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.

 

Iraqis take over Abu Ghraib, real torture begins

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   


The notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad is at the centre of fresh abuse allegations just a week after it was handed over to Iraqi authorities, with claims that inmates are being tortured by their new captors.



Prisoners are pleading for the return of the Americans.
They've found that the humane treatment provided by the Americans is greatly preferred to the situation they find themselve in now.

I wonder how many libs will protest the inhumane treatment the Iraqui's are imposing on the prisoners?

The liberal media will most likely ignore this because it doesn't fit their anti-Bush agenda.





Telegraph News UK




posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Wow. I am surprised this is getting ignored.

When you are actually begging for the days of broomsticks up the butt, nipple clamps, dog leashes, and photographed humiliation, well.....you know things are getting BAD.

Sigh. damned if we do, damned if we dont.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
So the torture when the US was in charge wasn't real? No-one died there while being tortured? Wasn't there an Iraqi general who died under torture in Iraq?

The US has been sponsors and teachers of torture for around 50 years, and anyone who's heard of the School of the Americas knows as much. Or Google the name Dan Mitrione and see what comes up.

"Real torture", eh? Nice way to try to spin it.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Wait. Who are the prisoners pleading to? And have they found the humane treatment provided by the Americans is preferred? Lets see... humane treatment as in forced masturbation, electric shocks, sleep deprivation, beatings, suspension, etc.? Really? Humane?

Also, why would the liberal media not protest? And why wouldn't it fit their Anti-Bush agenda? I mean this just proves that the invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation is a farce and a huge political, military and humanitarian disaster!

I mean this just shows the American failure. If I recall correctly, the Geneva Conventions stated that an occupying power is responsible for the preservation of the life, property and culture of their territory. In this case, the Americans are liable for the protection of these inmates. Wonder where the Bush & Associates supporters have to say to that.

Does anyone recall when the 'liberation' was announced? What happened? Open looting occurred which the Americans has a liability to prevent. The only Iraqi ministries protected were, you guessed it! Ministry of Oil & Ministry of Interior if I recall.

America has failed big time in the Iraq war. Big time.

EDIT: Inexcusable spellings

[edit on 10/9/06 by Kamran]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
So the torture when the US was in charge wasn't real? No-one died there while being tortured? Wasn't there an Iraqi general who died under torture in Iraq?

The US has been sponsors and teachers of torture for around 50 years, and anyone who's heard of the School of the Americas knows as much. Or Google the name Dan Mitrione and see what comes up.

"Real torture", eh? Nice way to try to spin it.


No. The article states that it was preferable to the current torture being instituted by the current jailers.

The US wasn't the only country to sponsor torture or engage in it either. Just about every country on the planet has done it.

The School of the Americas was pretty damn evil. But its no different from any other covert state sponsored torture.

And remember, torture is not legal in the US or by US laws, hence why it has been covert and black ops. To hide it.

The things done by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib were disgusting and terrible, and there have been prosecutions, although mostly directed at the lower ranks.

The point of this article is to show that the Iraqis are no more humane or decent than the occupiers.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
No. The article states that it was preferable to the current torture being instituted by the current jailers.

The US wasn't the only country to sponsor torture or engage in it either. Just about every country on the planet has done it.


So why is America acting like the beacon of humanity and democracy? Your statement just doesn't cut it.


The School of the Americas was pretty damn evil. But its no different from any other covert state sponsored torture.

And remember, torture is not legal in the US or by US laws, hence why it has been covert and black ops. To hide it.


Sure, no different, then why is America claiming righteousness? Freedom, Equality, Rights, Democracy... Seriously...


The things done by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib were disgusting and terrible, and there have been prosecutions, although mostly directed at the lower ranks.

The point of this article is to show that the Iraqis are no more humane or decent than the occupiers.


Yes, the things done were disgusting. But you know whats more disgusting? The non-inclusion of senior military personnel in the punishments and justice meted out to the lower ranks.

The article is another spin. We weren't much more humane than them. Torture is torture mate. Also, see how the occupation fails? Where is the freedom? Where is the justice? Where is security?



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kamran
So why is America acting like the beacon of humanity and democracy? Your statement just doesn't cut it.


We are? thats news to me. it seems the only people who believe or say this are people who know nothing of the US except what they see on TV.

America is imperfect like any other country, and Americans know it.



Sure, no different, then why is America claiming righteousness? Freedom, Equality, Rights, Democracy... Seriously...


The only ones claiming this are the Bush administration. Again, you know nothing of America except what you see on TV. I have yet to see any administration that accurately reflects the attitudes of the American public, this one included. Most people believe we are in Iraq for defensive purposes.



