It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon Rejects Order to Release Abu Ghraib Abuse Images

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
The photographs are superfluous. Everyone knows that there were abuses at Abu Ghraib. Everyone knows that heads have rolled, so to speak. Publication of the photos will only gratify our enemies. Only the enemy would campaign for their release.




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
is it worth the more lives that will be lost when the terrorists retaliate against innocent civilians? is it worth escalating the danger that our troops face in Iraq?


murder by numbers says that america has killed more innocent civilians(and raped men, women and CHILDREN) than the 'insurgents' have(how can you be insurgent, when you already live there? only 5% of 'insurgents' actually insurge. the vast majority of FREEDOM FIGHTERS are native iraqis. this is a great example of how newspeak twists the mind.)
the really great way to stop the danger that the troops in iraq are in, is to order them to get the hell back home. the 'difficulties' are just a stall tactic. how hard can it be? you tell the people that WANT you to leave that you're leaving, and they let you leave. it is the OIL that is hard to walk away from.


Originally posted by worldwatcher
the truth might cause some people to lose their jobs, but will it get us out of Iraq? i don't think it will, so why not just delay the truth a bit, or be less graphic about it. I mean, why not describe the video, provide a transcript, while that will certainly get attention, it will not invoke as much anger against us as vivid imagery would.


so it's 'okay' if THE LIE causes people to lose their lives, but if it's the truth, it's no longer 'okay'? the truth ROCKS! we CAN handle the truth. it is the lying criminals in the ivory towers that can't handle the truth(getting out).
democracy is BASED on transparency. when you no longer have transparency, you no longer have democracy. this is a simple truth. i know there's great potential for a bunch of obfuscation tactics to be applied to this simple truth, but it is still a simple truth. a real democracy allows equal access to ALL government functions and information. the 'national security' argument is so tired it's beginning to stagger.



[edit on 26-7-2005 by billybob]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
billybob you're taking this way out of context and bringing in a whole lot more than what needs to be in the discussion.

Facts:
Abuse at Abu Ghraib is known
We all know that there are pictures and videos
We have all the knowledge already needed to convince us to get out of Iraq
We can't get out of Iraq
Release of a video is not needed to express opposition and wishes to leave iraq.
Release of a video at this time, after the photo scandal has quieted will only incite more terror.

It's a known fact that the insurgents are Iraqis and very few remaining are foreign fighters, however it doesn't help anything to get them riled up, who suffers? Not the bigheads in washington, not the bigheads behind their desks, not the bigheads with their machine guns and tanks, it is the people, the civilians of Iraq that will suffer the most from this.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by billybob
war on terror is a prefabricated lie.


Are you being illogical or sarcastic? Is the war a "prefabricated lie" or is terror a "prefabricated lie?" It seems to me that both are deathly real and from where I stand, it's going to be a very long war, so those who are on the side of freedom better get united and get a handle on the situation or things are going to get a lot worse.


o mighty steaming crock, how dost thou continue to steameth?
that was literal.

the war is real. the terror is real(although if you go to the great new website, we're not afraid, you will see that the master plan has some holes in it).
the prefabricated lie is that the muslim extremists are truly muslim in motivation, and that the war is justified, and that the motivation of dropping all those bombs on little kids is to establish 'freedom' when the very hallmark of freedom(america) is being turned into a vast 'executive order', because of a 'state of emergency'. delicious irony, that.

of course, you would reject any such notion INSTANTLY as a byproduct of your military indoctrination.


[edit on 25-7-2005 by billybob]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
billybob you're taking this way out of context and bringing in a whole lot more than what needs to be in the discussion.

Facts:
Abuse at Abu Ghraib is known
We all know that there are pictures and videos
We have all the knowledge already needed to convince us to get out of Iraq
We can't get out of Iraq
Release of a video is not needed to express opposition and wishes to leave iraq.
Release of a video at this time, after the photo scandal has quieted will only incite more terror.

