Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > You thought the USA pix were bad ? lol

You thought the USA pix were bad ? lol
Thread Tools
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 02:25 PM
 
Ok, so there were a few idiotic USA soldiers at the prison camp, and they posed with some naked prisoners, and they many even have done a few worse things. These stupid soldiers are surely regretting their not so bright behavior now. These pretty harmless pictures have caused world wide outrage amongst some sensitive types and the PC crowd. OMG - a naked Iraqi prisoner ! The outrage ! The disgust ! The humiliation ! Please. . . . . .

Get ready for the real prison videos coming out soon. (Saddam videos, that some people love and defend.)

Two beheadings, during one of which "Happy Birthday, Saddam" is being sung in Arabic.

Fingers being cut off one by one from a hand tied to a board.

People being thrown off four-story buildings, one forced to wear a Superman costume.

A man scourged ninety-nine times.

Three different instances of gas poisonings (probably employing different types), including dead babies.

Now, Im just waiting on somebody to come and claim that a naked prisoner is worse than mutilation, beheading, murder, gassing and other nice ways of dying. Now, this doesn't excuse the behavior of a few American soldiers (who are being dealt with), but it shows that there is no comparison whatsoever between the two. The prisons were better under Saddam, some not so intelligent people have claimed. I guess these videos will prove otherwise.



I'm sure they will be popping up soon, some arab station has them I read.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 02:41 PM
 
Which of the following should be conservatives' new motto for America?

America: No PC Geneva Conventions here.
America: We don't behead people.
America: We only torture people we think might be guilty of something really serious.
America: Our prisons are really no different than a Roger Mapplethorpe exhibit.
America: We're not as bad as Saddam.

[edit] I noticed in an article today that one of the MPs involved in the Abu Ghraib abuses has a countersuit against the US for interrogating him for 20 hours and not letting him sleep.
     
PacHead  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 02:45 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Which of the following should be conservatives' new motto for America?

America: No PC Geneva Conventions here.
America: We don't behead people.
America: We only torture people we think might be guilty of something really serious.
America: Our prisons are really no different than a Roger Mapplethorpe exhibit.
America: We're not as bad as Saddam.
I wouldn't know, since I'm not a conservative.

Regardless, plenty of people have compared the two, and guess what, they are dead wrong, something the facts show time and time again.
     
TheMosco
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 03:09 PM
 
Why, when people bring up the abuse not being really abuse, forget to mention the situations where prisoners were murdered, raped, and assaulted with military dogs? This goes far beyond the naked pictures we have seen so far. Not to mention that the Red Cross claims that 70 to 90 percent of the prisoners are guilty of nothing and were arrested by mistake. Thats means that there is a good chance that some of these people that were humiliated and assaulted were innocent of any wrong doing. And why do they keep claiming that its only a few americans when the allegations of abuse are spread out over at least 10 different facilities in Iraq?

Honestly, this is sickening. "well, sadam was worse so its ok if we treat these people like animals" We are supposed to be better than these horrible people. We shouldn't have prisoners murdered, sexually abused, and assaulted. If we treat these people like animals what separates us from them? Its like saying that we are less bad so that makes everything ok.

"These people beheaded an american, they don't deserve to be treated decently" Then whats the point of us being in iraq? What happened to this high road that we supposedly went into iraq with? What happened to the justice that we claimed to be bring to iraq? This is supposed to be the time where we show the true colors of the US, not to partake in the same things that we condemn. If we don't do that, we are no different than the enemy.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
V
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 03:13 PM
 
Yes they are bad, no matter what Saddam did. Your argument is sophistic. So your thesis is wrong (tortures by the american soldiers are not bad because Someone had did worst before). The morality is in the act, not in a scale of comparison.

You should ashamed by having to compare schemes of this country (once a proud world leader for rights and liberty) and those made by the disgusting regime of Hussein.
     
TheMosco
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 03:19 PM
 
Originally posted by V:
Yes they are bad, no matter what Saddam did. Your argument is sophistic. So your thesis is wrong (tortures by the american soldiers are not bad because Someone had did worst before). The morality is in the act, not in a scale of comparison.

