BF2S Forums Abu Ghraib abuse photos 'show rape'

lowing wrote:

Flecco wrote:

lowing wrote:

Such as it is for the victors of ALL wars THROUGHTOUT HISTORY, by EVERY country.

Doesn't make the firebombing of Dresden right though.

nope, don't recall the media outrage either.

The destruction of the city provoked unease in intellectual circles in Britain. According to Max Hastings, by February 1945, attacks upon German cities had become largely irrelevant to the outcome of the war and the name of Dresden resonated with cultured people all over Europe — "the home of so much charm and beauty, a refuge for Trollope’s heroines, a landmark of the Grand Tour." He writes that the bombing was the first time the public in Allied countries seriously questioned the military actions used to defeat the Nazis.[100]

The unease was made worse by an Associated Press story that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. At a press briefing held by the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force two days after the raids, British Air Commodore Colin McKay Grierson told journalists:

First of all they [Dresden and similar towns] are the centres to which evacuees are being moved. They are centres of communications through which traffic is moving across to the Russian Front, and from the Western Front to the East, and they are sufficiently close to the Russian Front for the Russians to continue the successful prosecution of their battle. I think these three reasons probably cover the bombing.

One of the journalists asked whether the principal aim of bombing of Dresden would be to cause confusion among the refugees or to blast communications carrying military supplies. Grierson answered that the primary aim was communications to prevent them moving military supplies, and to stop movement in all directions if possible. He then added in an offhand remark that the raid also helped destroying "what is left of German morale." Howard Cowan, an Associated Press war correspondent, subsequently filed a story saying that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. There were follow-up newspaper editorials on the issue and a long time opponent of strategic bombing, Richard Stokes MP, asked questions in the House of Commons on 6 March.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-05-28 05:56:27)

imortal wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

And there is a whole lot more which wasn't photographed.

And this is an unprovable, unquantifiable assumtion, that you take as pure fact.  I have no doubt there were other instances than the ones caught on camera, but I do not think it to be as prevailant as you hint at and assume.  And, having been there, I actually take it as a personal insult to the honor and integrity of me, the units I was with, and my fellow veterens.  It is due to remarks like this (and others you have made for the last few months) why I no longer take any argument from you seriously, and I put you in the same catagory as rammunition. This is just the one that ticked me off for the last time.

On topic (and now ignoring obvious prejudice of others here) these are despicable acts, and it will be most humorous when the vidoes are used to convict these sickos.  Nobody claimed these folks were angels, but it would be interesting to know if these were from regular army, army reserve, or national guard units.  Having been both national guard and active duty, I have noted the differences in discipline.  Reserve and guard units can have members whose... habits may go without notice, since they are actually not with their units in civilian life most of the time.  Habits that may have been noticed in active duty units. 

There have been lots of lapses in active military units over the years as well.  Whether it was neo-natzis proliferating in the 82nd at Fort Bragg or the Crips and Bloods dominating the units at Fort Lewis, there have always been discipline issues in the military in any unit.  This does not make them authorized, or mean that the illegal activities they may conduct are condoned.  The important part is that justice is sought under the UCMJ when these violations present themselves.  This must be done to show the service, the american public, and yes, the media, that while the military is not full of saints, that they are able to police themselves and hold the service in the regard it is due, and not treated like the scum they are often portrayed as.

lowing wrote:

So how violent was your rioting when people were getting there heads sawed off, or hung from a bridge and set on fire?

Yours and all the others inconsistent and selective outrage would be quite amusing if it were not so ridiculously tragic..

imortal wrote:

And this is an unprovable, unquantifiable assumtion, that you take as pure fact.  I have no doubt there were other instances than the ones caught on camera, but I do not think it to be as prevailant as you hint at and assume.

And, having been there, I actually take it as a personal insult to the honor and integrity of me, the units I was with, and my fellow veterens.

The important part is that justice is sought under the UCMJ when these violations present themselves.  This must be done to show the service, the american public, and yes, the media, that while the military is not full of saints, that they are able to police themselves and hold the service in the regard it is due, and not treated like the scum they are often portrayed as.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-05-28 07:05:19)

lowing wrote:

Flecco wrote:

lowing wrote:

nope, don't recall the media outrage either.

Media outrage doesn't define right and wrong.

really? since when in regards to warfare?

TSI wrote:

imortal wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

And there is a whole lot more which wasn't photographed.

And this is an unprovable, unquantifiable assumtion, that you take as pure fact.  I have no doubt there were other instances than the ones caught on camera, but I do not think it to be as prevailant as you hint at and assume.  And, having been there, I actually take it as a personal insult to the honor and integrity of me, the units I was with, and my fellow veterens.  It is due to remarks like this (and others you have made for the last few months) why I no longer take any argument from you seriously, and I put you in the same catagory as rammunition. This is just the one that ticked me off for the last time.

On topic (and now ignoring obvious prejudice of others here) these are despicable acts, and it will be most humorous when the vidoes are used to convict these sickos.  Nobody claimed these folks were angels, but it would be interesting to know if these were from regular army, army reserve, or national guard units.  Having been both national guard and active duty, I have noted the differences in discipline.  Reserve and guard units can have members whose... habits may go without notice, since they are actually not with their units in civilian life most of the time.  Habits that may have been noticed in active duty units. 

