PDA

View Full Version : World News US attacks Iraq abuse images leak



Exedous
16-02--2006, 02:12 AM
Newslink (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4718328.stm)


US attacks Iraq abuse images leak

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41335000/jpg/_41335926_dog.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/videonews.gifAbuse footage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm)


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

What the images show (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4717974.stm)

The US has said images broadcast on Australian TV showing the apparent abuse of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers should not have been released.
A US defence department official said the images could "further inflame and cause unnecessary violence".
The official said action had already been taken against US soldiers guilty of abuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail.
Australian TV has now aired previously unseen images of the apparent abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib in 2003.
The images on SBS TV are thought to be from the same source as those that caused an outcry around the world and led to several US troops being jailed.
The new images show "homicide, torture and sexual humiliation", SBS said.
The SBS' Mike Carey told the BBC the images screened by his network on Wednesday mark a "leap in seriousness" from previously released images of abuse at Abu Ghraib.
"We thought we had a responsibility first and foremost once we had obtained these photographs to broadcast them," he said. 'Held accountable' A US state department legal adviser said the government felt it was better for the photos not to be released.



Another horrible reason we shoud get out of Iraq..NOW!!! Im sickened by these so called soldiers..sick, facist, uneducated, gung ho..loonys..Peace keeprs??? Dont make me laugh!!!!




A US state department legal adviser said the government felt it was better for the photos not to be released


John Bellinger said this was "not because there was anything to hide" - but rather "because we felt it was an invasion of the privacy of the people in the pictures". He said the images, which show "conduct that is absolutely disgusting" were likely to "fan the flames around the world and cause more violence".


I bet the USA is upset by these images...Nuf said!!

Ghost:patch:

Exedous
16-02--2006, 12:36 PM
Im sickened and appauled by these horific images, it goes to show, that the US army, are no better than the facists they are portraying. Once again, we hear of indecent and demoralising acts of torture and cruelty being meeted out to an already love starving peoples. If this sort of torture was to be inficted on american soldiers, there would be a public outcry...We are still reeling over the "cartoons" and the wave of unrest that has flared up....this {as said} will only go to stir up more hatred and unrest. These atrocities must end, before there's more bloodshed.

Ghost:patch:

wiggy
16-02--2006, 01:00 PM
I think they had a video which was on the news as well - I dont agree with war, Its horrible what these people are doing, they are said to be helping with war (the soldiers) but is what they are doing helping?

If a group of iraq's army men went into america and did this their heads would be chopped of - they would proberly be killed. But because its American soldiers doing it they will proberly get a slap on the wrist.

It makes me sick this has happened more than once, we should have never even have gone into Iraq but we did and we should pull out - I say should be will we?

jenni
16-02--2006, 01:36 PM
tis the thing about armies in general - their original purpose was to seize land from other tribes, to gain territory etc - basically murder and pillage...you know, the usual....

we keep the concept alive today and try to turn it into something noble. but the fact is that soldiers are trained not to feel remorse when they are killing - part of what makes up their humanity is destroyed before they even see combat...and what's left is all the crap that makes em act like this.

essentially, the folk who did this, and the heartless guys that trained em are morons. and to want to cover it up!?! so they say that these things are bad when other nations do them....but not when tis the US no-one sanctions them....it's the world's only superpower - what the hell can we do?! they don't listen to the UN....they don't even listen to their own people!

man this sucks

whatever else is brought forward as an excuse, the fact stands a lone that one group of humans is mistreating another group of humans, who are vulnerable and alone. this is the kind of thing that history judges as vile, but not until decades afterwards, when the ruling powers have changed....

Lanky Midget
16-02--2006, 04:39 PM
The U.S. has been orchestrating the downfall of the U.N. for nearly 30 years.

Yes, as the only superpower, the U.S. has allowed itself the privilege of double standards, not just in war but in commerce too..

The U.N. hopefully is the last power that can still hold U.S.A. and it's armed forces accountable for it's actions.

We know it goes on throughout the world, but we seek justice and punishment for other war crimes, don't we?