You should ashamed by having to compare schemes of this country (once a proud world leader for rights and liberty) and those made by the disgusting regime of Hussein.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
V
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 03:28 PM
 
We kind of wrote the same things at the same time
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 03:33 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
I wouldn't know, since I'm not a conservative.
I stand corrected. You're not a conservative, you're a conservative in denial. In any case, I wasn't necessarily directing my post at you personally, just the conservative apologia of "yeah but Saddam done worse."

Regardless, plenty of people have compared the two, and guess what, they are dead wrong, something the facts show time and time again.
The people I see comparing Iraq under Saddam to Iraq under the US most frequently are Bush/Iraq war defenders. Yeah, I've seen Bush critics compare the two in order to point out the irony of Bush's argument that the war was about liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam the torturer. I agree with you that it's pretty silly to imply there's really no difference, if anyone has done that. But much more frequently, I've seen Bush/Iraq war supporters comparing the two in order to say "we're not as bad as Saddam." I'd really prefer it if we didn't have to compare ourselves to a torturing murdering dictator in order to make our case.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 04:17 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Ok, so there were a few idiotic USA soldiers at the prison camp, and they posed with some naked prisoners, and they many even have done a few worse things. These stupid soldiers are surely regretting their not so bright behavior now. These pretty harmless pictures have caused world wide outrage amongst some sensitive types and the PC crowd. OMG - a naked Iraqi prisoner ! The outrage ! The disgust ! The humiliation ! Please. . . . . .

Get ready for the real prison videos coming out soon. (Saddam videos, that some people love and defend.)
You don't get it, do you? We all know that Saddam was a bad man ... seeing bad things done by him just isn't terribly shocking. The US is supposed to be the good guy, not the not-as-bad-guy.
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 04:33 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
[edit] I noticed in an article today that one of the MPs involved in the Abu Ghraib abuses has a countersuit against the US for interrogating him for 20 hours and not letting him sleep.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 05:50 PM
 
Saddam was a dictator brought to power by the US-administration at that time, supported by the CIA including the training and building up of his secret agency including the training on torturing, equipped with weapons including chemical weapons, etc..

Saddam was the lap-dog of the USA just like most dictators in the arabic countries. The reason he was brought to power was that he should play the counter-balance to Iran, so that a unified Iraq-Iran-country is not possible. Remember 60% of the iraqis are/were shiites, but the US brought to power a dictator of the sunnis, that made up 20% of the country's population.

So, yes Saddam was a badass but he was just a good pupil of the USA, and the USA freeing the Iraq from Saddam is just a joke, as the USA was the one to bring him to power and to support him for a long time.

The only reason for the first war against Iraq in 1991 and the one now was/is of imperialistic nature, after the coldwar was ended and the Soviet-Union was defeated.

Taliesin
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 05:58 PM
 
hahaha
     
placebo1969
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington (the state) USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 07:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
You don't get it, do you? We all know that Saddam was a bad man ... seeing bad things done by him just isn't terribly shocking. The US is supposed to be the good guy, not the not-as-bad-guy.
Yes, the US soldiers screwed up royally. But the above statement troubles me. The US should be better than what it did. But it is my understanding that the abuses happened months ago, were discovered, an investigation ensued and courts marshall (is that correct?) are being conducted. I think most people think that this is still going on.

EDIT: I have to go, I'll write more later.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 07:44 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Saddam was a dictator brought to power by the US-administration at that time, supported by the CIA including the training and building up of his secret agency including the training on torturing, equipped with weapons including chemical weapons, etc..

Saddam was the lap-dog of the USA just like most dictators in the arabic countries. The reason he was brought to power was that he should play the counter-balance to Iran, so that a unified Iraq-Iran-country is not possible. Remember 60% of the iraqis are/were shiites, but the US brought to power a dictator of the sunnis, that made up 20% of the country's population.

So, yes Saddam was a badass but he was just a good pupil of the USA, and the USA freeing the Iraq from Saddam is just a joke, as the USA was the one to bring him to power and to support him for a long time.

