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 > CBS obtains photos showing alleged abuse

CBS obtains photos showing alleged abuse (Page 7)
Thread Tools
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 08:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:Experiment: Watch the Reuters war footage feeds for a week. No commentary. Enlightening.]
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 08:13 PM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
And you think there aren't sadistic bastards on their side?
I don't believe I ever said there weren't.
This is human nature, not Good/Evil.....
I don't dispute that either.
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 08:33 PM
 
Originally posted by swrate:


explain me then the death of the children of Fallujah.
Cry me a river, if we were the butchers and monsters everyone wants to make us appear to be then we would have flattened the place entirely. Hiroshima would look like a sniffle compared to what we could do if we were the horrible nation foreigners mistake us to be.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 08:58 PM
 
SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. . . . I do not think it was right to put them in a pile. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. . . . I left after that.
"... its..."

This isn't one of the freaks. This is a quote from a military MP giving evidence against them.

Interesting.
     
JelloBiafra
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 09:19 PM
 
Did somebody forget to tell you all what happens in war? War is about killing the enemy whether it be by physically or psychologically. Imprisoning whomever you don't manage to kill and torturing them is just another type of death.

For all of you trying to justify our imperial corporate American mercenary squads and nuclear/biological arsenals around the world, you have failled to mentally or spiritually evolve and you should be eliminated along with the rest of them. You are parasitic tumors on humanity.

God bless the Bush Administration for showing us our true colors. Blood red and dollar green.
     
JelloBiafra
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2004, 09:29 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
Cry me a river, if we were the butchers and monsters everyone wants to make us appear to be then we would have flattened the place entirely. Hiroshima would look like a sniffle compared to what we could do if we were the horrible nation foreigners mistake us to be.
Foreigners? How do we get so many rednecks on these boards? Some of you got electricity this year so now you sit at your fancy computers and post comments like that? So you think we could have justified flattening an entire country that was no threat to us to get rid of one dictator? Don't forget, we would have had to wait years after the fallout to go in and rebuild the "fossil fuel recapturing plants" so that all that oil didn't go to waste just sitting harmlessly underground.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 05:56 AM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
Cry me a river, if we were the butchers and monsters everyone wants to make us appear to be then we would have flattened the place entirely. Hiroshima would look like a sniffle compared to what we could do if we were the horrible nation foreigners mistake us to be.
You don't understand anything of military strategies. Eventhough the USA has destructive weapons they can't use them, because the USA wants the oil of Iraq, if they massbombed Iraq with a-bombs the USA couldn't get to the oil for at least the next hundred years.

Besides, the USA doesn't want to kill the whole population, as that would mean that the USA would lose all partners in the world and would be the enemy of all nations on earth. That would mean that a lot of countries would either lead war against the USA or at least stop any economic deals with the USA. That would force the USA to lead further wars to get what they want...

The population in the USA would lose any trust in its nation, don't forget the USA's population is made of immigrants from diverse countries, and that could cause civil war...

So, eventhough the USA (or rather its governments) is the butcher, a monstrous wolve, it has to use the skin of a sheep to hide under.

Taliesin
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 09:58 AM
 
I haven't read this thread, but the Army's own investigation of this (via Hersh's article) seems to make it very clear that this kind of treatment was not isolated and appears to have been ordered by the people in charge.

The fact that one of the people giving the thumbs up in one of those pictures was the Brig. Gen. in charge of the prison should make that pretty clear.* But the Taguba report - the internal Army report from several months ago - makes it clear that these tactics were regularly used to break down the prisoners, and were not renegade soldiers at all.

[edit] * I thought I had read that the woman in one of those pictures was Karpinski herself, but maybe that's not true.
( Last edited by BRussell; May 2, 2004 at 10:38 AM. )
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 10:33 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
I haven't read this thread, but the Army's own investigation of this (via Hersh's article) seems to make it very clear that this kind of treatment was not isolated and appears to have been ordered by the people in charge.

The fact that one of the people giving the thumbs up in one of those pictures was the Brig. Gen. in charge of the prison should make that pretty clear. But the Taguba report - the internal Army report from several months ago - makes it clear that these tactics were regularly used to break down the prisoners, and were not renegade soldiers at all.
General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen �who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by �setting conditions� which were neither authorized� nor in accordance with Army regulations. �He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse,� Taguba wrote. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had �received no formal communication� from the Army about the matter.)
The shame and the horror:

General Taguba further found that Abu Ghraib was filled beyond capacity, and that the M.P. guard force was significantly undermanned and short of resources. �This imbalance has contributed to the poor living conditions, escapes, and accountability lapses,� he wrote. There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained�indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski�s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers �routinely� rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 10:34 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
I haven't read this thread, but the Army's own investigation of this (via Hersh's article) seems to make it very clear that this kind of treatment was not isolated and appears to have been ordered by the people in charge.
True dat ... if the Army itself is saying that it occurred regularly for at least several months on end, I don't understand how anyone -- even the hard core right -- is trying to play it off as "isolated" or as overblown by liberal "spin". Note that the Army apparently has many more photos and videos that they aren't releasing -- filmed by the soldiers themselves. How tame must the photos we see be in comparison to what we haven't seen? In my very first post on this topic, I came in with an open mind *hoping* that this was just a handful of rogue soldiers. But the evidence and findings of the Army's own investigation is showing that this sort of treatment was common. I wonder how many more grinning GI's faces we are not seeing in all that photographic and video evidence that is being withheld ? Though I wouldn't really care to see any of the video footage, I'd love to hear the audio from it -- I bet it be enlightening to hear wether or not the soldiers made any comments on what they were doing, where the orders came from, and if they made any statements that would reveal just how regularly they were doing this stuff.
     
Altix
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Whadya wanna know?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 01:08 PM
 
Just in the middle of reading Seymour Hersch's article on how he has evidence that Iraqi prisoner abuse is directed, and ordered by the US Intelignece serveis. Not finsished reading yet, but he has leaked memos, and documented evidnce to show this.

here's another article by him that might interest you too.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/
"Empty your mind. Be formless, shapeless, like tea. Now you put tea into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put tea into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now tea can flow, or it can crash... Be tea my Friend..." -Bruce Lee and Erilaz
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Altix:
Just in the middle of reading Seymour Hersch's article on how he has evidence that Iraqi prisoner abuse is directed, and ordered by the US Intelignece serveis. Not finsished reading yet, but he has leaked memos, and documented evidnce to show this.

here's another article by him that might interest you too.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/
You linked to the same article that BRussell brought friend.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 01:18 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
I haven't read this thread, but the Army's own investigation of this (via Hersh's article) seems to make it very clear that this kind of treatment was not isolated and appears to have been ordered by the people in charge.
There are about 138,000 troops in Iraq. At most, this appears to be something that happend at one facility. It may go beyond the 6 indicted so far. That's what the investigation will have to determine. But so far there is no evidence that it is more widespread. Jumping to conclusions doesn't alter that.

Most of those more explosive "leaks" in Hersh's article are the comments of the soldiers' defense attorneys. Their theory is that their clients were ordered to do it. It's an odd theory since the regulations don't excuse violations like this even if it was ordered. It's a theory that didn't work at Nuremberg, and didn't work in the Mai Lai trial. But that's their theory. With that in mind, it's in their interest to point the finger up the chain of command. Fine. That's why the commanding general has been suspended. Let the Army conduct it's investigation and find out the truth before smearing the rest of the soldiers.

I think it is important to underscore here that the investigation was underway long before the pictures were leaked to CBS. This isn't some cover up blown open by sleuthing journalists. It's the military inspector general's office policing its own -- which is exactly what they are supposed to do. So there is no real justification here for the standard "what's the extent of the coverup?" reflex.
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 01:33 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So there is no real justification here for the standard "what's the extent of the coverup?" reflex.
I can't find the word coverup in this thread but in your post.

I can't find either where someone hinted to something like a coverup either...
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 01:48 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
I can't find the word coverup in this thread but in your post.

I can't find either where someone hinted to something like a coverup either...
Here is one example:
Originally posted by Krusty:
I came in with an open mind *hoping* that this was just a handful of rogue soldiers. But the evidence and findings of the Army's own investigation is showing that this sort of treatment was common. I wonder how many more grinning GI's faces we are not seeing in all that photographic and video evidence that is being withheld ?
Several other posters have also suggested that this "must" be more widespread than the 6 indicted so far. But there isn't any evidence to assume that other than some speculation in a journalist's article that largely seems to be based on the self-serving statements of the defendants' defense attorneys.

Remember how the soldiers in Vietnam were smeared collectively because of the behavior of of a small number in Mai Lai. Let's not repeat that sad episode in our country's history.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 01:50 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There are about 138,000 troops in Iraq. At most, this appears to be something that happend at one facility. It may go beyond the 6 indicted so far. That's what the investigation will have to determine. But so far there is no evidence that it is more widespread. Jumping to conclusions doesn't alter that.

Most of those more explosive "leaks" in Hersh's article are the comments of the soldiers' defense attorneys. Their theory is that their clients were ordered to do it. It's an odd theory since the regulations don't excuse violations like this even if it was ordered. It's a theory that didn't work at Nuremberg, and didn't work in the Mai Lai trial. But that's their theory. With that in mind, it's in their interest to point the finger up the chain of command. Fine. That's why the commanding general has been suspended. Let the Army conduct it's investigation and find out the truth before smearing the rest of the soldiers.