Ms. Vee
16-02--2006, 06:33 PM
Indeed, this is just further evidence as to why we should get out of Iraq NOW.

I wish I could just think "well, this is from 2003... perhaps they've learnt from it". But with the recent footage of British soldiers abusing Iraqi civilians and today's news that Guantanamo Bay will not be closed down as requested by the UN... it sort of makes you lose faith.

Very depressing and sickening.

scarlett
16-02--2006, 07:06 PM
more abuse pictures from iraq not long after muslims were freaking out over cartoons...mmm what a coincidence...there will be more protests,more violence and then the various goverments around the world can point a finger and say ''see, this is the extremist terror we have to fight on our own doorstep". The media is playing into the hands of the various govts...pictures printed...violent unrest...police crack down...it is a vicious circle that proves the world is a vile place. But then again, it always has been, ever since man first figured out how to make a sharp pointy object to twat his neighbour with...nothing changes, we just get more inventive in our ways to kill and maim.

cymru_jules
19-02--2006, 04:21 PM
From what I gathered these images were from the *original* abuse scandal at Abu Graib, it's not a new one - i.e. just more material so it doesn't really change anything other than increase the occurances of retaliation.

And to address the other point which we've discussed several times over now - I don't actually agree with some of the suggestions here to simply pull our troops out now. That would be a disaster because with greatly reduced law and order the country would descend further into the abyss if not into all out civil war.

It's a shame that some of the powerful arab nations do not wish to contribuite to security and replace the british and americans, but of course they know better than to get involved in the mess we have caused!

I agree with others in that the western nations have played right into the extremists hands - look how they try to fuel a civil war by committing attrocities between the different ethnic groups, etc.

matthew
19-02--2006, 04:45 PM
From what I gathered these images were from the *original* abuse scandal at Abu Graib, it's not a new one - i.e. just more material so it doesn't really change anything other than increase the occurances of retaliation.


They are...and i agree it should not change anything .. but it will. I have seen a few of these 'new' images floating around the web for MONTHS.. It is only the media thinking they have a 'scoop'.. ... The people involved have been 'dealt with'... All these images do is create unrest that is unjustified.

It's not 'more' at all... The kinda responses in this thread is what was wanted.. Shame on the media for creating a 'new' 'outrage' from something that is not new at all.


and today's news that Guantanamo Bay will not be closed down as requested by the UN... it sort of makes you lose faith.

5 nations including china carried out this assesment.. They said 'ammounted to torture' what in the world does that mean ?.. If the prisoners were just left to die..what would be said then ?.. lose lose situation.
They COULD have visited Guantanamo if they wished..but because they could not talk to prisoners they declined .. why ?..

They then went about baseing their opinion on information already 'out there' comeing to a pre ordained conlusion.. pretty much biased.. fucking disgraceful.

This whole thing makes me fucking angry.

Saying all that i DO think it should be closed..because the ends no longer justify the means.. plus accusations will continue .. based on those images . It is a PR disaster...

matthew
19-02--2006, 04:57 PM
[quote=jenni]

essentially, the folk who did this, and the heartless guys that trained em are morons. and to want to cover it up!?!


NOT TRUE


so they say that these things are bad when other nations do them....but not when tis the US no-one sanctions them....

NOT TRUE





whatever else is brought forward as an excuse, the fact stands a lone that one group of humans is mistreating another group of humans, who are vulnerable and alone. this is the kind of thing that history judges as vile, but not until decades afterwards, when the ruling powers have changed....




"...In Abu Ghraib specifically, there have been more than 25 individuals - officer and enlisted - that have been held accountable for criminal acts and other failures."
Iraq's Human Rights Minister Nermeen Othman said Abu Ghraib had improved since the pictures were taken.
"There has not been any case of torture except one about a month ago," she told Al Arabiya television. "There has been a change in the American policy towards Iraqi detainees."
But human rights group Amnesty International USA called for a full, independent investigation.
"The repulsive images released today give a clearer picture of the scope of abuses perpetrated at Abu Ghraib and raise the question of what other abuses occurred there and elsewhere when cameras weren't present," it said in a statement

