U.S. Military Investigator Confirms Women and Children Were Raped At Abu Ghraib

ilivetolearn · 28-05-2009 4:50pm #1

The following article by Paul Joseph Watson on Prison Planet eludes to the conspiracy of concealment of torture:

SOURCE

It only took five years, but the mainstream media has finally acknowledged the truth behind why certain photos and videos from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison camp have been blocked from public release - they show U.S. soldiers and other prison guards raping female detainees as well as children.
In an interview with the London Telegraph, Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq, confirmed the details of his original army report, that the unreleased photos showed rape and sexual abuse of women and minors.
“At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee,” reports the Telegraph, adding, “Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.”
Taguba also verified the credibility of eyewitness statements from other detainees that described an American-Egyptian male translator in uniform raping teenage boys.

Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

“These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency,” Taguba told the Telegraph.
Taguba’s confirmation that the photos depict rape mean that President Obama could only have been lying when he claimed, “I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.”
As we reported last week, such horrors have been on the record for years, yet corporate media coverage of the Abu Ghraib scandal still frames the entire issue in the context that the “abuse” consisted merely of college fraternity-style humiliation and stacking prisoners in human pyramids.
In reality, the very worst of the torture has never been seen and it includes raping women and children, as well as brutally beating detainees to death.
Further details were also made public by New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who in July 2004 told an ACLU conference,

“Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay?” said Hersh. “Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib … The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”

Following his refusal to release the unseen photos, the ACLU charged that President Obama “has essentially become complicit with the torture that was rampant during the Bush years by being complicit in its coverup.” The Obama administration has also sought to protect intelligence officials involved in torture from prosecution at every turn.

What are your thoughts on this?

One of the responses to the articles are of contrasting interest:

Bull****! This is more propaganda by the great deciever AJ.
Go to any prison and ask the inmates if the guards were mean to them I bet 75% say yes.
Also I bet 75% say they are innocent as well.
This is a bloggers opinion on a biased faux report.

This is Libel, complete and utter defamation. I intend to press charges on Paul Joseph Watson
and Prison Planet for this type of unsubstantiated claim.
This is a crime and you all agree with false statements with no facts to back it. You all have shown your true colors as sheep with no opinoins or thought process of your own.
You all are the most unpatriotic lot of sorry excuses for Americans I have ever seen. You can’t wait to tear down innocent soldiers. Just keep drinkin the kool-aid sheep.

humanji · 28-05-2009 5:10pm

If true, I wouldn't be too surprised. The soldiers there were animals and should of been put down like animals instead of getting the slap on the wrists that some of them got.

6th · 28-05-2009 6:38pm

Sorry folks I'm locking this thread for a while just so I can get an opinion on something. Patience please.

6th · 29-05-2009 12:39pm

Thread open.

ilivetolearn · 29-05-2009 2:33pm

humanji wrote: »

If true, I wouldn't be too surprised. The soldiers there were animals and should of been put down like animals instead of getting the slap on the wrists that some of them got.

Well, your hostility won't be placed or unshared if this turns out to be true.

robtri · 29-05-2009 2:34pm

can I ask what the CT is here????

we have all seen the pictures showing the torture and mis treatment, people have been held accountable for their participation ( lean as the jail terms where)

No one is denying the abuse happened.. on any level... so where is the Ct here???

ilivetolearn · 29-05-2009 2:48pm

Updates...

The following two articles were recently featured on infowars.com:

SOURCE 1

The White House and the Pentagon have ridiculously denied the facts of their own internal military investigation by claiming that photos taken at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities do not show prison guards raping women and children, in a continuation of the Obama administration’s zealous mission to protect the perpetrators of the Bush torture program who broke national and international law.
As we reported earlier today, in an interview with the London Telegraph, Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq, confirmed the details of his original army report, that the unreleased photos showed rape and sexual abuse of women and minors.
“At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee,” reports the Telegraph, adding, “Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.”