It's a known fact that the insurgents are Iraqis and very few remaining are foreign fighters, however it doesn't help anything to get them riled up, who suffers? Not the bigheads in washington, not the bigheads behind their desks, not the bigheads with their machine guns and tanks, it is the people, the civilians of Iraq that will suffer the most from this.




with all due respect, i completely disagree with you about nearly everything you just typed. i think the people of iraq do, too.
especially about the 'we can't get out of iraq' ruse.
if it is 'well known' that most fighters are iraqi, why do 'we' still call them 'insurgents'?

[edit on 25-7-2005 by billybob]

[edit on 26-7-2005 by billybob]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
we call them insurgents because the definition of insurgent is as follows:


Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.


the term insurgent has nothing to with which country they may be born in, or their religion, sect, etc. Insurgent is anyone who rebels against govt.

and you're right, we don't have to agree



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
we call them insurgents because the definition of insurgent is as follows:


Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.


the term insurgent has nothing to with which country they may be born in, or their religion, sect, etc. Insurgent is anyone who rebels against govt.

and you're right, we don't have to agree


well, there's a word i never looked up in that context. thanks for the lesson.
'established government' might be the tricky phrase in this case, as there is no established government as it was blowed up real good by america. you might say america is the insurgent, in this case.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I think that in order for a resistance against an occupation to be legitimate it does actually have to be made up of peopel from the occupied country. But its moot, since its allways illegal to target civilians, collaborators or not.

Not only that, but in afghanistan, the taliban claimed to have captured a US soldier and to have executed him, which is absolutely illegal. A US soldier meets all the qualifications for protections under the geneva conventions. Similarly, the iraqi insurgency simply can't kidnap and execute civilians, not even mercs.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The photographs are superfluous. Everyone knows that there were abuses at Abu Ghraib. Everyone knows that heads have rolled, so to speak. Publication of the photos will only gratify our enemies. Only the enemy would campaign for their release.


"Everyone knows that there were abuses at Abu Ghraib."

Do they really? Do you believe the American public knows about prisoners (male and female) being raped at Abu Gharib? Sodomized? Killed? Do you believe the American public knows these acts were committed on children?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Do you believe the American public knows about prisoners (male and female) being raped at Abu Gharib? Sodomized? Killed? Do you believe the American public knows these acts were committed on children?


Do you?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Do you?


I believe those abuses really did happen. Right now, my government is withholding all of the evidence to prove me wrong.

EDIT: And no, I don't think the public is aware that those level of abuses occured.

[edit on 26-7-2005 by curme]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There's no reason to release these photos except to gratify the perverse interest of those who post threads like this.

And You dont Want to Know what your own Goverment is Doing in Prison Camps and Calling it "Interrogation"?

You want to Blind Yourself FOREVER?

The FACT that these Pictures are SEALED just Proves one thing:

That they are HIDING Something!

By Hiding Something, you are causing even More Curiosity among the People.


[edit on 26/7/05 by Souljah]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
The only reason these photos should be released is because (if they exist) it's the truth. Way too many Americans aren't convinced of the horrors that our government is sanctioning. They simply don't believe it!

Whether or not the Iraqi citizens will be hurt is not the issue. They are already hurt. And as long as Americans support what we're doing over there, they will continue to be hurt. The advantage of releasing these pictures is that perhaps some of the supporters of this war will begin to see the truth more clearly.

People still don't believe these pictures exist. From the other 'abuse pictures' thread (names changed):


Originally posted by XXXX
Uh, what if the pictures ARE actually from Abu Ghraib prison, and do show what they supposedly show, but were taken BEFORE the U.S. invasion when saddam was still in control?

Be really easy for a bunch of U.S. bashers on ATS and elsewhere to try and pretend they were taken later when the U.S. was running the prison.



Originally posted by XXXX
These pictures aren't being released because THEY DON'T EXHIST.
'Soon to be released' yeah right. Still waiting.

'trust me they show women and children being raped' ... yeah right.


1 - We don't rape women and children. We don't rape soldiers either.
....
2 - The only ones STUPID enough to take home videos of rapes was
SADDAM and his sons. Which they did all the time.