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the abuses at Abu Ghraib had already been fully investigated.
"The department believes that the release of all of these images will further inflame and cause unnecessary violence in the world," Whitman said.

http://smh.com.au/news/World/US-says-new-Abu-Ghraib-images-harmful/2006/02/15/1139890809467.html

shaggie
19-02--2006, 09:51 PM
If the U.S. wouldn't have kept stalling, the UN might have visited. The Bush administration has a track record of trying to bypass domestic and international law. Gitmo in Cuba is another good example.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4123200.stm

matthew
21-02--2006, 04:25 PM
If the U.S. wouldn't have kept stalling, the UN might have visited.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4123200.stm[/quote]

If you are declined access to detainees and this continues for 3 months [lets say] what do you do ?.. wait another 9 months and deciede ''well no we won't bother going now..make a 'new' report based on 'old' information...
or Take what acces you can.. ?.


The Bush administration has a track record of trying to bypass domestic and international law. Gitmo in Cuba is another good example.
Your bias...

Atomik
21-02--2006, 04:28 PM
Your bias...Then why did the US refuse to classify detainees as POWs, if not in an effort to avoid their responsibilities under the Geneva Convention?

shaggie
22-02--2006, 01:08 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4123200.stm
If you are declined access to detainees and this continues for 3 months [lets say] what do you do ?.. wait another 9 months and deciede ''well no we won't bother going now..make a 'new' report based on 'old' information...
or Take what acces you can.. ?.


Your bias...[/quote]

No bias Matt. Just look at the facts. You can't believe everything you see on the White House homepage or press statements by McClellan. Politics is more complicated and dirty than what patriotic grade school text books would lead everyone to believe.

The Bush administration has avoided domestic and international law as much as it could. The latest is that they are skirting the law by transferring 'illegal combatants' to third parties for interrogation, although they have done this in such a sneaky manner that it is difficult to prove. Countries in Europe and groups in the U.S. realize this is happening based on the circumstantial evidence but there's not much that can be done about it.

The U.S. didn't let the UN visit for 4 years after 911. Then after the report is released, the Bush administration whines that the report was written without a visit. What kind of logic is that?

The whole idea of Gitmo was to circumvent the domestic and international law. Gitmo is a no-man's land that is outside the jurisdiction of the dometic U.S. legal system and the international legal system. Bush has even publicly scoffed sarcastically at the legal system with his remark "International Law? What's that? I better go check with my lawyer."

shaggie
22-02--2006, 01:14 AM
The Bush administration came up with clever names such as 'illegal combatant' to conveniently circumvent the Geneva Convention and U.S. domestic law. They could have modified the Geneva Convention to deal with 'illegal combatants' or held another international convention to address this situation but obviously chose not to.

matthew
22-02--2006, 08:30 PM
No bias Matt. Just look at the facts. You can't believe everything you see on the White House homepage or press statements by McClellan. Politics is more complicated and dirty than what patriotic grade school text books would lead everyone to believe.


Of course it is your Bias.. go read your 'outsourcing of American ports' thread and have the nerve to patronise me by thinking i believe everything from the White house and things are more complicated than ''patriotic grade school text books''

You neglect that the US goverment still holds control over these ports.. you neglect that China runs a quantity of US airports you neglect 'foreign companys' run lots of US companys and facilities.. this happens all over the world..



UK : http://ir.aggreko.com/agk/faq/
http://www.keller.co.uk/klr/case/studies/row/3417972

US: http://www.buyusa.gov/uae/en/

Iraq: http://www.portaliraq.com/news/Iraq+Now+seminar+in+Dubai+connects+key+c ontractors__349.html

Etc.. As i am sure you know many companys including the US had a hand in the new Palm–Jumeirah Island.

So because a US company helped Dubai .. Dubai has something to worry about ? The US is secretly building weapons facilities underneath the palm tree hotel complex .. strategicaly built off shore ofcourse.. I read that other thread to see if you were being satirical.. ?? nope you actually believe because it is a 'Arab' owned company.. we or the US has something to worry about ??. ridiculous.. What certain elements of the population do ..has nothing to do with the goverments [well we could argue that i suppose] on this matter that other matter.. your stretching it a bit...