I think it is important to underscore here that the investigation was underway long before the pictures were leaked to CBS. This isn't some cover up blown open by sleuthing journalists. It's the military inspector general's office policing its own -- which is exactly what they are supposed to do. So there is no real justification here for the standard "what's the extent of the coverup?" reflex.
Please don't accuse me of "jumping to conclusions" and "smearing soldiers" etc. for linking to and summarizing a news report. Thanks.

Taguba's report, according to Hersh, say that this was not simply an isolated case involving just 6 individuals who were bad one afternoon. It seems to have been systematic and ongoing. That information seems to contradict the "bad apples" line.
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 01:53 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Here is one example:


Several other posters have also suggested that this "must" be more widespread than the 6 indicted so far. But there isn't any evidence to assume that other than some speculation in a journalist's article that largely seems to be based on the self-serving statements of the defendants' defense attorneys.

Remember how the soldiers in Vietnam were smeared collectively because of the behavior of of a small number in Mai Lai. Let's not repeat that sad episode in our country's history.
And you generalized from Krusty's post to all other posters.

Maybe when you accuse people of inaccuracies or inappropriateness you could address the issues on a one on one basis.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 01:54 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Please don't accuse me of "jumping to conclusions" and "smearing soldiers" etc. for linking to and summarizing a news report. Thanks.

Taguba's report, according to Hersh, say that this was not simply an isolated case involving just 6 individuals who were bad one afternoon. It seems to have been systematic and ongoing. That information seems to contradict the "bad apples" line.
Well, I'll accuse you of misreading what the IG is quoted as saying. He said:

This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski�s brigade headquarters.) Taguba�s report listed some of the wrongdoing:
A specific unit (with an attached unit) is mentioned. Some specific individuals are mentioned and the IG recommended the diciplinary action. There is no indication that this abuse extended beyond that unit or those individuals. The systematic abuse refers to that unit, and those individuals.

If you are implying that the Army believes that it went beyond that unit, or that knowing that, the Army decided not to investigate anyone beyond it, then you are implying a coverup. But you don't have any evidence for that in Hersh's article, other than the statements of the defense attorneys.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; May 2, 2004 at 02:00 PM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 01:58 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
And you generalized from Krusty's post to all other posters.

Maybe when you accuse people of inaccuracies or inappropriateness you could address the issues on a one on one basis.
No. It's just one example. That's what I said. There are several others in this long, sad, thread.
     
kvm_mkdb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Caracas, Bolivarian Republic Of Venezuela
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 02:13 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Remember how the soldiers in Vietnam were smeared collectively because of the behavior of of a small number in Mai Lai. Let's not repeat that sad episode in our country's history.
It's not about smearing the soldiers collectively - just about everyone has been telling that to you, but - hey, it sounds like a good deflector:
if you think that the abuse was not limited to those 6 indicted, then you are accusing all 150.000 soldiers in Iraq

More of the same black/white BS.

And since you're making a comparison with My Lai:

You can always tell whether prosecutors are serious about a case by whether they go after the little guys with the big guns, or whether they start cutting plea bargains with the small fry, in order to get them to rat on the higher-ups. If they go after the little guys, like they did in the My Lai Massacre case in Vietnam, you can bet that will be the end of it. No senior commanders will be called to account.

And so it appears to be going this time. So far the "punishments," such as they are, are being strictly limited to the prison command structure, not to the officers above. This is exactly what was done with the My Lai case. No one responsible for the policies that led to that sickening massacre, or the countless others like it that went unpunished, was ever sanctioned.

Obviously everyone from General John Abezaid, and probably from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who actually visited the prison), on down knew what was going on, not only in Abu Ghraib, but in the other less publicly known prison camps where captured Iraqi insurgents are taken to be softened up for information. There have been enough reports leaking out about torture not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo, for us to know that torture is not an aberration but rather is the policy.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05012004.html

Contra a barbárie, o estudo; Contra o individualismo, a solidariedade!
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 02:31 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, I'll accuse you of misreading what the IG is quoted as saying. He said:



A specific unit (with an attached unit) is mentioned. Some specific individuals are mentioned and the IG recommended the diciplinary action. There is no indication that this abuse extended beyond that unit or those individuals. The systematic abuse refers to that unit, and those individuals.

If you are implying that the Army believes that it went beyond that unit, or that knowing that, the Army decided not to investigate anyone beyond it, then you are implying a coverup. But you don't have any evidence for that in Hersh's article, other than the statements of the defense attorneys.
I didn't misread what this report said. I said it was systematic. The report said it was systematic. You acknowledged that the report said it was systematic. I didn't say anything about a coverup. Nor did Krusty. He said he wondered how many other pictures there were. He's right that the Army didn't release those pictures. I know that no evidence has been presented that it went beyond this prison. I never claimed it did.