Yes, the things done were disgusting. But you know whats more disgusting? The non-inclusion of senior military personnel in the punishments and justice meted out to the lower ranks


Of course it was. Very disgusting. And it still happens. Higher ranking officers still get off scot free while the lower ranks fry.


Also, see how the occupation fails? Where is the freedom? Where is the justice? Where is security?


There will never be any of the above. Why? because the iraqis do not want it for themselves.

One of my major oppositions to this war. You cant bring democracy to people, nor security and freedom, to people who have no desire or concept for it.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
We are? thats news to me. it seems the only people who believe or say this are people who know nothing of the US except what they see on TV.

America is imperfect like any other country, and Americans know it.

The only ones claiming this are the Bush administration. Again, you know nothing of America except what you see on TV. I have yet to see any administration that accurately reflects the attitudes of the American public, this one included. Most people believe we are in Iraq for defensive purposes.

Of course it was. Very disgusting. And it still happens. Higher ranking officers still get off scot free while the lower ranks fry.

There will never be any of the above. Why? because the iraqis do not want it for themselves.

One of my major oppositions to this war. You cant bring democracy to people, nor security and freedom, to people who have no desire or concept for it.


I'm sorry, when I say America, I mean this particular government. I should not have grouped the Americans and the current policymakers together. My apologies.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
No problem.

And i tend to agree with you on its current policies.

The thing to remember is, every government has done evil, and will often mask it for righteous reasons. Its the oldest story in the book.

My point is is not to downplay the US tortures at Abu Ghraib. I still cringe when I think about it.

my point is, is that we are in a no win situation. There will never be a western style democratic society in Iraq because people dont posses the proper mentality or desire for it. This just proves it. the Iraqis are even more abusive towards their own prisoners, yet no great outcries. because perhaps such behavior is still considered acceptable punishment for criminals.

Righteousness and glory are the most sinister masks for the most sinister things in history.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by rich23
So the torture when the US was in charge wasn't real?


No. The article states that it was preferable to the current torture being instituted by the current jailers.


The title of the thread included the phrase "real torture begins". This more than implies that "real torture" hadn't occurred before the Iraqis were put in charge. It's a small but, to me, important point. Little inflections like this, taken as a whole, add up to a lot.


And remember, torture is not legal in the US or by US laws, hence why it has been covert and black ops. To hide it.


Not arguing with that - but, as I say, it's been de facto policy for at least fifty years, as has the use of death squads.


The point of this article is to show that the Iraqis are no more humane or decent than the occupiers.


It's been posted under a title that seeks to minimise or deny US involvement in torture; and the Iraqi security forces are being trained by the US, are they not? Having taken control of the country, the US is morally and legally responsible for the outcome: and I would argue that what it demonstrates is not Iraqi savagery, but the wrong example being set and the wrong people left in charge.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
It's been posted under a title that seeks to minimise or deny US involvement in torture;


And Im refering to the article itself, not the post.

and the Iraqi security forces are being trained by the US, are they not?

Training yes. However, training does not involve long standing cultural attitudes towards brutality. Try as you like, you cannot blame the US for everything in Iraq. Iraq was a mess before Bush even started his wet dreaming over taking the place.



Having taken control of the country,

The only person who ever had real control over the country is saddam And look what he had to do to obtain control.


the US is morally and legally responsible for the outcome

Yes and no. Again, there are problems that were festering in that area LONG before the US even existed. Legally? Thats a joke. You still believe in the myth called "international law"? I thought that fairy tale died out with WW2.



and I would argue that what it demonstrates is not Iraqi savagery, but the wrong example being set and the wrong people left in charge.


Doubly wrong.

Savagry and brutality were facts of life before the US came to the middle east, before the US existed. The Iraqis are following no example but their own. We see that during saddams reign, brutality was used to keep the population from killing each other. Without it, the Iraqis pretty much ignore whoever thinks they are in charge, and go back to the millenea old hatred, Shia vs Sunni, Arab vs. Kurd, ect.

It wouldnt matter if hippies took over the country. The fact is, the mentality in the middle east is VASTLY different from western Europe or North America. In otherwards, they do not want democratic and humanitarian government.

Their right, their choice. The only thing we agree on here is that the US should have never gone there. I believe it was a waste of time from the get go, and done mainly for a handful of rich people and their oil.

But just because i think the war was wrong does not mean I think the Iraq's are innocent victims either.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
So the torture when the US was in charge wasn't real? No-one died there while being tortured? Wasn't there an Iraqi general who died under torture in Iraq?

The US has been sponsors and teachers of torture for around 50 years, and anyone who's heard of the School of the Americas knows as much. Or Google the name Dan Mitrione and see what comes up.

"Real torture", eh? Nice way to try to spin it.