It's not some cabal or mutualy beneficial alliances with goverments..it's BUSINESS..

Getting back to the point:


The Bush administration has avoided domestic and international law as much as it could. The latest is that they are skirting the law by transferring 'illegal combatants' to third parties for interrogation, although they have done this in such a sneaky manner that it is difficult to prove. Countries in Europe and groups in the U.S. realize this is happening based on the circumstantial evidence but there's not much that can be done about it.

Oh so Europe is not complicite this time.. they just can't do anything about it.. mmm.
We have scarce media reporting on this matter so we BOTH will be pretty much filling in the blanks any wich way we like.. 'Rendition' is not illegal.. i have to say imho it is kept 'secret' because we can all make wild accusations like YOU and arguements based on bugger all knowledge of what these 'Renditions' involved.. I am sure if you look into it the US has sent detainees to a myriad of countries that in other 'conspiracy' are working AGAINST us.. or not 'on our side'.. Its great how it is possible to twist international politics any wich way you like.



The U.S. didn't let the UN visit for 4 years after 911. Then after the report is released, the Bush administration whines that the report was written without a visit. What kind of logic is that?


While we appreciate the willingness of the US Government to invite three of us, Asma Jahangir, Manfred Nowak and Leila Zerrougui, we deeply regret that similar invitations were not extended to Leandro Despouy and Paul Hunt, that the visit to Guantanamo Bay Naval Station is limited to one day and that private interviews or visits with detainees are explicitly excluded.

We have carefully considered the invitation and decided to accept it on the following basis. In a spirit of cooperation we accept the short duration of the visit and the fact that only three of us will be permitted to visit the facilities. However, we cannot accept the exclusion of private interviews with detainees as this would not only contravene the Terms of Reference [I]for Fact-finding missions by Special Procedures but also undermine the purpose of an objective and fair assessment of the situation of detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay.

We are confident that the US Government, which attaches great importance to the principles of independent and objective fact finding, will understand our position. We have decided that Asma Jahangir, Manfred Nowak and Leila Zerrougui will visit Guantanamo Bay provided that they will have free access to all detainees and the opportunity to carry out private interviews with them. The date envisaged for the visit is 6 December 2005.


http://www2.essex.ac.uk/human_rights_centre/rth/docs/Guantanamo%20Bay%20Detainees%2031%20Oct. doc

I accept that.. but my view is what would be achieved by speaking with detainees ? A varied bunch of who knows who ?.. They discused conditions with former detainees .. They would have highlighted i am sure both sides .. but either way it would have been reported negatively ..
Saying that those discussing it on the side of the UN are not being as 'diplomatic' or as 'reasonable' as they could be.. from what i have heard they just seem biased..

I don't think it is a holiday camp but even the clean sterile atmosphere of the facility could be construed as a 'hostile enviroment sapping the life of those detained'.. the fact that 10% of those released go back to activities of terrorism because of 'lack of evidence' seems to pass some people by.. We just hear about the 'innocent victims'.. As i said it should be closed down because it is a PR disaster.. and is tarnished with 'Torture' rightly or wrongly.. The debate has been won unfairly by those that scream 'torture' and defend anyone regardless.

Some groups contend 'Human rights' have supposedly been infringed.. but they would defend anyone i think..just to perpetuate their agenda. I have heard far to many of those people articulate their point and are deemed 'saviours' and those that articulate my point of view deemed like i/we want people hung up by their balls... Personaly i think i fall in the middle of both arguements.. But only both extremes of view are heard.

Its just a war of words.. imho.




The whole idea of Gitmo was to circumvent the domestic and international law. [B]Gitmo is a no-man's land that is outside the jurisdiction of the dometic U.S. legal system and the international legal system. Bush has even publicly scoffed sarcastically at the legal system with his remark "International Law? What's that? I better go check with my lawyer."


It's not..but i give up.. you win.

matthew
22-02--2006, 08:32 PM
The Bush administration came up with clever names such as 'illegal combatant' to conveniently circumvent the Geneva Convention and U.S. domestic law. They could have modified the Geneva Convention to deal with 'illegal combatants' or held another international convention to address this situation but obviously chose not to.