The only reason for the first war against Iraq in 1991 and the one now was/is of imperialistic nature, after the coldwar was ended and the Soviet-Union was defeated.

Taliesin
The US didn't install Saddam Hussein. He did that all on his own, by murdering a few dozen people. The Reagan administration tilted toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, probably in large part due to the fact that Iran had held US hostages for over a year immediately preceding the war.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 09:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Saddam was a dictator brought to power by the US-administration at that time blah blah...
So do we have Johnson to thank for Saddam, or Carter?
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 04:07 AM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
...Now, this doesn't excuse the behavior of a few American soldiers (who are being dealt with), but it shows that there is no comparison whatsoever between the two. ...

but why are you doing it then??
***
     
Ayelbourne
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scandinavia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 05:38 AM
 
Originally posted by placebo1969:
courts marshall (is that correct?) are being conducted.
As far as I know:
A single occurence is a "court-martial" (I believe it is properly hyphenated).
Multiple "courts-martial", as there is one court convened per person. Several people would await "courts-martial".

Have I got it right, Simey?
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 07:13 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
The US didn't install Saddam Hussein. He did that all on his own, by murdering a few dozen people. The Reagan administration tilted toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, probably in large part due to the fact that Iran had held US hostages for over a year immediately preceding the war.
Do you really think that killing a few persons brings you into power? Off course he was supported by the USA and its so lovely CIA. You can really easily see when the USA had its fingers in the violent changes of governments: If the US condemns the change and stops any support for that country, then the change was a legitimate change done by the population of that country and against the US-puppet-regime. If on the other hand the US keeps quiet about the change and later on officially supports the new government then you can bet that the US has installed that new government.

See Iran, the radical change in government was condemned by the USA and the new government was not supported by the USA and instead Iraq was supported, that was the reason why Iran held US-hostages, they wanted to change the US-foreign policy regarding its country.

Taliesin
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 09:43 AM
 
Can you provide any evidence aside from your own statements that the US was involved in Saddam's coup?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 09:45 AM
 
Simple really, The enemy of my larger enemy is my friend. It's the only way to go. Let someone else do your work for you. Throughout history, we have used disgruntled mobsters to break up greater mob rings. This is not a bad thing. Unless you're hell-bent on Global domination. Then it's a bad thing. In the case of human-kind; one way or another Global domination will occur. Under which system of government do you prefer to see it? While I don't appreciate the concept in general, I've made my choice.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 09:59 AM
 
The US clearly supported Hussein. It should be noted that Hussein was already in power of the Baath Party at the time. It's not like we growed 'im all up and everything, but we certainly helped him against what we considered to be the bigger threat at the time. It's puppeteering, but like I said before it's the only way to go. It's impossible to manage an ambiguous future, all you can do is put out fires as they pop up. Iran was a bigger fire at the time and we saw an opportunity for Iraq to handle it for us. I can imagine our leadership having said; "we don't have sufficient enough evidence to oust Saddam just yet, we'll deal with him later." Well, he's been dealt with.
ebuddy
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 10:17 PM
 
Wow, so Johnson set Saddam up in 1968, and that ultra-devious Carter put him in the top spot in 1979.

You gotta love loony left conspiracies.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 12:22 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Which of the following should be conservatives' new motto for America?

America: No PC Geneva Conventions here.
America: We don't behead people.
America: We only torture people we think might be guilty of something really serious.
America: Our prisons are really no different than a Roger Mapplethorpe exhibit.
America: We're not as bad as Saddam.

[edit] I noticed in an article today that one of the MPs involved in the Abu Ghraib abuses has a countersuit against the US for interrogating him for 20 hours and not letting him sleep.
Gee, when did MPs get to sue the US? I never had that available when I was in the service. Funny stuff.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
:dragonflypro:
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kuna, ID USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 02:54 AM
 
Originally posted by TheMosco:
Why, when people bring up the abuse not being really abuse, forget to mention the situations where prisoners were murdered, raped, and assaulted with military dogs?
I may be deranged I am afraid I am just gonna have to call

This is paraded out a lot. Short of the photos of the dogs barking (if you can call that assault) can you point me to any creditable link that presents real evidence of raping or murdering of prison inmates. I hear this over and over on forums but have yet to see a news source.

or is this a case of echo-head posting of things you "want" to be fact?

