Iraqis Smeared in Faeces, Sodomized By US Personnel

Politics International Politics
41

Is it true that French men prefer anal sex to vaginal sex? That’s what I’ve heard.[/quote]
No. That’s the Greeks.[/quote]

The Greeks are, I beleive famous for homosexual anal sex… What I’m saying is that I have heard French women complain that French men, even when a vagina is available, prefer anal sex with a woman.[/quote]

While not an expert on the sexual habits of the Greek male, I have heard that his preference for anal sex is not of a homosexual nature but more of some misplaced valor: Being male and unable to wait for wedding bliss and wanting to keep his partner a virgin, as all blushing Greek brides would prefer to be, until such a time as her hymen could be forsaken, he engaged in sodomising his Hellenic lover to assuage their lust. Or so the rumor goes.

I have also heard though that once one has been in the back door it’s hard to leave out of the front.

Which leads me to believe that Big Fluffy is Greek, as he’s always “round the back.”

42

[quote=“butcher boy”][quote]When the previous cases were announced two weeks ago, two were declared to have been homicide.

An Army official said a soldier had been convicted of using excessive force when he shot dead a prisoner who was throwing stones at him.

He was thrown out of the army but did not go to jail. [/quote]

As fred says… the system works. Now who remembers how many people were convicted for My Lai and how long they served?[/quote]

Shortly after Calley’s sentencing, then President Nixon commuted the imprisonment to house arrest.

43

Justice USA style: one rule for Them, another for USA.

44

[quote=“Alien”]
Like you’ve said to me, this isn’t 1974. [/quote]

Dahlin’ I’ve grown up considerably since 1974. You ought to try it. Tear down your McGovern poster, trash the tie-dye t-shirt and stop smokin’ that dope! )And give the Three Dog Night cd a rest, p-l-e-a-s-e??? :laughing:

45

[quote=“Closet Queen”]
Justice USA style: one rule for Them, another for USA.[/quote]

It’s rough coming from the 2nd world, isn’t it? :raspberry: :laughing:

46

[quote]When the
As fred says… the system works. Now who remembers how many people were convicted for My Lai and how long they served?[/quote]

Shortly after Calley’s sentencing, then President Nixon commuted the imprisonment to house arrest.[/quote]

Only one person was convicted, Calley, because there was no evidence to convict anyone else. He served three days in prison, then Nixon had him transferred to Ft. Benning where he lived a normal life save for being unable to leave the base. He was eventually freed on appeal in 1974 after serving under three years of his life sentence (which was reduced a couple of times). The sick part was not that Nixon, who was an even bigger shit than Bush Lite, commuted Calley’s sentence. The sick part was the many state legislatures who passed resolutions demanding clemency. And even sicker, the other My Lais that were never brought to light. And the fact that they attempted to pass Calley off as an uneducated aberration, just as today the abusers in Iraq are painted as trailor trash…

Vorkosigan

47

Actaully, I know who should be blamed. Not President Bush, as all the Deomocrats are in giddy expectation, but Madonna. Have you see the lineup for her next show? She’s going to do her “Die Another Day” video live at Abu Ghraib next month.

Outrage at obscene photos would be a little easier to take from liberal senators if they didn’t have a history of financing them. Had Robert Mapplethorpe snapped the photos at Abu Ghraib, the Senate might have given him a government grant.

George Neumayr

48

Although Bush says that he is sorry for

49

Nice try. It takes a pure mind of hate for Bush to come to such a conclusion. Liberals are going nuts recently. They can’t figure out why Bush’s numbers against Kerry are pretty much rock solid, especially after the past few months of the liberal media 24-7 non-stop onslaught of negativity towards Bush, the biggest in history in an election campaign. And all the while, the stupid and inciminating stuff Kerry is saying on the campaign trail is being concealed. You have to go to CSPAN for that. All the while stuff that hurts Democrats, like Nick Berg’s head being sawed off on video gets concealed and brushed under the carpet for more prision photos, because:

Solider Death = Good News for Democrats
American Failure = Good News for Democrats
Nick Berg = Bad News for Democrats
9/11 = Bad News for Democrats

The reality using your logic Clinton should be held accontable for 9/11 for the following:

  1. Creating the wall between the CIA and FBI by policy.
  2. Gutting military spending.
  3. Having all time lows in military personnel morale.

He shoud also be accountable for the first bombing of the WTC and of the USS Cole bombing and our embassy, etc. etc. Where are all the liberal pundits calling for “Clinton to accept responsibility” or “What did Clinton know and when?”