I hate to get into these "I never said that!" semantic arguments, but I feel like it's necessary here. The line being put out is that this was not systemic and it was just a few bad apples operating under the radar in a few isolated incidents. This investigation, as reported by Hersh, appears to contradict that. I also don't believe that a general would be relieved of command for a few bad apples in isolated incidents, or based on some unfounded allegations.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 03:03 PM
 
I think it's clear that not the whole 135000 soldiers commit torture, but the ones who don't commit torture only don't do so, because most of them don't work in a prison.

It's clear that torture is official politic in every prison in Iraq. Why do you think the US-army emprisons arbritraly Iraqis from the street, they (the US-intelligence-agencies) want information about insurgents, and the Iraqis don't talk without torture applied.

Like the report BRussel quoted 60% of the prisoners are innocent Iraqis.

Open your eyes, torture has become official politic of the USA outside of the USA, espescially commited by the intelligence agencies, but also assisted by the army.

Taliesin
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 03:49 PM
 
General Suggests Abuses At Iraqi Jail Were Encouraged

Brigadier General Karpinsky was interviewed in relation with this situation. This link provides an excerpt of a telephone interview (it is a reproduction from the New York Times).
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 03:54 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
I didn't misread what this report said. I said it was systematic. The report said it was systematic. You acknowledged that the report said it was systematic. I didn't say anything about a coverup. Nor did Krusty. He said he wondered how many other pictures there were. He's right that the Army didn't release those pictures. I know that no evidence has been presented that it went beyond this prison. I never claimed it did.

I hate to get into these "I never said that!" semantic arguments, but I feel like it's necessary here. The line being put out is that this was not systemic and it was just a few bad apples operating under the radar in a few isolated incidents. This investigation, as reported by Hersh, appears to contradict that. I also don't believe that a general would be relieved of command for a few bad apples in isolated incidents, or based on some unfounded allegations.
I think we are talking past one another. We agree that the only evidence relates to this one prison, and one unit. "Systematic' in this case means that this group didn't do things just once or by accident. They apparently did it deliberately, and more than once.

What it isn't is systematic meaning ordered by higher authority or spreading beyond this handful of soldiers. There is no non self-serving evidence to point to anything beyond the one prison. Let's be careful not to imply what should not be implied based on the objective evidence.

There also is no evidence that it was "systemic." Systemic does not mean "systematic." When you use the word systemic, you go beyond what the article said. Hersch did not use the word "systemic." Sytemic implies something much more widespread than we have evidence for, and it implies that the Army wanted them to do this. There is no objective evidence for that.

The commanding general was in command of the facility. These actions happened under her command. Under regulations, that makes her responsible whether or not she knew about the actions of her soldiers. The fact that she was suspended doesn't necessarily mean she knew about the actions of her soldiers. The fact that she isn't herself under arrest suggests to me that she didn't actually order them to do this, and she probably didn't know. But that's only matters as far as criminal responsibility. In terms of command responsibility, she is still held to account. Thus, she was suspended. Based on the reports, i haven't seen if she was formally relieved of command (that's a really big deal). But she may have been. So yes, she could be suspended based on a few bad apples. It was precisely her job to foster the kind of command where a few bad apples don't do this kind of thing.

The important thing. The really, really, important thing, is to make sure we differentiate between what we know a small group in one unit did, and what the 138,000 troops in Iraq are doing. The terrible actions of the few should not be allowed to reflect on the many.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; May 2, 2004 at 04:09 PM. )
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 04:16 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Please find the quote where they said the entire town -- every individual -- was to blame.

I don't think you will find it. You realize we could eradicate the whole place and just vaporize it. But we haven't. And won't, because we aren't the monsters you'd like to think we are.
well, not exactly the entire town, nor every individual.

In the compass post, I mentioned that I have seen since many other awful pics of torture/rape/murder inflicted to Iraqis, on the net, obviously not in the same context nor with the same people, (i.e. prison) and explained why I would not post them.

The reports I read on the net were the word �revenge� underlied were quoted from this man, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. Army spokesman, and links have �expired�. Bremer�s first reaction was analogous.

I was shocked and upset when I read them, it alarmed me about what would happen next in Fallujah, and how many innocents would �pay for� their �isolated incident� . In this thread:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=3
Anyhow, to me the following quotes have a similar shade:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...ain/index.html

U.S. Army: 'We will respond' to contractor killings
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. Army spokesman, said "we will be back in Fallujah. It will be at the time and place of our choosing. We will hunt down the criminals."

"Quite simply, we will respond," Kimmitt said.

"Their deaths will not go unpunished."

And we know their deaths did not go unpunished.

After this /\ "isolated incident" Iraqis could very well say: � we will respond to the enduring tortures (and maybe deaths) of our prisoners� so to me, it�s a paradox to think this war was all about freeing, pacifying, Iraqis and is setting a lamentable example.