Taguba also verified the credibility of eyewitness statements from other detainees that described an American-Egyptian male translator in uniform raping teenage boys.
“These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency,” Taguba told the Telegraph.
Taguba was only reiterating the results of a 2004 military investigation into the torture scandal, which he was appointed to undertake by CENTCOM, and yet the Pentagon and the White House have today laughably attempted to deny the facts of their own internal investigation.
The government is trying to pull off a crude bait and switch ploy in claiming that certain photos they considered for release but decided to keep private do not show the rape of women and children. The facts of Taguba’s military report detail that rapes did occur and they were photographed by other prison guards. By claiming that a certain restricted selection of photos do not show rape, the government is trying to enforce the notion that no rapes occurred whatsoever.
They are also setting up a strawman argument by blaming British newspapers and in particular the London Telegraph for falsely reporting that the photos show rape, without mentioning the fact that the newspapers are merely reporting what the military’s own investigator, U.S. Army Major General Antonio Taguba, told them was in the official military report into the torture scandal.
It’s a crude con game that a 5-year-old could pull apart.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Daily Telegraph newspaper had shown “an inability to get the facts right,” reports Reuters.
How can they get the facts wrong when they are merely relaying what CENTCOM’s own appointed investigator told them?
“That news organization has completely mischaracterized the images,” Whitman told reporters. “None of the photos in question depict the images that are described in that article.”

Again, in framing the issue in this context, the Pentagon is attempting to absolve itself and discredit the fact that U.S. prison guards did rape women and minors, a subject that is only now getting wide coverage, much to the chagrin of the criminally complicit Obama administration, despite it being explained in black and white in Taguba’s military report over five years ago.
Taguba merely confirmed to the Telegraph what was in his original report, eyewitness statements from other detainees that described an American-Egyptian male translator in uniform raping teenage boys, while others took pictures.

Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

Further details were also made public by New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who in July 2004 told an ACLU conference,

“Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay?” said Hersh. “Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib … The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs similarly chastised the Telegraph for quoting the military’s own investigator, stating that the “article is wrong and mischaracterizes the photos that are in question.”

Asked if he had actually seen the photos, Gibbs replied, “I have not seen the photos,” proving that his phony righteousness was not based on reality but what he had been told to say by his bosses.
In perpetrating this charade, the Obama White House is merely advancing its mission to protect Bush officials and CIA agents from prosecution for torture and sexual abuse. As we have discovered, this is because top Democrats like Nancy Recent Pelosi are complicit in the illegal torture program because they gave their approval for it to be instituted in the first place.
Watch the clip of Gibbs running defense for people who rape children below courtesy of Raw Story.