But now, cause liberals HATE Bush, they are willing to put out any conspiracy theory, one right after another, many of them contradictory, but none the less just part of the strategy to make Bush look like Darth Vader and the reason Suzzy Johnson’s cat died in Podunk Iowa. In fact, moveon.org actually said that Bush, himself, knew about 9/11 and didn’t stop it for political gain.

And … I love it. … It’s not working. And the liberal media doesn’t know why! And why they don’t know why is mostly due to their arrogance and 50-year monopoloy on information power that has recenlty been shattered by the Internet. Also, most Americans know that we are at war and are not willing to humilitate the President … lest we actually loose, thus generating more emboldened terrorist attacks on Ameican soil.

So the liberals scream louder and louder, with even more kooky ideas, all the time thinking you are stupid. I tell you, they are self-destructing. Whereas they pretty much concealed what their real agenda was over the past 30 to 40 years, now you see it in full daylight. It is a real pleasure to watch. I don’t have to convince people anymore of who these guys really are. They’re finally going for broke with the 2004 campaign, letting the whole world know who they really are.[/i]

50

[quote=“pinesay”]

And … I love it. … It’s not working. And the liberal media doesn’t know why! And why they don’t know why is mostly due to their arrogance and 50-year monopoloy on information power that has recenlty been shattered by the Internet. Also, most Americans know that we are at war and are not willing to humilitate the President … lest we actually loose, thus generating more emboldened terrorist attacks on Ameican soil.[/quote]

The tortures at Abu Ghraib have exposed to the world the utter moral bankruptcy of Bush’s war. Far from being fought on behalf of Iraqi democracy, it is a war for U.S. supremacy in which racist dehumanization and brutalization of Arabs and Muslims play an absolutely central role.

Since September 11 the White House has framed its “war on terrorism” in thinly veiled racial and religious terms: as a crusade of the “civilized” against the “uncivilized.” This unsavory propaganda campaign has built upon a more than decade-long effort by the government and the media to demonize Arabs and Muslims as “bloodthirsty terrorists.”

This depiction harkens back to the portrayal of Native Americans as savages out to scalp the good white settlers who only wanted to bring light to their dark existence

51

So, I ask you the question I ask all my fellow “White America is the Source of All Evil in the World” friends: What would you do? What would have been your response to 9/11? What WILL be your response when a nuclear device destroys half of New York?

The reality is that this is all much bigger than America. It is all much bigger than white people. It is all much bigger than Christianity vs. Islam. You have seen Islamofacists all over the world killing their neighbors, including China, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Russia, America, Africa, Singapore, Phillipines … a lot of these places don’t have white people or Americans.

Again, I suggest you come up with a better idea. And I hope it is not the usual liberal presciption: Lay down our arms and show our enemies how much we mean them no harm, and they’ll just be nice. Again, I suggest you read what Osama Bin Laden has to say about what we as Americans must do to avoid Islomofacist aggression:

observer.guardian.co.uk/worldvie … 25,00.html

After you read this (if you have the pateince), then tell me which ones you’re willing to do.

52

That’s just asinine.

To conclude as you have is to totally disregard all of the good things US and British soldiers are doing in Iraq for the Iraqi people.

You are either stupid or are blinded by political bias.

53

And in fact, you see none of the major liberal media showing both sides of the story in Iraq. If they did, they would be equally showing troops with the kindness they have extended to the people. They would be showing Iraqi citizens thankful to the US for what they have done. But instead, you only get the anti-Bush screed. And that’s all what this is about, no more, no less: Get Bush out of office no matter what the cost. Get the Dems back on the throne.

In essesnce, it is saddening to see how the terrorist organizations are laughing their asses off while they use liberal Democrats as pupets. Terrorist organizations’ propaganda has become regular talking points for liberal Democrats. When you take their rehtoric and put it up along side Senator Kennedy’s recent speeches, you get the SAME LANGUAGE:

[i]On March 19, 2004 President Bush asked ‘Who would prefer that Saddam’s torture chambers still be open?’

54

Amen Pinesay:

Perhaps 15,000 Iraqis have died since the war began. Most of these have been killed by Iraqi terrorists and criminals or were deliberately put into harm’s way by Saddam and his generals. Yet, compare this with the estimated 150,000 that were dying every year because of corruption in the Oil for Food program. Innocent women and children without the necessary medication and food and also in Saddam’s torture and rape rooms. So if innocent life is the barometer then Iraqis are 10 times better off today. AND if you take into account the fact that maybe 2,000 deaths can be attributed to American firepower and most has been targeted at militants then… what kind of fight are we really looking at?