That explains why i feel official excuses should be made to Iraq, in the name of the US army, so that it is clear US condemns this humiliating attitude, because, if not, my conclusion will be:

�We can have isolated incidents but if you have any, you will be severely punished.�

This position shows (imo) a bad picture of democracy.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 05:11 PM
 
There is actually quite a lot of evidence that this sort of thing is not isolated to one prison and to one unit. There have been reports ever since the start of the war of US torture of suspects. It happened in Afghanistan where people were actually tortured to death and it's happened in Guantanamo too (I believe there is a case before the UK courts on this). There was a thread here about a guy dropped off at a hospital in Iraq by GI's who had been electrocuted into a coma. Amnesty started mentioning torture by US soldiers in Iraq in July 2003 (before these incidents happened) and they have reported regularly on it since then.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in564095.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0723-01.htm

And if you look at the latest Amnesty report, they specifically mention the fact that this is NOT isolated.

"Amnesty International has received frequent reports of torture or other ill-treatment by Coalition Forces during the past year. Detainees have reported being routinely subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during arrest and detention. Many have told Amnesty International that they were tortured and ill-treated by US and UK troops during interrogation. Methods often reported include prolonged sleep deprivation; beatings; prolonged restraint in painful positions, sometimes combined with exposure to loud music; prolonged hooding; and exposure to bright lights. Virtually none of the allegations of torture or ill-treatment has been adequately investigated by the authorities."

Time also recently reported on an insurgent who had been tortured whilst detained. I think if you read all of this together with Hersh's report, I think it's clear that there is more to this story than 6 people. That said, it's probably wise to brush this under the carpet. These 6 people need to be put away for many years and the other incidents played down so that Iraq doesn't explode. The US has a history of not punishing bad eggs properly. They can't afford to just slap these people on the wrists this time.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 06:54 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
You linked to the same article that BRussell brought friend.
And he linked to the same article as me.

Catch up guys.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 07:14 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The important thing. The really, really, important thing, is to make sure we differentiate between what we know a small group in one unit did, and what the 138,000 troops in Iraq are doing. The terrible actions of the few should not be allowed to reflect on the many.
I agree with that, but I haven't said that, and it would be really dumb to say that. The questions, IMO, are 1) how many common Iraqis will believe that, and 2) whether these people were acting on their own or were ordered/permitted to do this kind of thing.
     
Altix
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Whadya wanna know?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 08:04 PM
 
Well, seems likie a couple of soldiers have come forward to claim that hundreds of photos showing Iraqis POW abuse were being swaped ariund.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3679177.stm


Like Blair said, we went rto Iraq to show them that thius type of behaviour was a thing of the past,, but now look.
"Empty your mind. Be formless, shapeless, like tea. Now you put tea into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put tea into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now tea can flow, or it can crash... Be tea my Friend..." -Bruce Lee and Erilaz
     
Altix
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Whadya wanna know?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 08:14 PM
 
A little story about soldiers is needed here, I'l just mention the highlights.

There was once a great Persian poet who wrote of a battle in which the coommander of the winning arny asked his troops to go down into a town, which had been overtajen by them, to gather some salt. The troops returned with the salt, but also after plundering what was left, raping the woman, torturing the men, and even burning the trees down.

Some things don't really change. If armies are composed of people of all backgrounds, is it any wonder they are capable of utter horror? Is it so hard to believe that a conquerng army is any better than the so-called 'evil' people they have beaten?

Personally, I loved being in the army, but I hold no illusions as to what soldiers are capable of.
"Empty your mind. Be formless, shapeless, like tea. Now you put tea into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put tea into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now tea can flow, or it can crash... Be tea my Friend..." -Bruce Lee and Erilaz
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2004, 08:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Altix:
A little story about soldiers is needed here, I'l just mention the highlights.

There was once a great Persian poet who wrote of a battle in which the coommander of the winning arny asked his troops to go down into a town, which had been overtajen by them, to gather some salt. The troops returned with the salt, but also after plundering what was left, raping the woman, torturing the men, and even burning the trees down.

Some things don't really change. If armies are composed of people of all backgrounds, is it any wonder they are capable of utter horror? Is it so hard to believe that a conquerng army is any better than the so-called 'evil' people they have beaten?

Personally, I loved being in the army, but I hold no illusions as to what soldiers are capable of.
Actually, put any group of people together, remove any accountability, and give them full control, and you may see the same happen again. I believe that the more people are exposed, and the less likely they are to do funny business. The Army is probably the best place to prevent such funny businesses, as long as the chain of command is held accountable every step of the way, and publicly as well I might add.

You could give them the most humanistic purpose, and the chances for a mishap are still to be considered.