Why do you refuse to adress these allegationgs of this torture? do you condone such actions?




posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Training yes. However, training does not involve long standing cultural attitudes towards brutality. Try as you like, you cannot blame the US for everything in Iraq. Iraq was a mess before Bush even started his wet dreaming over taking the place.


And that justifies what? I wonder why the US went in? People keep saying that you cannot blame the US because those things existed before the US then explain to me the purpose of this futile exercise? Stop saying that because that was the reason the US entered Iraq - Regime change for the better.


The only person who ever had real control over the country is saddam And look what he had to do to obtain control. Yes and no. Again, there are problems that were festering in that area LONG before the US even existed. Legally? Thats a joke. You still believe in the myth called "international law"? I thought that fairy tale died out with WW2.


And thats precisely the problem with the world. No one wants to accept International Law. But that is the one thing that can provide justice and an end to all problems. Only if the US stopped being so unilateral. Everyone knows its the sole superpower and people look up to it. Now if the American governments, rather than strengthening their image, choose to blindly follow their own policies what message goes out to the rest of the world.

Yes, the Americans are morally and legally obliged to protect Iraq's assets, not just oil.


Doubly wrong.

Savagry and brutality were facts of life before the US came to the middle east, before the US existed. The Iraqis are following no example but their own. We see that during saddams reign, brutality was used to keep the population from killing each other. Without it, the Iraqis pretty much ignore whoever thinks they are in charge, and go back to the millenea old hatred, Shia vs Sunni, Arab vs. Kurd, ect.

It wouldnt matter if hippies took over the country. The fact is, the mentality in the middle east is VASTLY different from western Europe or North America. In otherwards, they do not want democratic and humanitarian government.

Their right, their choice. The only thing we agree on here is that the US should have never gone there. I believe it was a waste of time from the get go, and done mainly for a handful of rich people and their oil.

But just because i think the war was wrong does not mean I think the Iraq's are innocent victims either.


Yes, Iraqis are innocent victims. I am really surprised why no one seems to understand that the Iraqis were never a sectarian society. Even under Saddam who definitely hated the Shias and kept them down was there no hatred within the communities. Sunnis and Shias even intermarried and lived together. Iraq has never fought religious wars, only nationalistic wars for independence and such like. Now since America has gone their and managed to screw it up even worse than Saddam, they have the duty to sort it out or get the hell outta there.

Please read my above posts.

I wonder in whose interests the instability lies...



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kamran
And that justifies what? I wonder why the US went in? People keep saying that you cannot blame the US because those things existed before the US then explain to me the purpose of this futile exercise? Stop saying that because that was the reason the US entered Iraq - Regime change for the better.


I never said we invaded the US for regime change or to liberate the place. It was invaded for oil, for Haliburton, for the Bush Klan. Everyone who has been paying attention knows this.


And thats precisely the problem with the world. No one wants to accept International Law. But that is the one thing that can provide justice and an end to all problems. Only if the US stopped being so unilateral. Everyone knows its the sole superpower and people look up to it. Now if the American governments, rather than strengthening their image, choose to blindly follow their own policies what message goes out to the rest of the world.


No, the problem with the world is that we choose to see it in an illusion. The problem with the world is countries not practicing isolationism and minding their own biz. The US would be a happier country if it returned to its long abandoned isolationism. If all countries of the world started worrying about whats going on in their own borders, the world would be better.


Yes, the Americans are morally and legally obliged to protect Iraq's assets, not just oil.


Legally? How can we be legally responsible when the war itself is technically illegal by international law?


Yes, Iraqis are innocent victims. I am really surprised why no one seems to understand that the Iraqis were never a sectarian society. Even under Saddam who definitely hated the Shias and kept them down was there no hatred within the communities.

Of course there was no sectarian violence. Saddam brutally crushed any disagreements. before saddam it was a mess. Saddam secularized society. because that was the only way these people would behave, is having a big, secular godless boot on their throats. It was a situation better left alone. We removed the brutal dictator, and we removed the fear based rule that was the only thing keeping the sects in line.



Sunnis and Shias even intermarried and lived together. Iraq has never fought religious wars, only nationalistic wars for independence and such like.

Im quite sure the Kurds would disagree. As well as the numerous Shia who were killed when trying to revolt.



Now since America has gone their and managed to screw it up even worse than Saddam, they have the duty to sort it out or get the hell outta there.


Oh youre right about that. personally, I think Saddam should be put back in power. A monster he was, but his cruelty benefitted the country and did stabilize the region. We removed the one thing that stabilized that country and helped to secularize and move it towards the 21st century.

America has one of two choices: Install another dictator, or watch the country crumble.




I wonder in whose interests the instability lies...


Thats pretty easy to answer.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, U.S. oil companies, defense contractors, and Neo-Conservatives. I thought everyone had figured this out by now?




new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join