SOURCE 2

Staged photos lifted from porn websites purporting to be images of U.S. troops raping female detainees at Abu Ghraib are again circulating at the height of the torture scandal, discrediting the very real and admitted accounts of rape described in Major General Antonio Taguba’s military report into the Abu Ghraib prison.
Despite the fact that these photos were vehemently discredited and proven to be taken from porn websites when they first emerged in 2004, they are again being erroneously cited as examples of photos showing rape that the Obama administration is blocking from public release - providing debunkers with ammunition to dismiss the validity of the torture scandal altogether.
In light of the Pentagon and the White House’s bizarre efforts to deny the reality of their own internal investigation and pull a crude bait and switch yesterday in claiming that the blocked photos do not show rape, it can only be assumed that these fake photos are again being pushed as a means of discrediting the proven instances of U.S. prison guards and others raping women and children at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities.
“New photos obtained by Press TV have revealed alleged sexual harassment and rape of Iraqi prisoners at US-run Abu Ghraib detention center by American soldiers. The alleged pictures illustrate American soldiers raping and sexually harassing Iraqi detainees,” states the report.
However, the photos do not illustrate American soldiers at all, the uniforms worn by the men in the images are clearly not those worn by U.S. troops in Iraq, they are cheap military fatigues that anyone could find at Wal-Mart or any other discount clothing store.
Furthermore, it was admitted five years ago that the photos were taken from porn websites after they were first published by the Boston Globe.
“Graphic photos appearing on Arabic websites of U.S. servicemen raping and sexually abusing Iraqi women were actually taken from American and Hungarian pornography sites,” reported World Net Daily.
The photos, which were published under the headline “The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos,” by a Tunisian website, were lifted from an American porn website called “Babes in Iraq,” as well as a Hungarian porn website called “Sex in War.”
The websites were registered under the HotSpotCity.com domain, which hosts “cheap unrestricted adult XXX porn websites” and is a subsidiary of MacNew Enterprises. Owner Linda MacNew told World Net Daily that the photos had originated from the porn websites and they were subsequently shut down.
The Boston Globe later had to apologize for publishing the fake photos.
The fact that the photos are being cited as proof of rape at Abu Ghraib when they are clearly lifted from amateur porn websites, a point that was confirmed no less than five years ago, makes it highly suspicious that these images are again circulating as the torture scandal reaches new heights and threatens to embroil top Democrats, who are complicit because they gave their approval for the Bush torture program in the first place.
It seems that every time the torture scandal escalates, fake images, video and testimony is released to poison the well and convince the public that the whole issue is a hoax.
In May 2006, a video emerged in which a self-proclaimed Army Ranger called Jesse MacBeth claimed that his unit was told to kill Iraqi men, their wives and children indiscriminately if they didn’t explicitly follow orders. The video became wildly popular on the Internet but soon turned out to be a hoax, there was no record of MacBeth being an Army Ranger.
As soon as the video was declared a hoax, neo-cons like Michelle Malkin jumped on the issue to claim that accounts of Iraqis being indiscriminately killed were all fraudulent, despite the fact that a BBC News interview with soldiers who had served in Iraq, in which the troops admitted to witnessing war crimes, proved the allegations of indiscriminate murder to be true.
Similarly, at the height of the Abu Ghraib scandal in May 2004, the London Mirror published photos of British soldiers allegedly urinating on detainees in Iraq. The images were later proven to be fraudulent and the hoax was exploited by the corporate media and the government to discredit other proven cases of torture and abuse carried out by British soldiers in Iraq.
We see the same pattern over and over again - every time the torture scandal escalates, fake images are released to poison the well and dampen outrage about the very real torture and sexual abuse of women and children that is documented in the U.S. military’s own internal report into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
The fact that Press TV and the individual quoted in the article have fallen for this simplistic propaganda yet again is beyond belief. It’s a case of ‘fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.’ We have alerted them to the hoax and hope to see the story removed as soon as possible before people like Michelle Malkin cite it as proof that the very real rape scandal is non-existent.

What are each of your thoughts on this?

humanji · 29-05-2009 2:50pm

robtri wrote:

can I ask what the CT is here????

we have all seen the pictures showing the torture and mis treatment, people have been held accountable for their participation ( lean as the jail terms where)

No one is denying the abuse happened.. on any level... so where is the Ct here???

Well, as the article says and assuming it's true, there was a conspiracy to cover up the full extent of the abuse there in order to lesson the damage to the US military's image.

And if there was a cover up, then there are soldiers who are getting away with rape simply because it won't look good for the US. It's a case of

Spock wrote:

"The needs of the many outway the needs of the few or the one."

In this case, the many being the US and the few being the victims.

ilivetolearn · 29-05-2009 3:47pm

robtri wrote: »

can I ask what the CT is here????

I'm presuming that you've noticed how I blatantly articulated this in the very first line of the OP. Furthermore despite the contrary nature of the individual sentences of your post and the subsequent ambiguity I'm going to presume that you instead meant to communicate "I see what the proposed CT is but I'm refutting it."

humanji has adeptly answered this for you. Remember that not all conspiracy theorys need to involve the NWO, Lizards, Antichrists or spacecrafts (though I'm sure many conspiracy fans will eventually elude the topic at hand to one of these).

Nick_oliveri · 29-05-2009 10:29pm

humanji wrote: »

Well, as the article says and assuming it's true, there was a conspiracy to cover up the full extent of the abuse.

Of course thats happening. Covering up anything that might further hurt them. You cant just assume Abu Ghrahib or whatever it was called was an isolated incident. People are only human - and not everything gets reported up the chain of command..

Why is this a surprise to anyone if its true?

Is this a valid thread for this forum? No, i dont believe so.
Conspiracy in this context, is used to define the actions of the Military after the fact. It was never a Conspiracy Theory!