T
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 04:07 AM
 
Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Have I got it right, Simey?
Simey has been notably absent from these boards since around the time it's transpired that the abuses in Iraq were both systemic AND systematic.

Coincidence?


Oh, and BRussell: It's Robert Mapplethorpe, and I severely object to your comparison of the Lynndie & co. photos with his artwork. Not appropriate.

-s*
     
Gee-Man
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 04:11 AM
 
Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
I may be deranged I am afraid I am just gonna have to call

This is paraded out a lot. Short of the photos of the dogs barking (if you can call that assault) can you point me to any creditable link that presents real evidence of raping or murdering of prison inmates. I hear this over and over on forums but have yet to see a news source.

or is this a case of echo-head posting of things you "want" to be fact?

T
This is definitely real. You don't get the President of the United States apologizing to foreign leaders when it's just a misunderstanding. You don't get the Secretary of Defense apologizing in front of a congressional hearing and glumly revealing that there are "worse" photos and videos coming if it's merely a figment of some interney guy's imagination.

All you have to do is google the "Taguba report" and you'll see what the big deal is about. Click here for the full report. Samples of this report have been posted everywhere, but here's a few parts (warning - graphic descriptions ahead):
6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:
a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear womens underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing I am a Rapest (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainees neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):
a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;
f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
NO ONE so far, not the Army, not even the ones accused and about to be court-martialled, have disputed the events presented in the Taguba report, most of the controversy is centered on who is to blame, not what actually happened. What occurred appears to be beyond dispute.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 06:19 AM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Wow, so Johnson set Saddam up in 1968, and that ultra-devious Carter put him in the top spot in 1979.

You gotta love loony left conspiracies.
I don't know who was president in the US back at these times, but it doesn't matter that much. Perhaps you don't know it but most of the US's foreign policy is not crafted or invented by the diverse presidents of the USA but by organizations and structures behind the administrations.

The foreign policy the president and the foreign minister pursue are just the official foreign policies of the USA and make up only for a small part of the whole US-foreign policies which are pursued in secrecy.

There is the CIA and diverse smaller news-agencies, as well as paramilitary-organizations under the pentagon. These organizations operate often without the knowledge of the president. Sometimes he gets informed but he doesn't have much influence on them.

The president just approves the things these organizations and structures inform him about or they don't show it to the president at all, and just do it on their own in secrecy in the name of the higher interests of the holy USA.

I know it's loony conspiracies, but in the part of the world I live in these conspiracies become bloody reality.

Taliesin
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 08:44 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Can you provide any evidence aside from your own statements that the US was involved in Saddam's coup?

Yes, that's true. CIA (and other organizations) looked for possibilites against beginning communist agenda/funding. The takeover of the Baath party relied on funding/support of CIA sources, while having political "schooling" in anti-communism. Check other CIA activities in times of the "domino theory".

Quote e.g.:
"Morris says that in 1963, two years after the ill-fated U.S. attempt at overthrow in Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs, the CIA helped organize a bloody coup in Iraq that deposed the Soviet-leaning government of Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem."
from http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-morgan21403.htm


Quote e.g.:
"In 1963 Kassem was overthrown by the Baath Party, stood trial, and was later killed. Saddam Hussein is one of the assassins that that participated in assassination attempts on Kassem prior to his overthrow. The CIA assisted in the overthrow of Kassem by supporting the Kurds in their effort to overthrow Kassem as well as supporting the Baaths."
from http://www.rationalrevolution.net/iraq.htm


Quote e.g.:
"[...]Then, on February 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial he was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. "Almost certainly a gain for our side", Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.
As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.
from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/morris.htm

PB.
( Last edited by Powerbook; May 18, 2004 at 09:04 AM. )
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:55 AM
 