There have been lots of lapses in active military units over the years as well.  Whether it was neo-natzis proliferating in the 82nd at Fort Bragg or the Crips and Bloods dominating the units at Fort Lewis, there have always been discipline issues in the military in any unit.  This does not make them authorized, or mean that the illegal activities they may conduct are condoned.  The important part is that justice is sought under the UCMJ when these violations present themselves.  This must be done to show the service, the american public, and yes, the media, that while the military is not full of saints, that they are able to police themselves and hold the service in the regard it is due, and not treated like the scum they are often portrayed as.

You can take it as a personal insult...in fact, I'd wish you would. Why? Because the people who perpetrated these acts are representatives of themselves, their unit, the Army, and the United States as a whole. It only takes one to ruin the reputation of a group. If you value your principles and personal integrity, you'll have a look at the armed forces; you'll see how it is a hotbed of hypocrisy. If it were really able to police itself, these flagrant violations everything the armies and people stand for, or at least claim to do.

I won't tell you about what happened in Uzbekistan, because I don't want to offend you. I see US flags on soldiers, I see a lack of principles and humanity. I'm sorry, but America has lost any esteem in mine and many others' eyes.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Doesn't make the firebombing of Dresden right though.

nope, don't recall the media outrage either.

Because you were not there in 1945 to witness it perhaps?

The destruction of the city provoked unease in intellectual circles in Britain. According to Max Hastings, by February 1945, attacks upon German cities had become largely irrelevant to the outcome of the war and the name of Dresden resonated with cultured people all over Europe — "the home of so much charm and beauty, a refuge for Trollope’s heroines, a landmark of the Grand Tour." He writes that the bombing was the first time the public in Allied countries seriously questioned the military actions used to defeat the Nazis.[100]

The unease was made worse by an Associated Press story that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. At a press briefing held by the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force two days after the raids, British Air Commodore Colin McKay Grierson told journalists:

First of all they [Dresden and similar towns] are the centres to which evacuees are being moved. They are centres of communications through which traffic is moving across to the Russian Front, and from the Western Front to the East, and they are sufficiently close to the Russian Front for the Russians to continue the successful prosecution of their battle. I think these three reasons probably cover the bombing.

One of the journalists asked whether the principal aim of bombing of Dresden would be to cause confusion among the refugees or to blast communications carrying military supplies. Grierson answered that the primary aim was communications to prevent them moving military supplies, and to stop movement in all directions if possible. He then added in an offhand remark that the raid also helped destroying "what is left of German morale." Howard Cowan, an Associated Press war correspondent, subsequently filed a story saying that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. There were follow-up newspaper editorials on the issue and a long time opponent of strategic bombing, Richard Stokes MP, asked questions in the House of Commons on 6 March.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden#British

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Bah. You should go to Saudi, they'd like you there.

Since day one. Since one monkey picked up a rock and dashed the others brain out. War itself is wrong, but sometimes an unavoidable and necessary tool for a nation. Killing is wrong. Rape is wrong. If war has to happen, fine. Let the soldiers get it done, killing things and breaking stuff is what they are employed to do. If soldiers do something wrong though they should be investigated. Soldiers should not get away with rape just because they are in a warzone. Soldiers should not get away with the shooting of civillians on the ground. Unfortunately this happens, so the incidents should be investigated to either clear the names of, or prove the guilt of the soldiers involved so they can be punished for their transgressions.

yeah "war never did anything except end slavery, genicide, fascism, nazism,communism, baathism"   <----bumpersticker I saw once.

War hasn't ended genocide. Or Communism...

Macbeth wrote:

White House, Pentagon deny British newspaper's report on torture photos

The White House and Pentagon Thursday both denied a British newspaper's report saying that alleged photographs of abuse at Iraqi prisons include images of rape and sexual assault.

    "None of the photographs in question depict the images described in the article," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at a press briefing of a Daily Telegraph story claiming to describe graphic photographs and accounts of rapes and other abuses of prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib jail outside Baghdad.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- … 451163.htm

Don't ask me how I'm getting news articles from China. Anyway if anyone cares.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No harm in releasing the photos then.

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

White House, Pentagon deny British newspaper's report on torture photos

The White House and Pentagon Thursday both denied a British newspaper's report saying that alleged photographs of abuse at Iraqi prisons include images of rape and sexual assault.

    "None of the photographs in question depict the images described in the article," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at a press briefing of a Daily Telegraph story claiming to describe graphic photographs and accounts of rapes and other abuses of prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib jail outside Baghdad.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- … 451163.htm

Don't ask me how I'm getting news articles from China. Anyway if anyone cares.

So we are back to my orginal observation, no evidence equals proof in order to form opinions about WMD's, and niether proof or evidence is needed to form opinions about Abu Ghraib, whatever, as long as it is against Bush. Love the inconsistancy regarding fact gathering

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

yeah "war never did anything except end slavery, genicide, fascism, nazism,communism, baathism"   <----bumpersticker I saw once.

War hasn't ended genocide. Or Communism...

In the place it was fought it has. If you wanna say that you might wanna add that war didn't end slavery either, EXCEPT where it was fought against.