We need one another to be better.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 09:35 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Several other posters have also suggested that this "must" be more widespread than the 6 indicted so far. But there isn't any evidence to assume that other than some speculation in a journalist's article that largely seems to be based on the self-serving statements of the defendants' defense attorneys.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

There also is no evidence that it was "systemic." Systemic does not mean "systematic." When you use the word systemic, you go beyond what the article said. Hersch did not use the word "systemic."
The investigating officer's reprort (note the quotation marks indicating where the report has been directly quoted -- bolding is mine, quotes taken from a different NYT Article than the Hersch one )
The photographs, some included in evidence in the Army's investigation, support the conclusions of the Taguba report, which found that "between October and December, 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility, numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees" by members of the 800th Military Police Brigade. "This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force in Tier 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison
In addition, the report said, "there were also abuses committed by members of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, and the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center."
It has been made CRYSTAL CLEAR by the Army's own report that multiple units were involved and the report itself uses the word "systemic". No need for journalistic speculation on this point.
The Taguba report states that "military intelligence interrogators and other U.S. Government Agency interrogators actively requested that M.P. guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses." It noted that one civilian interrogator, a contractor from a company called CACI International Inc., based in Arlington, Va., and attached to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, "clearly knew his instructions" to the military police equated to physical abuse.
Again, the Army report itself is stating that brutality (though not specific as to its exact nature) by the M.P. guards was requested by interrogators. No need for self-serving defense attorney hypotheses.

The US Army has itself suggested that the abuses were "systemic" and part of a command chain going at least as high as the interrogators from Military Intelligence in its own report. Certainly there is plenty of Op-Ed opinion and speculation floating around out there but, contrary to your assertion, there is PLENTY of "objective" (to use your term) evidence as well.

You state that I (and other posters) are suggesting that it "must" be more widespread than the 6 indicted. Its the Army's own report that is leading me to this conclusion-- not Op-Ed speculation and ESPECIALLY NOT statements by defense attorneys (we all know lawyers only care about "winning" arguments )
Also, just for the record, I'm NOT stating or implying a "cover up". The Army seems to be aggressively investigating this matter internally but, so far, are holding on to a lot of the evidence and just presenting their conclusions. I'd eventually like to see all of the evidence be made available for independent (even if not fully public) review.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 09:53 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I think it's clear that not the whole 135000 soldiers commit torture, but the ones who don't commit torture only don't do so, because most of them don't work in a prison.

It's clear that torture is official politic in every prison in Iraq. Why do you think the US-army emprisons arbritraly Iraqis from the street, they (the US-intelligence-agencies) want information about insurgents, and the Iraqis don't talk without torture applied.

Like the report BRussel quoted 60% of the prisoners are innocent Iraqis.

Open your eyes, torture has become official politic of the USA outside of the USA, espescially commited by the intelligence agencies, but also assisted by the army.

Taliesin
so don't allow Ba'athists to rule and don't play games with us when we ask you to prove there's no WMD in your country.

Handle problems yourself so our soldiers won't get the opportunity to torture prisoners.

fair enuff?
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 09:57 AM
 
Originally posted by Krusty:

It has been made CRYSTAL CLEAR by the Army's own report that multiple units were involved and the report itself uses the word "systemic". No need for journalistic speculation on this point.
On the use of the word "systemic" I stand corrected.

However, on the multiple units we need to clarify. The reports all indicate that the events took place in this one prison. That's one location. There is no indication that it went beyond that one location.

Within that location were detachments from a number of units. This is common in the Army when you are dealing with specialized functions like Military Police and Military Intelligence. In garrison, they are stationed together administratively as one unit. Once they deploy, the needs change, and frequently they are spread out, detached from their own chain of command, and attached to another command. Once they are there, they functionally become quasi-members of the new unit.

When I say that these were all from one unit, what I mean is that they were all serving under the command of this one brigadier general in the prison. She was their commander, regardless of what administrative command they originated in. That's why the Hersch article said

The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski�s brigade headquarters.
Once the military intelligence unit was attached to the MPs, they fell within the MP's unit. However, individual military intelligence soldiers could be placed in command or in supervisory positions over the MPs. After all, the MI people were the more specialized soldiers than the MPs. MPs are really just cops in uniform.

In addition, command generally goes to the most senior soldier regardless of military occupational specialty. So if you had 3 privates who were MPs, 2 Specialists MPs, and a sergeant who was in the MI, the MI sergeant would generally direct the lower-ranking soldiers unless there is some MOS-specialization that made this impractical. Generally, the latter is handled by putting the NCO in charge with an understanding that he will let them direct their own activities to the extent that he isn't qualified to tell them what to do. This is very, very, common in the Army.