1963?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:56 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Oh, and BRussell: It's Robert Mapplethorpe, and I severely object to your comparison of the Lynndie & co. photos with his artwork. Not appropriate.
Go ahead and object. But maybe in between objections you'll note that everything in that list was a sarcastic caricature of American conservative statements on this issue, including that one. Do a search on abu ghraib and mapplethorpe if you don't believe conservatives would compare them.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:58 AM
 
Originally posted by Powerbook:
Yes, that's true. CIA (and other organizations) looked for possibilites against beginning communist agenda/funding. The takeover of the Baath party relied on funding/support of CIA sources, while having political "schooling" in anti-communism. Check other CIA activities in times of the "domino theory".
I didn't know the CIA was involved in the Baath party, but still none of those links suggest US involvement in Saddam coming to power, as far as I can tell.
     
gatekeeper
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 11:18 AM
 
Originally posted by Gee-Man:
All you have to do is google the "Taguba report" and you'll see what the big deal is about. Click here for the full report.
That's not the full report. The full report is around 6000 pages.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 11:45 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Do a search on abu ghraib and mapplethorpe if you don't believe conservatives would compare them.
Ugh.

:spew:

morons.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 12:16 PM
 
Do a search of abu ghraib and Nazi concentration camps, and/or virtually ANY atrocity in history ever committed if you dont believe shameless liberals would compare them.

In fact, liberals compare virtually EVERYTHING they disagree with to Nazi atrocities on a daily basis.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 12:25 PM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Do a search of abu ghraib and Nazi concentration camps, and/or virtually ANY atrocity in history ever committed if you dont believe shameless liberals would compare them.

In fact, liberals compare virtually EVERYTHING they disagree with to Nazi atrocities on a daily basis.
We do? I am a failed liberal because I don't?

I don't think Abu Ghraib compares in any way, shape or form to what the Nazis did.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 12:29 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I know it's loony conspiracies, but in the part of the world I live in these conspiracies become bloody reality.
That's just it, in the world YOU live in, mainly one that you've crafted for yourself where *everything bad* is selectively the fault of the US via some crudely constructed conspiracy.

You need to read quite a bit deeper into the ACTUAL biography of Saddam Hussein. Like most things, it goes far deeper than shallow leftwing conspiracies, in fact virtually all of the typical leftist spew that gets regurgitated about him (The US put him in power, his regime was completely secular, etc.) turns out to be false.

Also, Saddam didn't come to power in 1963, so his rise isn't to be blamed on Kennedy either. He was actually arrested after the '63 coup attempt.

The real take over took place in 1968, he was the shadow leader of Iraq behind the puppet president from that time up to his real takeover in 1979. The idea that Jimmy Carter plotted his takeover is particularly laughable!
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 12:30 PM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
We do? I am a failed liberal because I don't?

I don't think Abu Ghraib compares in any way, shape or form to what the Nazis did.
Good for you. Just pointing out that dumb comparisons go both ways.

But I think it's unarguable that the left overuses the Nazi comparison with virtually anything they disagree with on a scale that far outpaces anyone else tossing such dippy comparisons around.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 12:44 PM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
That's just it, in the world YOU live in, mainly one that you've crafted for yourself where *everything bad* is selectively the fault of the US via some crudely constructed conspiracy.

You need to read quite a bit deeper into the ACTUAL biography of Saddam Hussein. Like most things, it goes far deeper than shallow leftwing conspiracies, in fact virtually all of the typical leftist spew that gets regurgitated about him (The US put him in power, his regime was completely secular, etc.) turns out to be false.

Also, Saddam didn't come to power in 1963, so his rise isn't to be blamed on Kennedy either. He was actually arrested after the '63 coup attempt.

The real take over took place in 1968, he was the shadow leader of Iraq behind the puppet president from that time up to his real takeover in 1979. The idea that Jimmy Carter plotted his takeover is particularly laughable!
Go back to elementary school and hone your reading-skills, espescially the differentiation between what one poster has written and what another has written, and off course basic understanding of texts:
I wrote in my last post, that the diverse presidents the US has had in the last 60 years didn't have that much influence on what the CIA and other secret organizations including paramilitary troops planned and commited in the name of the holy USA. Sometimes the presidents get informed and they mostly approve it, or they aren't informed at all.

