Mercury Fred
Banned
The Sydney Morning Herald said:
http://smh.com.au/news/world/the-photos-america-doesnt-want-seen/2006/02/14/1139890737099.html
Images can be seen here (warning, these are more than a little disturbing).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Freedom Is On The March: New Abu Ghraib Torture Pictures Surface
- Thread starter Mercury Fred
- Start date
- Status
http://smh.com.au/news/world/the-photos-america-doesnt-want-seen/2006/02/14/1139890737099.html
Images can be seen here (warning, these are more than a little disturbing).
Doesn't shock me, I mean come on, america loves the violence, and sex, especially a lot of these army people who are hicks and think that they should teach the evil arabs a lesson.
Hell, they don't have to go that far away to Abu Ghraib, just take a look at prisons here in the southern U.S. where you have guards who partake in the raping and torture as well.
Hell, they don't have to go that far away to Abu Ghraib, just take a look at prisons here in the southern U.S. where you have guards who partake in the raping and torture as well.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Phoenix said:
fixed.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Note the "I'm a rapeist" scrawled on exposed thigh/asscheek. Note the spelling. Makes it even more sordid somehow.
BigGreenMat
Member
A few of the pictures indicate some situations which might constitute torture, but a lot of the pictures are the result of riots in the prison that were documented. Also these pictures are from the same batch that caused the controversy 2 years ago. They aren't new. That said Abu Graib is not a happy place and you'd think someone would do their best to stay away from the place. A few of the things shown here are pretty bad though, especially the bullets in the butt.
typhonsentra
Banned
To be fair, many of these people were likely picked up from the battlefield so many of the injuries we're seeing in these shots could've come from there. The stuff with all the nudity confuses me though. Why do these soldiers wanna see so many naked dudes?
while it's a contemptible injustice, i really don't care too much about this scandal.
i'd rather the media focus on the slaughter us armed forces have visited upon innocents numbering in the tens of thousands.
or the thievery contractors stationed in iraq have committed against us taxpayers.
abu ghraib is a deliberate distraction from the more serious crimes committed by the war criminal occupying the white house.
i'd rather the media focus on the slaughter us armed forces have visited upon innocents numbering in the tens of thousands.
or the thievery contractors stationed in iraq have committed against us taxpayers.
abu ghraib is a deliberate distraction from the more serious crimes committed by the war criminal occupying the white house.
I kind of doubt that these treatments are listed in the policies or handbooks of our armed forces. :lol These were done by a few A-holes who are stressed out by the war or on a dumbass power trip who and will be dealt with by the military legal system. I just love the implications that this kind of crap is what America stands for. <rollseyes>
I dunno how I would react to that guy who kept shitting all over himself (the same one who smashed his head against the wall while being videotaped from 3 angles). I'd feel like beating him just as an outlet for my disgust.
Oh and I know its a serious issue, but that "prostitute" that exposed herself for the camera had great tits.
Oh and I know its a serious issue, but that "prostitute" that exposed herself for the camera had great tits.
Instigator
Banned
I like words of Australia's PM on the matter. Just rephrasing them by memory:
That would be all fine and dandy Mr Howard if America didn't try to hide those pictures at all cost, avoiding embarassment and possibly protecting the men who commited those crimes.
Maybe we should all pat Syria in the back for pulling its troops out of Lebanon, just because it got embarassed by its alledged involvement in the Hariri killing and the international outcry that followed.
Only do what's right... when you get caught. :lol
That would be all fine and dandy Mr Howard if America didn't try to hide those pictures at all cost, avoiding embarassment and possibly protecting the men who commited those crimes.
Maybe we should all pat Syria in the back for pulling its troops out of Lebanon, just because it got embarassed by its alledged involvement in the Hariri killing and the international outcry that followed.
Only do what's right... when you get caught. :lol
Whatever you want to call it... it is WAR!
We only see the end result, how do we know these JO's were not spitting on the Americans or kicking, biting... maybe they needed to be shown that we won't take crap and you will be humiliated if you act like an a-hole.
Maybe these poor people were complete pains in the asses for weeks or months and the Americans finally said "f-it, we are going to tie you up naked and we will come back when you are ready to act semi-civilized."
We only see the end result, how do we know these JO's were not spitting on the Americans or kicking, biting... maybe they needed to be shown that we won't take crap and you will be humiliated if you act like an a-hole.
Maybe these poor people were complete pains in the asses for weeks or months and the Americans finally said "f-it, we are going to tie you up naked and we will come back when you are ready to act semi-civilized."
Although everyone on this forum knows my views (ive been called a terrorist, an extremist, and a fundamentalist by some limited in their cranial abilities), I agree that there is no much point of these photos being publicized, especially if theyre from 2003. Everyone knows for a fact that there was abuse beyond what was seen in the original pictures. This isn't really news. and its not eye opening in any way. I can only agree that it would only be a detrimental effect to everyone and from every angle, without accomplishing anythiing and without benefitting anyone. If these were photos from a more recent time or another event, I would be completely for their viewing by the public.
psycho_snake
I went to WAGs boutique and all I got was a sniff
"America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children" - George w Bush
What a load of bullshit. They hot rid of Saddam, had no plan after that and are now humiliating poor iraqi citizens in such a horrible way, abit like saddam was doing. Those soldiers are fucked up bastards.
