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.

 

Rumsfeld May Have Ordered Children To Be Raped and Sodomized In Front Of Parents For Information

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
What does John Mccain have to do with my post?

Everything....you said that since we have never experienced torture and being shot at, etc... that we are less likely to be able to understand where the desire for torture may come from. And Sen. Mccain is a man who has been through that (one of the few) and he does not have a "desire" for torture.


It is difficult to argue about one man (not to mention a Politician) who went through these experiences, and claims he would never condone torture (if that is how he really feels underneath). What politician in his right mind would come out and admitt publically; "Yes, I condone torture"? Like I said, that would be political suicide.
How do you think McCain felt about his torturers while this was happening to him? I could be wrong, but my opinion is that thoughts of love 'may' not have been present. Of course thinking something and acting on it are two different things. I believe (and again this is just my opinion) that some soldiers in his position would have loved to retaliate.

If Senator McCain is so opposed to torture, why did he and his representatives not give this man a few minutes of their time?


Fishback, a West Point graduate who has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, spent 17 months trying to raise the matter with his superiors. When he attempted to approach representatives of US Senators John McCain and John Warner about the abuse, he was told that he would not be granted a pass to meet them on his day off.
(taken from the same article as posted further below).



I'll have to say that every person on this planet handles stress differently. There is little chance that all of us (when placed into a situation) will react in the exact same way, and feel the same way about it.


Yes, true...but you categorize combat vets and torture victims as being more likely to advocate torture, do you any proof to back that up? Imo, it's just the opposite.


Take in example the three soldiers who snapped pictures of themselves torturing prisoners. They stated that torturing was a way to relieve stress.

Sunday Herald


On some occasions, prisoners were tortured for revenge. “If we were on patrol and caught a guy that killed our captain or my buddy last week … man, it is human nature,” said the sergeant – but on other occasions, he confessed, it was for “sport”.


The reason I categorize vets and torture victims as being more likely to advocate torture is the simple fact of human nature and the desire for retaliation for what was done to them. Soldiers are in harms way more often and more intensely than the ordinary civilian, therefore more likely to make rash decisions.

In my opinion the military training provided to the soldiers already made them vulnerable to taking actions. They are trained to kill, they are in time of war, they are under stress, and apparently some superiors look the other way. Certainly not all, but some (like the soldiers mentioned above) are prone to act on their desires, even if very inappropriate. That is just not the kind of environment that ordinary civilians experience in their every-day lives, and that is why it is so easy for them to judge.

In this case the soldiers were in charge of prisoners, and in charge of preparing them for interrogation! That will definitely push certain soldiers over the edge. Some people don't know when and how to draw the line, especially when the situation is that tense. Of course some people are just plain sick.

I really wish I could find more published Soldiers' accounts on the web so I can link them here for you, but so far my searches have brought up nothing except pages and pages of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay Prison tortures. I did find a couple of interesting-looking articles, but they require me to purchase them first. If I find anything, I will post it. I have no statistics, if that is what you're looking for. My opinions should not be taken as absolute fact. They are opinions formed from a variety of facts, some small personal experiences, and the experiences of those close to me. If you have proof that my opinions are wrong, I would appreciate seeing that proof. Maybe you'll teach me something new.

I'm not entirely sure I answered your question. It's been a long day, it's about 100 degrees in the shade,.... and my brain is melting.




posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alberto, and Bush all came out and said they supported torture. So why wouldn't McCain? Bad arguement to say no politician would say that when the top people all have.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alberto, and Bush all came out and said they supported torture. So why wouldn't McCain? Bad arguement to say no politician would say that when the top people all have.


When and where did these Politicians state "I support torture"? Any specific interviews/speeches? I'm not talking about private conversations that came out into the public, I mean actual public speeches where the politician states this outright.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
oops...

Sporty

[edit on 26/6/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Take in example the three soldiers who snapped pictures of themselves torturing prisoners. They stated that torturing was a way to relieve stress.

2manyquestions, the three soldiers that took pictures were never in combat (I'm assuming,cause they were MPs and at a prison the entire time...can't backit up though)...so that still does not support the 'combat troops support torture' arguement.



The reason I categorize vets and torture victims as being more likely to advocate torture is the simple fact of human nature and the desire for retaliation for what was done to them.