Originally posted by XXXX

*ALSO OF NOTE:
rape of young boys in the islamic culture is about as accepted as it is in American prisons... so it is very possible that many of these pics are off IRAQIS raping Iraqi young while being incarcerated...




posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the 'insurgents' have(how can you be insurgent, when you already live there? only 5% of 'insurgents' actually insurge. the vast majority of FREEDOM FIGHTERS are native iraqis. this is a great example of how newspeak twists the mind.)


Insurgents are those who fight against their own soverign
government. The terrorists are just that - TERRORISTS and/or
insurgents. Freedom Fighters don't target civilians and children eating
candy on the street corner. Freedom Fighters don't try to overthrow
a SOVERIGN government that was FREELY elected by the people of that
country. All the idiot insurgents are doing is causing Americans and
the Coalition of the Willing to have to stay longer. When the insurgents
stop killing Iraqis and stop blowing up oil lines, then we can pull out and
go home. To call these idiots 'freedom fighters' is an afront to all true
freedom fighters around the world.

Insurgent - A person who engages in armed resistance to a government
or to the execution of it's laws; rebel. A member of a group, as a political
party, who revolts against the policies of that group.

Insurgency - Insurrection against an existing government, usually by one's
own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a billigerent.
Rebellion or revolt within a group, as by members against leaders.

[edit on 7/26/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
'established government' might be the tricky phrase in this case, as there is no established government as it was blowed up real good by america.

No. There is a government, FREELY elected by the Iraqis, in place.
Constitution and all ... Definately an established soverign government.


you might say america is the insurgent, in this case.

You might. But if you did, you'd be wrong.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFanAll the idiot insurgents are doing is causing Americans and
the Coalition of the Willing to have to stay longer. When the insurgents
stop killing Iraqis and stop blowing up oil lines, then we can pull out and
go home.


Do you really believe that?
I can image a different scenario once things calm down.
I image them saying that now things are calm we have to remain to ensure it doesn't descend into chaos again because the moment the troops leave the insurgents will try to take over again.

I think the only thing that will result in a pull out will be a continued insurgency that is too costly in lives and dollars to continue to endure.

As far as these pictures are concerned, I hope they at least show them to Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc... to show that this abuse was more than just panties on the prisoners heads.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
It would be unwise for the US to release any more horrible images from Abu Ghraib. It would jeopardize the security of even more of our troops, instill more hatred into the terrorists and cause many more to question our actions in Iraq. So unless someone leaks it, I don't think we should be seeing those videos anytime soon. It's a matter of national security.


(i hate when I forget to complete a thought:duh


[edit on 7-25-2005 by worldwatcher]


Exactly. What purpose would it serve? We already know that bad things happened there. It is no longer a breaking story, it is just pandering to people like you, Souljah.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I stand by my original post, as others responses have proved me to be 100% correct.

People in America do not want to know what their boys are doing. They woud rather be able to buy their yellow ribbonsin good conscience, and spout mindless slogans like "support our troops", although they remain intentionally blind to what it is exactly that they are expecting us to support.

Sad thing is, they do not know what our boys are doing ANYWHERE in the world, we haven't since WWII. We as a people would rather hold on to figments of national pride, and purpose, rather than face the ugly truth that we have gorwn up to be just like any other nation in the history of the earth.

RELEASE THE PICTURES NOW!!! MAKE AMERICANS FACE WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING......LET THEM KNOW THE TRUE COST OF HAVING GAS AT UNDER THREE DOLLARS A GALLON....

These pictures SHOULD be released, but as many here have already shown.......They do not want to be reminded what exactly it is that they support, deep down inside, we all now what this fight is about, and we do not want to face that, which is why we would rather not see the pictures.....

To ALL those who said the pictures should be kept secret....you are truly a traitor to your founding fathers ideals, and in many minds are guilty of the highest treason, and cowardice.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
RELEASE THE PICTURES NOW!!!

MAKE AMERICANS FACE WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING......

LET THEM KNOW THE TRUE COST OF HAVING GAS AT UNDER THREE DOLLARS A GALLON....

Damn Right!



Maybe in Twenty Years....



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Hang on the speedy don’t generalize the people that have been connived for the Abu Garhib scandal as the entire military because its not.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join