There was no theory. But they "conspired" to cover it up!
Its liek law spk: "conspiracy to commit murder" etc.

Mahatma coat · 30-05-2009 4:08am

Something that I'm reminded of is the change of the old soldiers creed tho the warrior Ethos creed

Looking at the 2 togethere the change in attitudes of the US army is apparent.

I'm trying to find the 2 at the moment and as soon as I do I'll post them up.

ilivetolearn · 30-05-2009 12:17pm

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Is this a valid thread for this forum? No, i dont believe so.

This is a conspiracy theory forum that caters for the discussion and debate of conspiracy theories. Your entitlement to believe (i.e. your opinion) whether or not this is a valid conspiracy theory does in no way negate the fact that it may very be. Simply put one by way of entitlement to his or her opinion may also choose to believe that the complexion of the sky is tartan; one will still never be correct.

Conversely I acknowledge that this also applies to my own arguments since they too are limited to the entitlement of my own opinion within this forum. On that note lets discuss exactly what a conspiracy theory is:

According to Wikipedia:

A conspiracy theory is a term that has come to refer to any tentative theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government".

This theory in question contextually exhibits idiosyncratic Machiavellian motifs such as self-serving malevolence, exploitation and deceit (please note that I'm arguing the validity of proposition of the theory for discussion rather than the validity of the theory itself).

Why not simply Google it?
http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&q=abu+ghraib+conspiracy

You should find a healthy volume of conspiracy theorist web sites discussing the theory in question. Why shouldn't it be good enough for us? You should find an article even by the dreaded mainstream MSNBC (Associate Press) as the third search result. The fact that its a more accepted and tamer theory should in no way allow you to make the cognitive leap that its not a valid theory for discussion.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

There was no theory. But they "conspired" to cover it up!
Its liek law spk: "conspiracy to commit murder" etc.

If this is the nucleic crux of your argument than I suggest that you work it retrospectively. Could the alleged NWO plots for depopulation and eugenics not fall under your suggested legal language of "conspiracy to commit mass murder" (I'm referencing these theories rather than advocating them)? Admittedly I hardly possess a scholarly grasp of legal terminologies but based on the rational you've presented thus far most theories found on this forum are not in fact valid for proposition nor discussion.

For us to progress further on this debate it would be beneficial if you could present to me one conspiracy theory that under your stringent and aforementioned criterion that you deem valid for discussion (you don't necessarily have to advocate the theory). Pre-empitively you should try to prepare a distinction between your selected theory and my proposed theory in light of each of their respective validations for discussion on this forum. I'm assisting you with your rebuttal purely because I respect your opinion and wish to find a common ground rather than merely proving you wrong but right your rationale just doesn't hold any weight in terms of your submissions on this matter to date.

ilivetolearn · 30-05-2009 12:35pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm trying to find the 2 at the moment and as soon as I do I'll post them up.

I'd be interested in reviewing what you find MC. Cheers!

6th · 30-05-2009 1:13pm

Lads this isnt a thread for discussion this forum - please stay on topic. If you dont think a thread belongs here then report it - if no mod moves it then you dont have to post in it.

ilivetolearn · 30-05-2009 1:36pm

Here's a link to the older photographs from some time ago which I'm sure most of you are familiar with:

*caution: disturbing images - I've refrained from posting the images directly...

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2008/02/gallery_abu_ghraib

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/ted_zimbardo

Can anyone shine any light on when we might be privy to the latest images if at all?

Martyr · 30-05-2009 6:01pm

Why would anyone be surprised at all? look what soliders did to Abeer Qassim Hamza and her family.

The young girl was only 12 years old when the soldiers of the u.s army gang-raped her, shot her and family to death, then tried to hide evidence of the crimes by burning the bodies..

Only reason america are in iraq is to steal oil, nothing else.

We'll never know everything that happened, and all the people involved in torture and abuse will get away with it.

look at blackwater, they hire homicidal maniacs to go into iraq and have complete immunity from prosecution.

they're all sick bastards, most of them enjoy this behaviour, thats why they go there.