Maybe in the heat of battle when emotions are awol and flared up. I have not heard of any last minute save the world, this guy has info field interrogations being conducuted by US troops. And I agree, it's human nature, but the torturing is not taking place in battle, it's taking place in controlled enviorments..prisons, where noone can say "it was retaliation, I wasn't thinking clearly".


Soldiers are in harms way more often and more intensely than the ordinary civilian, therefore more likely to make rash decisions.

Like we both agree on...it's human nature to make rash decsions (soldier or not) in combat or extreme situations, but the torturing is not taking place in combat or on the battle field.


In my opinion the military training provided to the soldiers already made them vulnerable to taking actions. They are trained to kill, they are in time of war, they are under stress, and apparently some superiors look the other way.

I think you are under the impression that regular troops are torturing people...with the exception of the three idiots and a few other arseholes (which didn't "officially" have approval to torture anyways...and it wasn't torture, it was abuse...they were not trying to gain any info from them...just being inhumane pricks) (im getting off topic
)torturing is being done by the CIA and other people like that....not by your average PFC and Sgt that just spent 3 days on patrol.

I hardly ever pull this card, especially on ATS. I don't want to sound like one of them 'guys' that brings it up every other post in every other thread...you know what I mean. But anyways, having recently finished 5 years in the Marines and having been to a couple places myself I can tell you that the training and experiences have nothing to do with the way a soldier feels about torture (in my case atleast). And it's the same for many of my friends....they feel the same as I do.



Certainly not all, but some (like the soldiers mentioned above) are prone to act on their desires, even if very inappropriate. That is just not the kind of environment that ordinary civilians experience in their every-day lives, and that is why it is so easy for them to judge.

Again, the three soldiers were not torturing the prisoners (in a traditional sense), they were abusing them. They had no mission, they were not trying to get info, yeah they may have been 'softening' them up for the spooks, but they probably did not even know they were doing that. They were just power hungry tyrds...that deserve a stiffer punishment, imo.


In this case the soldiers were in charge of prisoners, and in charge of preparing them for interrogation! That will definitely push certain soldiers over the edge.

Agreed, preparing for interrogation. There is not a stress difference between the abusive soldiers and a correctional guard at a state pen....only the correctional guard has to more to worry about, imo. These three soldiers and the others like them were probably never exposed to the fog of battle, and the horrifying PTSD stuff that you are associating them with...they have no reason to flip out and do what they done, other than following orders. It was not due to stress.



Some people don't know when and how to draw the line, especially when the situation is that tense. Of course some people are just plain sick.

I know what you mean, they were sick
But there situation is no more tense than a that of a Folsom state prison guard, imo.



I'm not entirely sure I answered your question. It's been a long day, it's about 100 degrees in the shade,.... and my brain is melting.

I see where you coming from though


100 degrees in the shade....too hot for me


Sporty


[edit on 26/6/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
2manyquestions, the three soldiers that took pictures were never in combat (I'm assuming,cause they were MPs and at a prison the entire time...can't backit up though)...so that still does not support the 'combat troops support torture' arguement.


In no way am I saying that 'combat troops support torture'. I was trying to say (maybe I didn't succeed) that people who have been tortured themselves by the enemy, or have been shot at, had their friends killed by the enemy are more likely (but this certainly does not apply to every single individual) to understand why another soldier would end up torturing/abusing a prisoner. I was saying that civilians who had never experienced such things will 'probably' be less likely to understand why someone would torture. I am not saying it is right, I am not saying that these people who would advocate torture would do it themselves. I'm saying they would be more likely to understand where those emotions may come from, they would be more likely to understand who the enemy is, and would also more likely understand the necessity of interrogation.



Maybe in the heat of battle when emotions are awol and flared up. I have not heard of any last minute save the world, this guy has info field interrogations being conducuted by US troops. And I agree, it's human nature, but the torturing is not taking place in battle, it's taking place in controlled enviorments..prisons, where noone can say "it was retaliation, I wasn't thinking clearly".



Sporty,... I never implied that last minute torture/interrogation was going on in the field. Maybe I wasn't making myself clear enough (or maybe I need language lessons since English is not my first or second language) , so I'll try to explain. When I said that abuse victims and soldiers may be more likely to advocate torture (the legal level of torture. I'm not talking about limbs being cut off, etc. etc.), I said that because those who have been attacked by the enemy, have lost those close to them to the enemy, or have been apprehended by the enemy 'may' understand how someone might be capable of such abuse. I am NOT saying that this was the case for the three idiots who caused the scandal, though I quoted one of them as saying that sometimes they tortured for revenge.

