am

Cops, your problem is you live in too placid a place. I suggest you go visit Lothar & Drakona.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sun May 02, 2004 9:41 am

hehe woodchip.
they don't call it "murder-apolis" for nothing, but it has it's placid places, i love it. i may get a chance to meet lothar and drakona at the chicago lan. perhaps we can converse as humans and they can see i'm really a nice man. the internet doesn't allow for vocal inflections, body language, and facial expressions so misunderstandings are a natural side effect.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sun May 02, 2004 1:27 pm

Birdseye wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't sign on to the censorship bandwagon. The harsh realities of war and our mistakes should not be repressed. I guess I seem like a negative harper at times here, it's just that I sometimes pipe up when I feel things need to be said that are not.

The censorship is getting out of hand. I heard Ted Koppel is going to read the names and show pictures of american soldiers who have died in Iraq on the air. Someone was trying to say his broadcast was somehow a *political message*. It's just rediculous.

I think I agree with some of what you say here, but I'd like to make a couple of points.

1) Censorship requires state action, i.e., some action by the government to keep private citizens from freedom of expression. I think you know this, and like to use the word as hyperbole. But people are confused on the point. Censorship does not pertain to private citizens offering opinions about whether photographs should or should not be displayed.

2) Ted Koppel's reading of the names of the KIA's probably was political in nature. Notably, he did not read a list of KIA's in Afghanistan. Why not?

Nor did he, if I understand correctly, offer any analysis for the reading of the names, or the reasons the soldiers died. Frankly, I don't have any problem whatsoever with what Koppel did -- it just didn't seem too important, journalistically. With all due respect to our brave soldiers, I can go to a website and read names of those who have died.

3) Those soldiers who participated in the humiliation and torture of Iraqi citizens have jeopardized the lives of every American soldier, and American citizens throughout the world. Evil exists in America, just as evil exists around the world. There is a difference, however.

The difference is one that, in this instance and in others, must be publicly demonstrated to the Arab world. That difference is that these soldiers, and probably their superiors, will be publicly brought to justice. They will be accorded due process, convicted, and punished accordingly.

We will need some positive help from American media in that arena, as Al-Jazeera will not be broadcasting details of the trials, I can assure you -- unless they feel they can establish another injustice.

BD

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun May 02, 2004 2:46 pm

Actually, I was thinking of censorship under the definition of purposely repressed information, government or not. If a breast appears in a movie on TV and is blocked out, people would say that it's being censored. As far as I know there is no government regulation forcing this, but there is a 'gentlemans agreement' between the networks on what is or what is not acceptable, and society's influence of what is acceptable. If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me, but here is a dictionary definition:

"Censorship can be explicit, as in laws passed to prevent information being published or propagated (as in Australia or China where certain Internet pages are not permitted entry), or it can take the form of intimidation by government or even by popular censure, where people are afraid to express or support certain opinions for fear of losing their lives, or their jobs, position in society, or in academia, their academic credibility"

I can see how Koppel's message could be politically motivated, but it's really hard to tell without actually knowing the guy. I don't know why he didn't read the names of troops that died in afghanistan, but that doesn't necessarily indicate he read the names of the dead in Iraq for anti-war reasons.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun May 02, 2004 2:57 pm

Koppel has stated the inspiration came from a Life Magazine spread showing a week's worth of dead during the Vietnam War. The effect, all agree, was to harden anti-war sentiment. It doesn't take too mcuh of a leap to conclude repeating the cause was similarly hoping to repeat the effect. It's so obvious it's laughable (to put it in familiar Birdspeak) and that's why very few are buying into the *honoring the dead* deception. That argument simply doesn't hold water.

Koppel to Read Names of Saddam's Victims

(2004-04-30) -- ABC-TV journalist Ted Koppel, who caused a firestorm of controversy with his plan to read the names of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, today announced that in the interest of balance and fairness next week he will read another list on his show, Nightline.

"I would never want anyone to accuse me of bias. After all, I'm a journalist, devoted to accurately portraying world events," said Mr. Koppel. "So, next week I will read the list of Iraqis who were raped, tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein's regime after President George H.W. Bush declared victory in the Gulf War on February 28, 1991."

Mr. Koppel said next week's Nightline will be a "special extended episode starting Friday and running non-stop until the day I retire from ABC."

Heh. http://www.scrappleface.com/

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun May 02, 2004 5:06 pm

Y'know, the more you whine and pout about Koppel's "liberal conspiracy," the worse it gets. I don't think there would have been controversy (and heck, I wouldn't have even known it was on television) until someone started flapping their wings about it.

Just move on, already.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun May 02, 2004 5:17 pm

Your honesty is commendable. It's not many who would have the courage to so unabashedly proclaim their ignorance. For those about to move on, we salute you.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sun May 02, 2004 5:45 pm

Kyouryuu wrote:I don't think there would have been controversy (and heck, I wouldn't have even known it was on television) until someone started flapping their wings about it.

ahahaha.
no way! that would require someone to go outside and smell the roses... getting wrapped up like an armchair soldier is par for the course 'round here.

you have to sacrifice your life to compete in the dbb E&C foo.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun May 02, 2004 6:19 pm

Sounds nice, Beefis. I'd love to have joined you but for the unfortunate detail that it would mean you'd be there as well. I'd rather curl naked in a fetal position behind a prison toilet while a young female Marine snickers at my genitalia than suffer that fate. As for me, I spent most of the day violating a substantial number of traffic laws, polluting the environment and aiming for furry woodland creatures along the twisting mountain roadways of colorful Colorado (with the top down).