Another possible confusion is that "Military Intelligence" doesn't necessarily connote any special rank or secretiveness. Military intelligence includes what would be called an intelligence officer in civilian intelligence agencies, but most military intelligence people are simply ordinary soldiers. This sounds more like the latter. I just did a quick google search. It appears that the 372nd is a Reserve linguist battalion. Link So these aren't spooks, they are translators. The fact that things might have been under their direction isn't necessarily significant.

But the bottom line is that all the evidence still points to this being one isolated location and a handful of bad apples.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; May 3, 2004 at 10:02 AM. )
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 09:59 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
so don't allow Ba'athists to rule and don't play games with us when we ask you to prove there's no WMD in your country.

Handle problems yourself so our soldiers won't get the opportunity to torture prisoners.

fair enuff?
That's quite some spin you've got there.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 10:00 AM
 
It took years to refine these skillz, yo.

mad rpms.

I learned it from the Palestinians.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 10:06 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
so don't allow Ba'athists to rule...
You might want to get down to Fallujah real quick.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 10:06 AM
 
*buys airline ticket, cleans shotgun*

edit:

can I bring my bluetick hound?
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 10:10 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
. There is no indication that it went beyond that one location.
<snip> for brevity...

But the bottom line is that all the evidence still points to this being one isolated location and a handful of bad apples.
Agreed .. nobody's saying it went beyond Abu Ghraib (in fact, it was only specifically cited as "Tier 1-A" of Abu Ghraib")

However, it is now official -- 6 more officers have been given the "most severe level of administrative reprimand" and one more has been given a lighter one. This is in addition to the 6 enlisted personnel already indicted.
Link to FoxNews to pre-empt any "liberal bias" comments
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 10:18 AM
 
Originally posted by Krusty:
Agreed .. nobody's saying it went beyond Abu Ghraib (in fact, it was only specifically cited as "Tier 1-A" of Abu Ghraib")

However, it is now official -- 6 more officers have been given the "most severe level of administrative reprimand" and one more has been given a lighter one. This is in addition to the 6 enlisted personnel already indicted.
Link to FoxNews to pre-empt any "liberal bias" comments
And they should. It was their responsibility as officers and noncommissioned officers to make sure this kind of thing would not happen. All officers and NCOs understand that they have responsibility for the conduct of the soldiers under their command, whether or not they approve of that conduct, or even knew about it. It's still their command responsibility.
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 10:44 AM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
You might want to get down to Fallujah real quick.
rofl!
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 05:12 PM
 
Angry ex-detainees tell of abuse

Angry ex-detainees tell of abuse

Iraqis say they endured physical, psychological hardship in U.S. custody

By Scott Wilson

May 03, 2004 " Washington Post" -- BAGHDAD, May 2 - Day and night lost meaning shortly after Muwafaq Sami Abbas, a lawyer by training, arrived at Baghdad International Airport for an unexpected stay. In March, he was seized from his bed by U.S. troops in the middle of the night, he said, along with the rest of the men in his house, and taken to a prison on the airport grounds.

The black sack the troops placed over his head was removed only briefly during the next nine days of interrogation, conducted by U.S. officials in civilian and military clothes, he said. He was forced to do knee bends until he collapsed, he recalled, and black marks still ring his wrists from the pinch of plastic handcuffs. Rest was made impossible by loudspeakers blaring, over and over, the Beastie Boys' rap anthem, "No Sleep 'Til Brooklyn."

The forced exercise was even harder for his 57-year-old father, a former army general who held a signed certificate from the U.S. occupation authority vouching for his "high level of cooperation and assistance" in the days after the war._

Father and son are now free -- and angry about what they endured in a suddenly notorious U.S.-run prison system in Iraq. But months later, Abbas's three brothers are still inside Abu Ghraib prison, he said. He is their only legal advocate, trying to refute written charges that they are members of the Iraqi insurgency.

"The savagery the Americans have practiced against the Iraqis, well, now we have seen it, touched it and felt it," Abbas said. "These types of actions will grow more hostile forces against the coalition, and this is the reason for the resistance."
(...)
Apparently, this started as early as July. Whoever left the prison, or had contacts in that prison, amongst the Iraqi population, must have talked about it. Difficult not to see that as a potential trigger of anger from then...
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2004, 05:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*buys airline ticket, cleans shotgun*

edit:

can I bring my bluetick hound?
Hell, I'm with ya. Let's go!


2 hillbillies + 2 shotguns + 1 ounce of chronic = a safer ME


dig?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:40 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
You don't understand anything of military strategies. Eventhough the USA has destructive weapons they can't use them, because the USA wants the oil of Iraq, if they massbombed Iraq with a-bombs the USA couldn't get to the oil for at least the next hundred years.

Besides, the USA doesn't want to kill the whole population, as that would mean that the USA would lose all partners in the world and would be the enemy of all nations on earth. That would mean that a lot of countries would either lead war against the USA or at least stop any economic deals with the USA. That would force the USA to lead further wars to get what they want...