Finally, seems that Sadr is in a bit of a difficult spot. Let’s see what happens. He may be finished and as all things in the Arab world, popularity declines once the power or perception of power is gone.

55

Yup , and Al Qaida need to fly more planes into other US cities. US civilians? ah, they are just collateral damage, just like the dead Iraqi civilians, no big deal.

56

Yup , and Al Qaida need to fly more planes into other US cities. US civilians? ah, they are just collateral damage, just like the dead Iraqi civilians, no big deal.[/quote]

Besides, people wouldn’t just fly planes into buildings for no reason. Those people in the twin towers were probably asking for it. Tit for tat, I say, tit for tat.

57

It’s not obvious, else he would have allowed human rights organisations to monitor the facilities from the very beginning and have ensured that the detainess are treated according to the Geneva conventions in all regards. That is not the case, instead some detainees are brought to a “neutral” territory, most if not all are denied POW status and a name is made up for them so that there is no legal protection at all.

Since the US seeks more information than just rank (where applicable) and name you can be sure that torture and/or abuse is sometimes the only way to retrieve it - and the Bush administration has made this possible (or even ordered, we will see …) with the above. To demand that it needs to be as specific as in the earlier example is simply ridiculous.

So how do you explain that 90% of the Iraqis want the US troops out if they are so grateful as you claim?
(Number based on a poll BEFORE the prisoner abuse became public)

58

Rascal:

Show me the poll. Show me the question. Show me other questions in said poll.

I believe that 70 percent was the actual number not 90 and that this was clarified later in the poll that they want to have the Americans leave and see them as occupiers but not until the security situation improves. Was my understanding of this somehow different than yours?

The big myth is that we want to stay.

I don’t want our troops to stay in Iraq acting as policeman. I want the Iraqis to take that over and we always wanted them to do so. We do, however, want to leave a good 50k troops in the region for regional stability and balance. These do not need to be anywhere near the major cities. This is not and has never been about imperialism. I do not know where the Europeans get such ridiculous ideas (a great proportion of “right thinking” Americans as well).

Look at how such troops have lived in Germany for 60 years. Do you think that they are or were a problem. Sometimes yes, but overall? And has not the situation been equally stabiliziing for Germany, its neighbors, the region and for the United States?

This can be a win-win situation. I do not know why so many Europeans are against this “adventure” when the same template worked so well in Europe and in East Asia and now in Eastern Europe. Why cannot we all cooperate to ensure that it works in the Middle East.

Once the UN approves the new government, then I think that a huge boost in confidence and perception would be made if ALL nations that were fighting this decided to send a token force as a vote of confidence and as a sign of unity. I do not think that we would be asking the Germans or French or anyone else too much if we asked for 100 troops from each country. After all, we have sent hundreds of thousand to your respective countries. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and EVEN Spain should send at least 100 troops as well to show that this is now a world concern.

The Americans would still be responsible for the bulk of the security matters but the sign would be one that the world wants a prosperous, stable Iraq and the French and Germans can take solace in the fact that the US went to the UN for its imprimatur (not that we will let the French and Russians get away with looting the Oil for Food program) and that the time has now come to admit that their opposition to the US action in Iraq was also based in “faulty” reasoning. In the case of the US, while no wmds were discovered, in the case of the Europeans, no “imperialist” plan was in the making.

59

See that’s what this Iraq misadventure is all about: neo-con neo-colonialism. Imperialist pig dogs. And you do it so badly. Unlike the Brits who colonised better than anyone has ever done. Oh yes :uk:

60

Well Broon Ale:

Remember after all that we were forced to take over the baton when Britain unilaterally ended its security commitment to the Gulf. After that, who was going to take over? France? So realize that part of our predicament in the Gulf and the Middle East is an extension of the British lack of balls, er inability to guarantee sufficient forces to the region. Finally, the British after all were on the scene when Iraq was created, the Kurds were separated into four different countries, Israel was created, Palestine problem surfaced, Lebanon was created and split off from Syria, the Southern Arabs (saudis) were split off, Pakistan and India and Bangladesh separated violently. So while yes I would be the first to admit that the British were fantastic imperialists who brought civilization to many of these barbaric lands, please also realize that you were not without problems and very difficult gray areas when you did so.