[version]

Silly fools they are, although I've read that they were actually being helped by some US Government agency in their dirty deeds there, but as usual, in the face of evidence, the US denies this.

These guys are terrorists and should be left to Afghani justice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3568670.stm

[phoenixboy70]

excellent.

i think lindey england and her boyfried should be tried in front of an iraqi court as well.

i also find it disgusting that the people actually responsible for the crimes going on at abu ghraib are shielded by the american military and the neocon govt.

the despicable human beings england and that unspeakable are, i personally believe they were only "carrying out orders". who were the one's giving these orders? the cia? other organizations?

it's time that the "n�rnberg" trials begin in iraq...

EDIT: yes, cheating the word filter is oh-so-difficult.

[version]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
excellent.

i think lindey england and her boyfried should be tried in front of an iraqi court as well.

i also find it disgusting that the people actually responsible for the crimes going on at abu ghraib are shielded by the american military and the neocon govt.

the despicable human beings england and that fu<k are, i personally believe they were only "carrying out orders". who were the one's giving these orders? the cia? other organizations?

it's time that the "n�rnberg" trials begin in iraq...

You are so right there my friend. There is such a wilful disregard for the basic notion of international law, and decency going on just now. Such basic principles that Bush is extolling in justifying his war on the world, and yet when the chickens come home to roost, the hypocrasy he eschews is palpable when he does nothing but to protect the guilty.
Of course, some would argue that the rule sof this war are different, but does that mean they are to be made up on the spot? That on one hand they talk of liberty, justice, and equality with freedom; yet they don't apply it to themselves when they should be?

Who are the juges monitoring what the US does? Where are the courts to examine if these nations are bewhaving in a legal manner? Where lies the international court and the US? If Bush can dictate the terms on how other countries should behave, then who is telling the US how to act on the world arena? Who is watching them? How much power do they have to bring charges against them? No-one.

Lead by example, not by words.

Gitmo bay is a perfect example.

Who can trust such a body of people like this Government?

[BlackGriffen]

I wonder if letting the Iraqis try England et al would help the situation there? Would it improve how much Iraqis trust the US? Would it mollify, somewhat, the tempers of the insurgents? Would it make things worse as new things are learned in a public trial?

I dunno. I certainly wouldn't mark it a loss to throw sadistic, psychotic fcuks like that to the wolves. They betrayed their country by engaging in their sick little games, and were dumb enough to take pictures, so I certainly don't see how the U.S. owes them any loyalty.

Not sure. *shrug*

BlackGriffen

[Millennium]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
excellent.

i think lindey england and her boyfried should be tried in front of an iraqi court as well.

Indeed, they should. It's worth noting that failing this, they are being tried, and it doesn't look as though they're going to get off easy.

i also find it disgusting that the people actually responsible for the crimes going on at abu ghraib are shielded by the american military and the neocon govt.

And who are they? It seems to me that the perpetrators are getting tried. Who else would be responsible for this?

the despicable human beings england and that unspeakable are, i personally believe they were only "carrying out orders". who were the one's giving these orders? the cia? other organizations?

Evidence, please?

The ones responsible for the atrocities there are facing justice. And when the truth comes out -that this was some sick form of puerile "hazing"- we will find this to be even more damning to our culture than any kind of conspiracy could have been. Even if the orders went as high as Bush himself it would not be as sickening, because if it was indeed some kind of "hazing" then the orders came not from any official, but from the people themselves, from anyone who has ever tolerated this form of bullying in any other institution.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The ones responsible for the atrocities there are facing justice.

i dunno, you tell me. i know a bit about psychology though, and what certain people might be capable of doing and what they aren't. i don't believe a person like lindey england wakes up one morning and starts thinking that stocking naked iraqi prisoner's on top of each other and then taking "thumbsup" shots is a good idea.

even if not in detail, somebody explicitly ordered them to do this (she herself has said this in various interviews).

WHO are the people ordering these things? who do they answer to? why aren't we getting any names...

and should the blame lead all the way back to the us govt. - it would make no difference?

i'm sorry, that would absolutely mean "game over" for bush and his band of neocon crooks. anything else than a complete and total resignation from his office would be an international scandal without precedence. secondly it would finally take the mask of the current us regime and expose them for the fascists that they are.

of course, up until now, the army has been successful in covering up all leads. who knows. my bet is we'll never find out (until it's too late). england and her sidekick will be the sacrificial lambs...

[Millennium]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
i dunno, you tell me. i know a bit about psychology though, and what certain people might be capable of doing and what they aren't. i don't believe a person like lindey england wakes up one morning and starts thinking that stocking naked iraqi prisoner's on top of each other and then taking "thumbsup" shots is a good idea.

Three words: Stanford prison experiments. You'd be surprised what a little power and insufficient supervision can do to a person. What she did isn't all that far beyond what we see in our schools, including Armed Forces training. It does go beyond that, yes, but in the grand scheme not by much. This does not make the Abu Ghraib atrocities any less horrible by any means; rather, it should put our cultural tolerance of bullying into perspective as the abomination it really is.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Three words: Stanford prison experiments.

no, no no. this is NOTHING like the stanford prison experiment. people KNEW what was going on there. superiors were involved. somebody was giving orders to treat the prisoners this way.

this is so beyond the geneva conventions and the guidelines for treating pows, that no "normal" prison-guard would even attempt at doing such things.

well, i guess during the hearings somebody is going to be accused ( by the defendants)...we'll see who that is.

btw, i also agree with your stance on the "tolerance of bullying". a certain aspect of today's american society seems to be very much committed to making such behavior acceptable (univ. frats, boot camps for prison inmates etc.). it's all about de-humanizing, degradation and humiliation...some of the cornerstones of fascist ideology.

