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.
Originally posted by MajorCee
Gee, Soulja is not American, so I should forget
my beauty of America speech. Sorry, I am not about
to forget it. It was addressed to Americans. I
could care less what someone outside the US cares
about this. Self centered non Americans who think
they can put a barrage of their propoganda here
and thereby promote their vision of the world is
just going to have to put up with me giving my
vision of the beauty of America. That is just
the way things work, and I like it that way.
Originally posted by PBscientist
And for anyone who thinks the media doesn't show the bad side of war, did you actually have to go to abu ghraib to find those torture pictures? Some cover-up by the media there.
So what is shown on the 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon, in an eleventh hour move, blocked from release this weekend? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images: "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.” They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.
A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of “rape and murder.”No wonder Rumsfeld commented then, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."
....
"’The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,’ Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. ’We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.’
“A report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad says videotapes and photographs show naked detainees, and that groups of men were forced to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped. Taguba also found evidence of a ‘male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.’
“Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts 'that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.’”
...
In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: “Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men….The women were passing messages saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.’
“Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.”
Originally posted by boogyman
Oh please....
Who is taking these pictures?
If its the soldiers and they're sending them to friends and relatives how are they winding up in the public domain so fast and in such a huge quantity?
Originally posted by boogyman
What I am getting at is this...
Look at the pictures everyone is clean there is no wreckage at all in the background no indication what so ever there is a war going on other then the super friendly soldiers. Its like who ever took the pictures went out of their way to isolate the contents of these pictures from exposure to war.
I could understand an occasional picture isloated from the effects of war but hundreds? Do these soldiers go out of their way to tell the spontaneous crowd of children not to cluster in front of the bomb crater or the wrecked building everytime they take a picture.
Another thing these are good pictures.
The average small pocket digital camera (the type a soldier is going to be able to carry with him) won't have the same picture quality as these. Look at your average photoblog picture quality and you'll see what I mean. The average amature photgrapher doesnt take pictures like that. These pictures are comparable to photo's taken by photojournalists! Am I supposed to believe that every soldier in Iraq taking pictures of smiling Iraqi children has a skill level comparable to that. Where are the slightly blurry pictures, the overexposed pictures, the underexposed pictures, where are the pictures with all the hallmarks of amature photography?
Originally posted by koji_K
Well, these pictures are all taken from a .mil website. Specifically, their PR website. www4.army.mil... . So they were very probably choreographed, and at the very least selected, if not taken by professional army photographers to begin with. These aren't candid 'shots from Joe Soldier,' they're part of the official PR campaign. Really, a credit to "denying ignorance". [/sarcasm]
-koji K.
[edit on 24-8-2005 by koji_K]
Originally posted by boogyman
Another thing these are good pictures.
The average small pocket digital camera (the type a soldier is going to be able to carry with him) won't have the same picture quality as these. Look at your average photoblog picture quality and you'll see what I mean. The average amature photgrapher doesnt take pictures like that. These pictures are comparable to photo's taken by photojournalists! Am I supposed to believe that every soldier in Iraq taking pictures of smiling Iraqi children has a skill level comparable to that. Where are the slightly blurry pictures, the overexposed pictures, the underexposed pictures, where are the pictures with all the hallmarks of amature photography?
Originally posted by skippytjc
Biker, those pictures your son took, did he threaten to shoot them if they didnt smile? Because thats what these guys are saying.