Oracle · 30-05-2009 10:37pm

It's interesting whenever people behave very violently and abusively the word "evil" rears its head. These soldiers committed brutal, violent and very abusive acts. They did not "become evil" by some strange process or army sub-culture in Iraq. I think thats just a way to minimise their actions and let them evade responsibility.

Diogenes · 30-05-2009 11:43pm

I'm sorry when did people get so insanely naive? Did you just buy US wartime propaganda? Did you really believe that this time US troops would behave in a whiter than white manner?

Do you think US troops in WW2 never murdered German prisoners of war, or looted? The US didn't commit war crimes during Korea, or Vietnam? Haven't you heard of Mai Lai?

Pssst the reason most of marched against the war is because we felt these were things that would happen. It's just weird that some people seem to think that the US troops would act in some super human manner.

These are men and women in highly stressful situations, given the ability to act with near impunity, any competent psychologist will tell you that it will lead to damaging and reprehensible behaviour.

The obvious cynical comparisons between the US regime's in Abu Garbib, should be drawn to Saddam era Abu Garbib, or a Soviet era Gulag, or a Nazi camp, or a Kmer Rouge Camp, or indeed any half dozen regimes that exist or have existed within the last 50 years.

While the US military's actions have been invariably to try and block the worst PR disasters, but these atrocities are a matter of public record thanks to a free and open media, some criminal charges have been issued (not enough), and reform has happened or is promised.

And while this is delivered with dragged feet, and defensive language, it still happens, somethin that wouldn't happy under Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler. So which would you prefer?

Nick_oliveri · 31-05-2009 6:25pm

Diogenes wrote: »

While the US military's actions have been invariably to try and block the worst PR disasters, but these atrocities are a matter of public record thanks to a free and open media, some criminal charges have been issued (not enough), and reform has happened or is promised.

And while this is delivered with dragged feet, and defensive language, it still happens, somethin that wouldn't happy under Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler. So which would you prefer?

I agree with the rest of your post. These actions are done in the guise of spreading democracy and freedom. And no, I dont believe all the atrocities were a matter of public record. You would have to agree that there is more than likely a lot more "acts" that have slipped through.

Of course any poor Iraqi can accuse a regiment or troop of a serious crime against them or their families. When it comes down to it, the US army and the MOD will try to save face. Without hard in your face evidence, such as "those pictures" or "believeable" witnesses, it seems truly an uphill stuggle, or actually, more of a brick wall.
And thats kinda sad, given that Iraq is the new "Democracy", and they are now "free".

There are many courageous reporters and cameramen and women in the battlefield. I dont doubt them for a second. But to think Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident. Or that the people who carried out these acts will be punished correctly for their crimes... That goes against what they were fighting for (after the WMD lies). Liberation, Freedom etc.

Bollocks I say.

And while im at it. Those ****s that threw the bombs over innocents in Iraq and Gaza (and those few rockets over israel) and any other urban area are nothing but cold blooded dirty killers. I truly believe that the Americans aren't naive enough to think that their actions wont create a whole new army of "terrorists".

These lads will be driven by the thirst for revenge for their mutilated or killed families, Wives, Mothers etc. And they worry about letting some of those innocents go from Guantanamo...Wtf.

What invisible/elusive army can they fight next?

US Army for dummies, How to Fight Terrorism Chapter 1.
"Lie"
"Bomb Civilians"
"Create more Terrorists"
"Iraqis are Terrorists?"

Durrr.

Mahatma coat · 03-06-2009 7:16am

Finaly found the thing I was lookin for.

just read the 2 Creeds, the diference is palpable

one talks about honour and respect and upholding values

the oter talks about Warriors and missions and Defeating the enemy above all.

Just another little bit of craziness we can thank the NeoCons for

old Creed wrote:

I am an American Soldier.
I am a member of the United States Army -- a protector of the greatest nation on earth.
Because I am proud of the uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation it is sworn to guard.

I am proud of my own organization. I will do all I can to make it the finest unit in the Army.
I will be loyal to those under whom I serve. I will do my full part to carry out orders and instructions given to me or my unit.