Once again.... I am NOT saying all soldiers would advocate abuse. I am saying that they 'may' be able to understand better than ordinary citizens as to why it happens, and where the emotions/situations which make one capable of such things might come from. I said they are more likely to advocate it than the ordinary citizen, but that doesn't mean that 70% of the military would advocate torture. It could be 10%, or even as little as 2%. I'm just throwing out random numbers here. My only point is that in my opinion soldiers are more likely to understand than the ordinary citizen, because many of them have had experience with the enemy.


Like we both agree on...it's human nature to make rash decsions (soldier or not) in combat or extreme situations, but the torturing is not taking place in combat or on the battle field.


As I wrote above, I never implied that it did.




I think you are under the impression that regular troops are torturing people


Not at all.



...with the exception of the three idiots and a few other arseholes (which didn't "officially" have approval to torture anyways...and it wasn't torture, it was abuse...they were not trying to gain any info from them...just being inhumane pricks) (im getting off topic
)torturing is being done by the CIA and other people like that....not by your average PFC and Sgt that just spent 3 days on patrol.


I understand that. They were instructed to "prepare" the prisoners for interrogation. They used humiliation and abuse to do so. They went too far, and they were punished for it.



I hardly ever pull this card, especially on ATS. I don't want to sound like one of them 'guys' that brings it up every other post in every other thread...you know what I mean. But anyways, having recently finished 5 years in the Marines and having been to a couple places myself I can tell you that the training and experiences have nothing to do with the way a soldier feels about torture (in my case atleast). And it's the same for many of my friends....they feel the same as I do.


I wouldn't hold your experience against you at all. If you know what you're talking about, bringing it up is a good thing. I did not say that the Marines trained you to feel a certain way about torture. I'm saying they trained you to kill the enemy (among other things), and to act quickly. What kind of impact does taking a life or two have on one's mind? What impact does seeing a friend being blown to bits have on one's mind? To what extremes can a human being go..... beyond taking a life of another person? After something like that, (in my opinion) I'm sure punching someone in the face, or exhausting them through physical activity might not seem so bad. I am NOT saying that every soldier who ever killed would feel this way, but I'm sure that these acts might awaken thoughts like these in a few individuals. That is only an opinion of course. All I am saying here is that if a soldier went through these experiences, he/she is 'probably' more likely to understand why and how torture/abuse of the enemy/prisoners happens.


Again, the three soldiers were not torturing the prisoners (in a traditional sense), they were abusing them. They had no mission, they were not trying to get info, yeah they may have been 'softening' them up for the spooks, but they probably did not even know they were doing that. They were just power hungry tyrds...that deserve a stiffer punishment, imo.


According to the article their mission was to break the prisoners for interrogation. They did what they were supposed to do, and went too far. Of course that's just going by one article. We can definitely agree on that.

Continued below.....



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   


These three soldiers and the others like them were probably never exposed to the fog of battle, and the horrifying PTSD stuff that you are associating them with...they have no reason to flip out and do what they done, other than following orders. It was not due to stress.


I am not associating these three soldiers with those who have been in the middle of battle. The only purpose they served was to give you a quote, to show you why they committed the crimes they did. One of them claimed that sometimes the abuse took place for revenge, when the prisoner was known to have killed one of their men. He claimed sometimes it was to relieve stress. What kind of stress he was talking about, I don't really know. He would have to explain that.



Some people don't know when and how to draw the line, especially when the situation is that tense. Of course some people are just plain sick.

I know what you mean, they were sick
But there situation is no more tense than a that of a Folsom state prison guard, imo.


Maybe you're right. As I've stated, I have no idea what kind of stress these particular three soldiers were under. I wasn't there. I don't know how secure the area around the prison is.

I just want to clear up a few things. I am NOT saying that Soldiers are abusers/torturers. I am not saying that all soldiers would condone torture simply because of their profession.

I am saying that the situation many of them are placed into will give them the opportunity to experience things that ordinary citizens will never have to. Those ordinary citizens who will most likely never have to be in the middle of fire, those who haven't seen the enemy up-close and personal,...or will never be in charge of prisoners who 'may' or have been responsible for the deaths of friends will most likely never fully understand where the desire for violence against another human being comes from.