What a load of bullshit. They hot rid of Saddam, had no plan after that and are now humiliating poor iraqi citizens in such a horrible way, abit like saddam was doing. Those soldiers are fucked up bastards.
Instigator
Banned
BojTrek said:
I'm ready to take a guess and say however they were like, these actions weren't warranted. Call it a hunch.
To make me sodomize another man, the beating, torture and near death experiences would have to be pretty awful so that's an option I'd willingly take. I can only imagine how they coerce these young, conservative, proud Iraqis
BojTrek said:
sarcasm?
if you're serious...seek help.
it's an illegal war, one which went against the suggestion of every "civilized" nation in this country, save for the british lapdog.
if you were illegally detained, suspected of "terrorism" for merely being opposed to the ILLEGAL occupation of iraq by the us invaders, would you not spit in a marine's face?
would you not speak to them disparagingly?
or much worse, once u were you freed from the constraints?
moesyzslak
Member
PNAC is going as planned.
Javaman said:
you said:
and, in turn, i said it's no different than the us invading iraq -- off a lie, mind you -- slaughtering thousands of civilians, and telling the people what governmental paradigm they're to live under.
to the us, "democracy" is nothing more than subordinating oneself to the myth of western supremacy.
The bottomline is, behavior like this is not making the world safer. If the purpose of this entire "war on terror" is to reduce the presence of terror organizations and increase the security for the US and other nations, this sort of thing is having exactly the opposite effect. These are the sorts of incidents that FUEL that hatred and give terrorist organziations traction. I'm not one of those people who thinks this is irresponsible of the media, because I feel that people should know the truth. This, along with incidents like the British soliders assaulting unarmed teens while some psychotic jackoff gets off watching, should never take place, period. If they didn't happen to begin with, we wouldn't have to worry about it being shown across the globe.
joeposh said:
The cartoon incidents prove you wrong. Extremist Muslims clearly don't need something like Abu Ghraib to incite their hatred and violence--simple freedom of speech is enough.
Of course what happened at Abu Ghraib is a bad thing--no one is arguing that. However, in some peoples' twisted logic, this gives Muslim extremists a license to hate ALL of America, and not just the few who perpetrated the crimes. Neither the torturers or the extremists are right.
KingGondo said:
"Filmmaker Nigel Wingrove in 1989 shot a film named , "Visions of Ecstasy," a quasi-soft porn movie about the visions of St. Theresa of Avalon an erotic response to crucifixion. The British Board of Film Classification refused to give it a certificate. They couldn't brand it "pornographic" or prove that its content was blasphemous, but they presumed viewers would perceive it as such and blocked its distribution. Mr. Wingrove believed that his right of expression was violated and took the case to the European Court of Human Rights. In 1996, the court ruled against him.
In one of its most notorious decisions, Otto Preminger Institut v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights decided that depictions of religion that are "gratuitously offensive" to believers infringe upon their rights and "do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs." It also said that securing religious pluralism was essential to any successful democratic society. "
so filmmakers, journalist, media members do not have right to release material that is "gratuitously offensive" to fundemental christian/western values because that kind material "do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs" but those cartoons published in that danish newspaper somehow do? A simple apology and upholding universal standarts of responsible journalism could prevent this so called "cartoon" incident but no....riding on the wings of anti-muslim feeling and hiding behind the principal of freedom of speech was easier for those so called journalists.
Callo Merlose
Banned
Animals being treated inhumanely is still wrong.
Bataman said:
I really hope you don't mean what I think you mean.
<nu>faust said:
Perhaps they could have blocked the film from being distributed through official channels, but given the funds, how would that have stopped him from producing and distributing it himself? If he did could he be arrested? I rather doubt it.
<nu>faust said:
Several problems with your premise: first of all, I really don't think that the European Court of Human Rights is the final arbiter.
Secondly, "gratuitiously offensive" is a vague enough term to be laughable. Offensiveness is such a subjective term that it's almost impossible to come to a common definition.
Your made-up ideas of "universal standards of responsible jounalism" is ridiculous, as well. It's painfully obvious from a simple survey of world journalism that there is no such thing as "universal standards" in journalism. What is perfectly acceptable in a Western country is blasphemy in a Muslim country, and the graphic images of violence shown on Al Jazeera are considered repugnant in the United States and much of Europe.
You have to ask yourself: what will quench the thirst of the extremists? The resignation of the journalists responsible? Their deaths? The destruction of Denmark? This is about something far bigger than cartoons--it's a cultural war.
KingGondo said:
If you think the cartoon outburst is JUST about a a few offensive depictions of the Prophet Muhammed, you really need to take a look at the bigger picture. If there weren't underlying tensions between the cultures to begin with (going back to european colonialism in the Middle East), this whole thing would have never exploded the way it has.
- Status