It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


ABUSE CRISIS: An Iraqi speaks about the abuses by US troops

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 25 2004 @ 03:11 PM
We have all heard about some US troops abusing some of the Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But how does it really compare to the abuses that were done by Saddam's regime? Is it true what some people are saying that "It was better when Saddam was in power?"

To Saddam's prisoners, US abuse seems 'a joke'
"So far, the organization has been able to confirm the execution of 147,000 prisoners by Saddam.

Ibrahim Idrissi has mixed feelings about the recent uproar caused by the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib under the US occupation. "As a humanitarian organization, we oppose this," he says. "But these are soldiers who have come to Iraq to fight, not to be prison guards. It was to be expected. Of course, if there are innocent people in there ... it is possible, I guess, that some of them are innocent."

If Idrissi seems a bit callous about the fate of the Iraqis in US-run jails, he has probably earned the right to differ. He recalls a day in 1982, at the General Security prison in Baghdad:

"They called all the prisoners out to the courtyard for what they called a 'celebration.' We all knew what they meant by 'celebration.' All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn't tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

For us it is clear that even if the survivors of Saddam's regime, and those who were affected by this evil man say these abuses, done by some US soldiers, were only a joke compared to what Saddam and his loyal subjects did, that doesn't make what the US soldiers did was a joke to us, and they shouldn't be treated that way. Those soldiers who committed these abuses are paying for what they did, and any more abuses will surely be dealt with.

But is it possible that many of those Iraqis who were outraged for some of the US abuses could have been loyalists to Saddam and even sympathizers? Every regime has these kind of people, since a regime cannot survive by oppresing all the people and these regimes need people to work for them too.

Related News
The Daily Star (Lebanon)

[Edited on 25-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 05:36 PM
Despite all the efforts of Syria to crush any semblance of real life and freedom that remains, its amazing that this article comes from an Arabic (Lebanon) newspaper outlet, and look, none of the 'hype' either, eh? The Daily Star is notorious for its slight hyping, but seems to bring some objectiveness with the release of this article.

But seriously Muaddib, this will not merit much attention. The message is not bad news, it is not anti-Bush, it is not anti-war, it is contrary to what some wish to see, read, and hear. Nice try though.


posted on May, 25 2004 @ 05:53 PM
It would be beneficial in understanding the truth, also, if more of the innocent parties who were abused by US troops in Iraq could be given voice in western media.

The media ought to cover the incompetence and corruption in the Bush administration all the way to removing it from office. There are some effective Bush loyalist websites about for people who are less interested in facts and the truth.

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 06:02 PM
"Truth" is defined as what in media MaskedAvatar?
Would "truth" embody pompous Michael Moore?
Is it not truth that the atrocities of a past Iraq leader are being forgotten, not mentioned, downplayed, as mentioned by the article, for the more 'critically acclaimed' liberal and anti-war media mouthpieces that ONLY focus on the negatives?

I guess "truth" is subjective rather than objective, huh?
Personally, I pray that Kerry gets into office, just so that when he goes to screwing up as bad as many of you claim this administration has, I will get first-hand opportunity to see your responses.


posted on May, 25 2004 @ 06:11 PM
A statement is either true or not true, no matter the voice behind it.

Tainting the truth about torture and death with issues of subjectivity and post-hoc rationalisation does not alter what happened.

It matters not if Bush knowingly tells lies or Moore knowingly tells lies or any member of ATS anywhere anytime knowingly tells lies.

Truth is truth, and truth will out. Truth is not defined in media. It is defined in fact, not opinion.

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 08:25 PM
Good post

Imagine this, a blast from the past:

"Today photos of alleged Iraqi prisoner abuses were leaked by one
of Saddam Hussein's Intelligence officers"

Those would contain "bad news". Would they have been broadcast
all over the universe? Who would cry for the prisoners?

While I am pissed that US troops screwed up. There is no comparison to then and now. Humilitation vs. amputation..pick one

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 02:15 AM

Originally posted by spacedoubt

While I am pissed that US troops screwed up. There is no comparison to then and now. Humilitation vs. amputation..pick one

How about Humilitiation vs. death....pick one.

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 12:41 PM
From what I've heard from people who've been through various parts of the American prison system, these abuses by our soldiers are not surprising considering a few of them have a background in corrections. Sounded pretty familiar if not a little heavy on the "sex". Definitely nothing like the reports of the treatment at the hands of Saddam & Co., though. I'm thinking the folks who say it was better under Saddam are maybe the dozen or so who didn't end up on the wrong end of his stick.

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 03:19 PM
Do you realize that this guy is comparing a terrible murderous dictator to YOUR COUNTRY?

"Yes well maybe the torture was bad, but it wasn't as bad as under Saddam."

Um, big deal. You're dealing with it better than the Nazis, too, does that make you proud? You're dealing with it better than the barbarian invasions in the 4th Century! Way to go!

You are still torturing and abusing, you're just not doing it as horribly as Saddam (who had 30 years to perfect it on his people).

Yeah, congratulations.

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 03:44 PM
I don't care what anyone says about my country, it's irrelevant to the point and the discussion. As far as Nazis and the 14th Century, I wasn't there and that too is irrelevant. Might be some folks who thought things were pretty good under Hitler. Different strokes. It's all perspective.

What -is- relevant, it seems, is that there doesn't seem to be a circumstance where those in power do NOT abuse those who are helpless to stop them. And these are supposedly civilized nations. Why is it that those with such capacity for cruelty inevitably seem to be put in positions of power or authority/control of prisons/mental hospitals,etc? Are the people like that or do the circumstances and surroundings facilitate the behavior?

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 05:15 PM
I think a lot of people are not keeping in mind that we are also running another prison for Taliban detainees. Nothing like this is going on over there.

This was a collection of soldiers who will be punished. It is not the way all of our soldiers are, or our government as a whole.

And as far as better than Saddam, this is getting to be pretty stale, but my question is this, who was going to punish Saddam for torturing the prisoners?

Thank God someone finally will, and it will be the Iraqi people.

top topics


log in