There are a couple of people here who claimed that violence is never the answer. My argument was that sometimes violence is the only option. They claimed that we should always turn the other cheek,.. but when you're faced with a life and death situation (especially when the lives of others are involved) do you turn the other cheek or shoot? I 'think' that's how I got into this whole argument about troops, abuse, and so forth. I 'think' I was trying to point to people who had been in situations where violence was the only option, and therefore they would be the ones who'd understand best why and how things like that happen,..... (unlike people who were never faced with a difficult situation like that). People's minds become warped by their good and bad experiences, and what experience could be worse than being face to face with a deadly enemy, not to mention losing those close to you to these enemies?
I don't 'think' I'm defending abusers, or those condoning torture, but I 'think' I'm trying to present how a few might end up becoming torturers and abusers, or those who don't feel sorry for the abused prisoners. Interrogation and if it is being done properly is a whole different subject. I've been repeating the same thing over and over again so many times, that by now I've confused myself thoroughly.
Am I making any sense?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by zappafan1

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Grover is making the point that the Bush campaign *implied* blatant innacuracies about McCain and have never had to answer for it. So, Bush said whatever he wanted about whomever he wanted with no proof and no credibility and got away with it.... I believe that's the point.


REPLY: It wasn't Bush who did it, but an irresponsible local campaign manager; and it was retracted almost immediately.

As for Kerry's "war record, it's practicxally non-existant; he never released his medical records concerning the medals he received (which he shouldn't have), and his most famous "medal" is a picture of him hanging in the victory museum in Saigon for his aid in North Vietnam winning the war; much the same as did Murtha, Teddy Kennedy, Jane Fonda, et-al.


Of course it wasn't bush who did it, it never is...its always some shadow group connected with his campagins...how convienent. As for Kerry he most certianly did release his medical records on his website the day after he said he would. i know I went and read them. It was Bush who never released his. As for him helping North Vietnam win...BULLHOOEY!!! And i only say BULLHOOEY because the hall monitors won't let me say what it really is.


REPLY: I was there, I saw what was happening back in the states, and I know for a fact that Kerry's picture is on the Victory wall in Ho Chi Minh City. Anyone can go there right now and look at it. The only tthind it appears you know is what your teachers told you; so sad. And, no, ALL of the medical records were not released.... I saw what you saw on his website, and he left out certain, damning ones.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
What let North Vietnam win was no one person, it was the military's lack of wanting to win. If they wanted to win they would have, instead they pussyfoot around the issue and don't do a thing to win. If the military had attacked hard, fast, and repeat, they would have won. Instead they tried to win by playing defense instead of offense. You don't win a war by invading a country then playing defense...

Also, Zappafan, watch the video, it shows the exact laws Bush signed making it legal for him to arrest you, put you in jail, with no lawyer, no trial, no warning, for life. So instead of of giving an ignorant answer like you did watch the video that names the exact laws Bush signed into law that allow this.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Johnny Ohm]


REPLY: I don't have to watch a video, I go right to the source and actually READ it. You obviously know nothing military, or what actually went on in Nam, or here in Washington. I never said it was one person.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Johnny Ohm,... While I appreciate the links, I read them all, and nowhere does any politicain state outright "I condone/support torture". Certainly their actions 'might' give that impression, but aside from one guy in one of the articles who only comes close, I see no further evidence.

My comment about McCain was that although he publically denounces torture, it doesn't absolutely mean that this is how he feels privately. I am NOT saying he condones torture privately. I'm only trying to convey that Politicians in general often have a public persona and a private persona. Sometimes it helps their careers to stand behind something they don't always believe in, and vice versa. To stand behind torture (and announcing it publically) when clearly most of the voting public doesn't, would be stupid. My intention is not to soil the name of McCain. I used his situation only as an example. My belief is that it would be political suicide to state outright, in front of the public, that you condone torture. Doing things behind closed doors to condone it and stating it outright are two separate things. Of course (even if his intentions were not genuine) McCain will stand against torture, the way any smart politician would do whether or not he/she was sincere. That is what most of the voting public is currently doing. Just my opinion of course.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Wait, first you say...