As a soldier, I realize that I am a member of a time-honored profession--that I am doing my share to keep alive the principles of freedom for which my country stands.
No matter what the situation I am in, I will never do anything, for pleasure, profit, or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit, or my country.
I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform.

I am proud of my country and its flag.
I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent, for I am an American Soldier.

new version wrote:

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

King Mob · 03-06-2009 12:03pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Finaly found the thing I was lookin for.

just read the 2 Creeds, the diference is palpable

one talks about honour and respect and upholding values

the oter talks about Warriors and missions and Defeating the enemy above all.

Just another little bit of craziness we can thank the NeoCons for

Yep that's it, they changed the creed and suddenly all the American soldiers lost their morals and self respect.
Which one of those were they using during Vietnam?

Mahatma coat · 05-06-2009 11:09am

neither creed was used in Vietnam, thats the point, the first one was written as a counter to the horrors that were perpetrated in Vietnam, and in fairness its a fairly well balanced creed if you want to stamp out that sort of thing, the second one is apparently Rummys creation

ilivetolearn · 06-06-2009 9:47am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

neither creed was used in Vietnam, thats the point, the first one was written as a counter to the horrors that were perpetrated in Vietnam, and in fairness its a fairly well balanced creed if you want to stamp out that sort of thing, the second one is apparently Rummys creation

Cheers for those MC. There's certainly a difference in the choice language of each creed.

Disky · 06-06-2009 10:03am

Rape and torture of innocent civilians by the American troops????

I thought they were going to free the middle east from tyranny, bring them democracy, you know, maybe the media have been lying.

Overheal · 07-06-2009 5:34pm

>20 soldiers, in a confined situation, hardly represent the US Military at large.

polishpaddy · 07-06-2009 6:13pm

The us military at large just like to em invade and murder people.
Nice bunch. Hope them sick people get major jail time.

King Mob · 07-06-2009 7:01pm

That's right kids, be sure to generalise as many people as quickly as possible.

Sofa_King Good · 09-06-2009 6:00pm

King Mob wrote: »

That's right kids, be sure to generalise as many people as quickly as possible.

It's not generalising to be critical of any nation that has dropped atomic bombs, fired depleted uranium shells onto civilians, sanctions torture, overthrows democratically elected leaders, rendition etc etc. I guess thats all okay though?

King Mob · 09-06-2009 6:23pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

It's not generalising to be critical of any nation that has dropped atomic bombs, fired depleted uranium shells onto civilians, sanctions torture, overthrows democratically elected leaders, rendition etc etc. I guess thats all okay though?

Would you like to accuse me of kicking puppies too?

But no that's not generalising.
This is:

The us military at large just like to em invade and murder people.
Nice bunch.

But yea every single person who is or has been part of the US military is a heartless, baby eating killer.

ilivetolearn · 09-06-2009 6:35pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

It's not generalising to be critical of any nation that has dropped atomic bombs, fired depleted uranium shells onto civilians, sanctions torture, overthrows democratically elected leaders, rendition etc etc. I guess thats all okay though?

I'm with SKG when it comes to generalization.

There's a big difference between generalizing individual persons and listing a nations actions. The former is abstract whereas the latter is clincally linear.

In my opinion and to list but one action of a nation as an example, America as a nation is an aggressive imperialism with their bases abroad in thirty six countries. This does not mean that I will make the generalization that its people are aggressive and autocratic.

Overheal · 11-06-2009 12:39am

Thats fine. But the insinuation that every US soldier is an Abu Ghraib case is highly offensive.

cloudymouse · 13-06-2009 3:29am

War is a crazy thing and in no way am i trying to justify any of the horrors that happen .
In a war situation there are very few if any regulations that we as a societity place on people.
Thou shall not kill or as us athiests would say dont murder. This does not hold true in war.
Every misfit ,pedophile and rapist is given cart blanche unless they are reported by a witness (not a clever thing to do, superiors dont like the hastle) then it is moved to a higher chain of command.
There are far more worse things than this happening all over the world, but i for one am happy that this one was accounted for.

U.S. Military Investigator Confirms Women and Children Were Raped At Abu Ghraib

Comments