Taliesin
     
Gee-Man
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 01:03 PM
 
Originally posted by gatekeeper:
That's not the full report. The full report is around 6000 pages.
You're correct, my link isn't the complete report, it is the executive summary portion, the part which most online news sites posted along with the original story (I'm talking MSNBC and the like, not the conspiracy-minded sites). However, my point still stands, you can easily read the the summary or the entire report online.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 02:22 PM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Good for you. Just pointing out that dumb comparisons go both ways.

But I think it's unarguable that the left overuses the Nazi comparison with virtually anything they disagree with on a scale that far outpaces anyone else tossing such dippy comparisons around.
Not sure about that. "Feminazis" for example. And "Hitlery" Clinton. And on and on.

And right on the front page of http://www.gop.com/, the most mainstream of mainstreams, they compare Kerry to a cicada.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 03:03 PM
 
I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard Saddam compared to Hitler in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.
     
Gustav Gans
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cyprus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 03:59 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Ok, so there were a few idiotic USA soldiers at the prison camp, and they posed with some naked prisoners, and they many even have done a few worse things. These stupid soldiers are surely regretting their not so bright behavior now. These pretty harmless pictures have caused world wide outrage amongst some sensitive types and the PC crowd. OMG - a naked Iraqi prisoner ! The outrage ! The disgust ! The humiliation ! Please. . . . . .

Get ready for the real prison videos coming out soon. (Saddam videos, that some people love and defend.)

Two beheadings, during one of which "Happy Birthday, Saddam" is being sung in Arabic.

Fingers being cut off one by one from a hand tied to a board.

People being thrown off four-story buildings, one forced to wear a Superman costume.

A man scourged ninety-nine times.

Three different instances of gas poisonings (probably employing different types), including dead babies.

Now, Im just waiting on somebody to come and claim that a naked prisoner is worse than mutilation, beheading, murder, gassing and other nice ways of dying. Now, this doesn't excuse the behavior of a few American soldiers (who are being dealt with), but it shows that there is no comparison whatsoever between the two. The prisons were better under Saddam, some not so intelligent people have claimed. I guess these videos will prove otherwise.



I'm sure they will be popping up soon, some arab station has them I read.
Going back to the original post of this thread, and not comparing these incidents with anything like the Nazi concentration camps, or Stahlin's killings, or any other outrageous, superfluous connection, I have one thing to say: What a moron you are PacHead.

Correct arguments obviously have already been made. But let me just review: you seem to regard these abuses as a mere blown-out-of-proportion incident which really never occured? Now let me see... you don't think that soldiers piling up men into pyramids, if they fall down they will get whipped, anally penetrating them, drawing on them, putting masks over them and laughing at them (all of this naked) of course... is a serious offense? This, to my way of thinking is pretty bad....but let's consider it from an arabic perspective: Lyndie England, being a female, tortured and abused these people. In arabic customs and religion, this is the worst, disgraceful thing that could pretty much ever happen to you. You're country is being invaded by a foreign people, who say they go there simply to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but stay there anyway. Your fellow countrymen are dying every minute of the hour and then, once you're captured, they even go on and torture you?

YOU HONESTLY DON'T THINK THIS IS A SERIOUS OFFENCE?

In addition, do you, PacHead, think that every abuse has been captured on film? Do you think all of the abuses are reported or taken notice of? No. There definetly IS a comparison between the two, as you seem to be not wanting to admit.

I'm not saying that the decapitation or the abuses commited by the Iraqi's are right. None of this is right. Not even the United States' attack in the first place. None of it is. You cannot go on and excuse wrong actions by equally wrong ones. You're like a little child saying that someone took your pencil away so now you will take his away.

I really don't want to go into any further detail on this...not over such an ignorant and stupidious comment so just leave it at this.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 04:33 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Not sure about that. "Feminazis" for example. And "Hitlery" Clinton. And on and on.