"I don't care if McCain says Publically he hates and wants Torture banned, what does he say in private?"

Then you say

"I don't care what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, the republicans say in private I want to know what they say publically."

Like what? So McCain says publically to ban torture, you say he doesn't mean it cause you want to know what he says in private. Then say you don't care what Cheney and Bush and others say in private you want to know what they say in public.

WHICH STANDARD DO YOU WANT! PRIVATE OR PUBLIC!

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Johnny Ohm]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I know I'm no one important here but can I ask why Yumi was banned?

Also I would like to know what is to be done about members "reporting" members for posting their non-violent opinions? I can understand if someone has posted a direct threat to government members, other members of this site,hoax Embassy messages of doom, or even hoaxing an admission of aiding in a terrorist event, but to allow reporting of another member admittedly just because they are posting a message that is deemed by them to be negative should be a practice that should be squashed from the get-go. I think its a negative addition to a site that caters to conspiracy theories and the like. I also think it will invite negative attention to the site as well. .Just my humble opinion.Pie


Just ran across this post by Off the Street, pieman, and I think it just perfectly answers your little "suggestion" above.


Originally posted by Off_The_StreetThe only people who want those who disagree with their views banned are those people who do not think their viewpoints can be defended in open, honest, and frank discussion. People who want others banned, it seems, are those who want to keep others in this community from the opportunity to make up their own minds.

That doesn't play here.


Thanks Off the Street, you've got my vote for this post!



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yumi
Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.


And now my rebutal: Gays aren't allowed in the military! HAHAHA



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by Yumi
Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.


And now my rebutal: Gays aren't allowed in the military! HAHAHA


REPLY: Actually, they are. Kinda gives a whole new meaning to "Semen Recruit". (I meant Seaman Recruit).



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Doesn't it fall under the DOn't Ask Don't Tell policy? Even though the Pentagon still considers being Gay a mental defect? Although how does that work? If someone had a mental defect of say, paranoid delusions, I wouldn't want to be giving him a gun. So why the double standards towards being gay, if the Pentagon believes it to is a mental defect?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm

Doesn't it fall under the DOn't Ask Don't Tell policy? Even though the Pentagon still considers being Gay a mental defect? Although how does that work? If someone had a mental defect of say, paranoid delusions, I wouldn't want to be giving him a gun. So why the double standards towards being gay, if the Pentagon believes it to is a mental defect?


REPLY: Yes, it falls under the DADT catagory. Although I may or may not agree with the Pentagon's analysis of homosexuality, I don't think it's a double standard because of the differences of those conditions, and the difficulties they each might contribute to any given situation.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Good Job Curio, attacking someone who was banned... Real manly of you.

Back on topic, and away from gay and mental disorders, so far we have.

"Never happened" to "Might have" to "Revenge for soldiers killed" to "Oh well Arabs aren't humans."

On the other side we have

"Its wrong!" to "Its wrong!" to "Its wrong!"

Hmm, the more consistent arguement makes more sense to, even if RUmmy didn't directly order it, he is still the leader, the guy who directly approved Copper Green, the program used to do this.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnny Ohm
Wait, first you say...

"I don't care if McCain says Publically he hates and wants Torture banned, what does he say in private?"

Then you say

"I don't care what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, the republicans say in private I want to know what they say publically."

Like what? So McCain says publically to ban torture, you say he doesn't mean it cause you want to know what he says in private. Then say you don't care what Cheney and Bush and others say in private you want to know what they say in public.

WHICH STANDARD DO YOU WANT! PRIVATE OR PUBLIC!

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Johnny Ohm]


Wow..... This just sounds like you're itching for a fight. Did you even read my post? I'm not sure I should even bother to try and clarify what I actually said vs. what you perceive I said. Let's just say you're WAY off. In fact you're so off the subject, I wasn't sure at first if you were replying to me! If you want to use quotes, at least use the actual sentences I used, not your distorted perception of what they were. Nowhere did I argue for or against your perceived 'private vs. public standard'.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
What? No videos of those children getting sodomized?
Why would the Pentagon have the videos as well? Surely it'd be a better idea to get rid of this evidence no? This smells of bull. Not to say it doesn't go on, but you've got to have some sort of evidence to prove that Rumsfeld has said such malarky, and that the U.S. military participates in the raping of children, which I see no evidence for either claim.




top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join