[version]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Three words: Stanford prison experiments. You'd be surprised what a little power and insufficient supervision can do to a person. What she did isn't all that far beyond what we see in our schools, including Armed Forces training. It does go beyond that, yes, but in the grand scheme not by much. This does not make the Abu Ghraib atrocities any less horrible by any means; rather, it should put our cultural tolerance of bullying into perspective as the abomination it really is.

Why not condemn it outrght, rather than thinly disguised justification because we see such examples elsewhere in society?

What all those soldiers did was horrendous, no justification at all for it. There is an extra sense of burden on soldiers in that they are representative of a nation abroad, all the while their mandate is to lead by example based on the words of the Commander-in-Chief. They failed that, they deserve a punishment as severe as the crime, plus, the nation should be held accountable.

[CreepingDeth]

Unspeakable? Saddam is unspeakable. Hitler is wicked.
You loonies are amusing. You call something mild compared to real evil, despicable, then act like terrorist sympathizers. I'm more concerned about Al Sadr and the be-headers, than some ugly girl.

[version]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Evidence, please?

You haven't been following the news by the sound of it. Simple denials by the generals in involved is not enough when it comes to the soldiers claiming they were commanded to do so.

There is enough evidence, and documentary proof out there that these unholy acts were sanctioned right the way up, in fact leading to Rumfsfield in some quarters. Combine this with a policy that was developed by the US for inmates in Gitmo.

You might choose to be selective in how you interpret the evidence, and accusations hat have come out, but the fact remains that there is enough mud flying around that these acts were not just nutter soldiers acting dumb.

If you want, I suggest getting in touch with the Associated Press, and the BBC's Mid-East correspondents on this one, they wil suplly you with enough data for you to make your mind up.

[version]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Unspeakable? Saddam is unspeakable. Hitler is wicked.
You loonies are amusing. You call something mild compared to real evil, despicable, then act like terrorist sympathizers. I'm more concerned about Al Sadr and the be-headers, than some ugly girl.

So you'd rather scurry away the implications of these acts of violence because it's serving a higher purpose? You talk of Hitler, Saddam. But isn't the US the nation that commited heinous acts during the Vietnam conflict?

You don't go around spouting off how you are removing dictators, when you're own justifications for war, combined with your actual actions during them, are called into question. there's enough material out there to put Blair and Bush on trial. Which is what many international lawyers have been formulating, plus some of the UK's very own Polticians.

[version]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Al Sadr[/B]

You reveal yourself here with too much black and white rhetoric.

What do you really know of Al-Sadr? I'm interested.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
You call something mild compared to real evil

/i was going to say something really rude, but it would just get me banned from the forum again...

[CreepingDeth]

Excuse me? Millions freed from a major scumbag? War crimes? What the Hell are you talking about? Should we have put FDR, Truman, and Ike on trial at Nuremberg, instead of the Nazis?
No, no matter what Kerry says, he has no evidence of war crimes. He can't name a single one. I'd like you to name a dozen war crimes.
So, in your perverse world, Bush=Hitler?

Okay, fine. I have a plan. Since alot of people died, let's ship the Jews back to Auchwitz, get a neo-fascist back in power in Italy and Germany, put Saddam back in power, get Momar some help with his country. give Castro funding, and put everything back where it was before we ever went to war, because if we attack EVIL, we will become evil.
That doesn't make sense.


Mommy, the put panties on my head! Don't look at the mass murderer, look at the little idiots who "tortured" me!

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by version:
You don't go around spouting off how you are removing dictators, when you're own justifications for war, combined with your actual actions during them, are called into question. there's enough material out there to put Blair and Bush on trial. Which is what many international lawyers have been formulating, plus some of the UK's very own Polticians.

[version]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
<---snipped--->

I'm sorry, but you're rambling to me. I never realised there were just two opposing extremes without any in-between.

Hitler? Bush? I don't get it. So Bush can do what he likes without being called into question, so long as it doesn't involve concentration camps? Im sorry, but there's too much middle-ground there for the likes of Bush to walk around in, without being allowed to believe he is culpable of war crimes, or unjustified aggression.

So we aren't allowed to call into question his actions because... some believe this is a just cause he is on?

Sorry, doesn't work like that.

[CreepingDeth]

Not getting criticized? Every week there's a new book about Bush, most of which seem like shelf filler.
Your post compared USA to terrorist countries.

[PacHead]

As I've stated here before, I have yet to see any evidence of any torture. Show me the pics. And holding a "thumbs up" on a pic does not qualify as torture.

Did anybody die ? Some people are making a big stink out of nothing.

The American soldiers, if found guilty should be given a couple of months in the brig for their silly behavior.

[CreepingDeth]

Then what should Saddam or OBL get?
Are they worse then that girl who "look a like a mon"?