The population in the USA would lose any trust in its nation, don't forget the USA's population is made of immigrants from diverse countries, and that could cause civil war...

So, eventhough the USA (or rather its governments) is the butcher, a monstrous wolve, it has to use the skin of a sheep to hide under.

Taliesin
Conclusion: the U.S. really isn't that bad afterall.

If we *really* wanted the oil we would have taken it 10 years ago. We could manufacture a crisis in Saudi Arabia or even Venezuela. It's far easier getting oil across the Caribbean than two oceans. This notion about the war in Iraq being only about oil is getting old and weak.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 02:09 AM
 
The fact that we haven't nuked France into a glassy smoking crater should stand as a rock-solid testament to the fact that Americans are nice folks.


edited:

yes, you can quote that statement for use on your MacNN signature. It does, indeed, meet the (rather draconian and somewhat juvenile-minded) guidelines that the (rather draconian and somewhat juvenile-minded) administrative staff posted somewhere as a lame-ass sticky, or something.

edited v1.1:

Or simply post only pro-Apple, pro-leftwing liberal democrat anti-dubya rhetoric >

and bloody well get away with having a signature with forty-six megapixel jpeg satellite image and the full king james version bible text.

it's your choice.

follow the guidelines or kiss ass.
( Last edited by Spliffdaddy; May 4, 2004 at 02:17 AM. )
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 03:53 AM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
Conclusion: the U.S. really isn't that bad afterall.

If we *really* wanted the oil we would have taken it 10 years ago. We could manufacture a crisis in Saudi Arabia or even Venezuela. It's far easier getting oil across the Caribbean than two oceans. This notion about the war in Iraq being only about oil is getting old and weak.
Again, you are wrong, it's not only about getting the oil, it's also about having the power to control oil-prices, and it's about the power to control the economies of Japan, China and Europe who are getting nearly 100% of their oil from the middle-east.

George Bush senior decided not to invade Bagdad because he hoped that the Shia-population and the Kurd-population would topple Saddam Hussein, so that the US-army wouldn't have to fight a bloody war. Remember, at that time there was no UN-embargo, and the Iraq-army was still powerful , motivated, and well equipped.

12 years embargo and UN-inspections (many heavy weapons were destroyed) have definetly weakened Iraq's army and its motivation. Besides the Shia and Kurd-rebellion was beaten down by Saddam Hussein with the help of chemical weapons. How many were killed during that rebellions through chemical weapons? 10,000-20,000 Iraqis?

So, George W. Bush junior, fought a war against an Iraq that was not only nearly disarmed and demotivated, but whose population was also physically weakened through the 12-year embargo.

In the last few years Saddam Hussein had only control of Bagdad, Tikrit and Falludscha, the Shia- and Kurds-regions had a sort of autonomy.

George W. Bush junior and his staff saw an opportunity to win a big deal without really having to fight or die for. The future will show if the deal was really that good or if it will turn sour.

Taliesin
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 04:58 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The fact that we haven't nuked France into a glassy smoking crater should stand as a rock-solid testament to the fact that Americans are nice folks.
You realise that if you did that, you'd have about 10 seconds to gloat in your victory before France nuked you back!
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 05:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
You realise that if you did that, you'd have about 10 seconds to gloat in your victory before France nuked you back!
Troll,

you can't expect from everyone to know that not only the USA has a-bombs, but also France, Britain, China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, North-corea, Iran, maybe also: Syria, Lybia and Japan.

Taliesin
     
Splinter
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: with stupid
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 05:45 AM
 
I dont belive it... inform the presses for once I agree with Tal.
What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth. Yiddish proverb
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 07:43 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Again, you are wrong, it's not only about getting the oil, it's also about having the power to control oil-prices, and it's about the power to control the economies of Japan, China and Europe who are getting nearly 100% of their oil from the middle-east.
I wasn't aware that Iraq = OPEC.

George Bush senior decided not to invade Bagdad because he hoped that the Shia-population and the Kurd-population would topple Saddam Hussein, so that the US-army wouldn't have to fight a bloody war. Remember, at that time there was no UN-embargo, and the Iraq-army was still powerful , motivated, and well equipped.

They ran like girls from the invading coalition forces.

12 years embargo and UN-inspections (many heavy weapons were destroyed) have definetly weakened Iraq's army and its motivation. Besides the Shia and Kurd-rebellion was beaten down by Saddam Hussein with the help of chemical weapons. How many were killed during that rebellions through chemical weapons? 10,000-20,000 Iraqis?

Yet in the same token people complain about Iraqis dying while being liberated from the very same dictator. I guess it's OK to kill civilians if it's the Arab leader doing it.
     
 
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 12:17 AM.
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.,