And right on the front page of http://www.gop.com/, the most mainstream of mainstreams, they compare Kerry to a cicada.
Wasn't it Dick Cheney who said Saddam was a threat comparable to that of Hitler?
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Go back to elementary school and hone your reading-skills, espescially the differentiation between what one poster has written and what another has written, and off course basic understanding of texts:
I wrote in my last post, that the diverse presidents the US has had in the last 60 years didn't have that much influence on what the CIA and other secret organizations including paramilitary troops planned and commited in the name of the holy USA. Sometimes the presidents get informed and they mostly approve it, or they aren't informed at all.

Taliesin
Elementary school would be above the level of your 'arguments'.

You've yet to make ANY case for the CIA installing Saddam. You're also backpedaling from your original braindead statement of :
Saddam was a dictator brought to power by the US-administration at that time, supported by the CIA.
Well, that would be the Johnson administration and the Carter administration, supported by the CIA. Now you're backpedaling and blaming the CIA entirely, and the administrations may or may not have known about it (in which case they could hardly have brought him to power).

In other words, you're just regurgitating the usual leftwing pablum about Saddam being a US creation, and then backpeddaling and changing your spiel willy-nilly because the actual facts of Saddam's biography don't support the silly allegations.

Chalk it up to another person 'pulling a Moore'.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:17 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Not sure about that. "Feminazis" for example. And "Hitlery" Clinton. And on and on.
I don't think I've actually heard anyone make any sort of 'realistic' comparison with Feminists and nazis, it's just run of the mill name calling. Sort of in the same league as calling someone overly nosy into other peoples fashion style a fashion nazi or what-have-you. Hitlery Clinton? LOL! Again, sounds more like name-calling than anyone really saying she's a nazi. Not that such name calling isn't silly, but let's get real here.

On the other hand, you'd have to have been living in a cave to have missed leftists with intellectually dishonest straight faces ACTUALLY try and compare Bush with Hitler/Nazis and pretend they had any kind of serious argument to anyone other than other fruitcake leftists. And the same types have done so with Reagan and Bush Sr. and anyone else they've disagreed with.



And right on the front page of http://www.gop.com/, the most mainstream of mainstreams, they compare Kerry to a cicada.
The video didn't seem to be working, but how is being compared to a cicada in the same league as being compared to a Nazi? One is just purely silly, while the other is a serious charge, usually leveled in a completely gutless manner, and almost never backed by any historic fact other than someones lame re-write.

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard Saddam compared to Hitler in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Whoooosh. So now we have people actually hand-wringing about freakin' Saddam being 'maligned'? (As if one can really even say that a Hitler/Saddam comparison is even 'unfair'.)
     
gatekeeper
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard Saddam compared to Hitler in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.
I tried, but I keep getting "integer overflow". Time to upgrade to 64-bit I guess
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:34 PM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Whoooosh. So now we have people actually hand-wringing about freakin' Saddam being 'maligned'? (As if one can really even say that a Hitler/Saddam comparison is even 'unfair'.)
I'm not saying that Saddam was maligned or that the comparison is unfair, just that the Left aren't the only ones to overuse the "Nazi Comparison".

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I think it's unarguable that the left overuses the Nazi comparison with virtually anything they disagree with on a scale that far outpaces anyone else tossing such dippy comparisons around.
     
Saad
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:47 PM
 
In fact, liberals compare virtually EVERYTHING they disagree with to Nazi atrocities on a daily basis.
Cite evidence of a mainstream liberal doing this.

I seem to recall 'feminzis' from the hatmongerer himself. Though I suppose that was OK, since you agree with him.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:52 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I'm not saying that Saddam was maligned or that the comparison is unfair, just that the Left aren't the only ones to overuse the "Nazi Comparison".

Yes, but you missed the key element of context, as well as validity.

Comparing Hitler to Saddam isnt just a hollow charge based on mere disagreement with the man, but is based on elements of his actual dictatorial record. Therefore it's not in the same class of 'dippy comparisons' as was being discussed.
     
Saad
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 09:53 PM
 
More documents pertaining to the involvement of the CIA in the overthrow of the former government. Pretty reliable source.

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?n...rticle&sid=856
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,