I am sure you could make a powerful and more articulate arguement from my perspective if you wished.. but your 'not on my side'.. You are pretty strange sometimes :whistle: :)

Milo
22-02--2006, 09:18 PM
The U.S. has been orchestrating the downfall of the U.N. for nearly 30 years. Yes, as the only superpower, the U.S. has allowed itself the privilege of double standards, not just in war but in commerce too.. The U.N. hopefully is the last power that can still hold U.S.A. and it's armed forces accountable for it's actions.

And 99% of the time doesn't the UK supports the US.

the western nations have played right into the extremists hands

Surely the UK and US (very few other nations join us), have by their international bullying created the extremists.

Read Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis.

matthew
22-02--2006, 09:30 PM
The U.S. has been orchestrating the downfall of the U.N. for nearly 30 years. Yes, as the only superpower, the U.S. has allowed itself the privilege of double standards, not just in war but in commerce too.. The U.N. hopefully is the last power that can still hold U.S.A. and it's armed forces accountable for it's actions.

Highly generalised imho ...


And 99% of the time doesn't the UK supports the US.

Random high figure plucked from the ether imho.



the western nations have played right into the extremists hands


No rhetoric spouted by the anti war types have played right into the extremists hands .. if not created done their work for them in a lot of cases.


Surely the UK and US (very few other nations join us), have by their international bullying created the extremists.

Very few mmmmm Try over 30 including Iraq...

Again:

No rhetoric spouted by the anti war types .. if not created have done their work for them in a lot of cases.




Read Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis.


Why ?.

Starke Ravinmad
22-02--2006, 11:01 PM
Here's a different perspective.
The photos and videos in question show naked men in embarrasing positions. Men being forced to masturbate. A man with some wounds on his arse. Some guys tied in not very comfortable positions. An American soldier holding a barking dog near a guy. A couple bodies.

By comparison, what is hussein's regime famous for?
This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all the bones in the feet of a 2-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. . . . This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or as a means of execution. . . . This is a regime that will drag a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative in and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare . . . not just on the 15,000 killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan.
According to Human Rights Watch, during 23 years of Saddam's rule some 290,000 Iraqis disappeared, the majority of these reckoned to be now dead. Rounding this number down by as much as 60,000 to compensate for the "reckoned to be," that's 230,000. It's 10,000 a year. It's 200 people every week. That's what he did to his own people. What would he do to you or me if the situation was reversed?

No torture was done in Abu Ghraib. Were prisoners treated badly? Yes. Is it acceptable? No. Were the perpetrators dealt with? Yes. But calling it torture is just an attempt to manipulate everyone's opinions at a time when the whole world is wound up and looking for an excuse to go off.

Milo
25-02--2006, 01:28 PM
Here's a different perspective.
The photos and videos in question show naked men in embarrasing positions. Men being forced to masturbate. A man with some wounds on his arse. Some guys tied in not very comfortable positions. An American soldier holding a barking dog near a guy. A couple bodies.

By comparison, what is hussein's regime famous for?
This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all the bones in the feet of a 2-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. . . . This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or as a means of execution. . . . This is a regime that will drag a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative in and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare . . . not just on the 15,000 killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan.
According to Human Rights Watch, during 23 years of Saddam's rule some 290,000 Iraqis disappeared, the majority of these reckoned to be now dead. Rounding this number down by as much as 60,000 to compensate for the "reckoned to be," that's 230,000. It's 10,000 a year. It's 200 people every week. That's what he did to his own people. What would he do to you or me if the situation was reversed?

No torture was done in Abu Ghraib. Were prisoners treated badly? Yes. Is it acceptable? No. Were the perpetrators dealt with? Yes. But calling it torture is just an attempt to manipulate everyone's opinions at a time when the whole world is wound up and looking for an excuse to go off.


3 entries found for torture.

tor·ture (tôrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifchhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifr) n.


Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.Stark Ravinmad, you must be.

Starke Ravinmad
25-02--2006, 04:06 PM
Perhaps. But what every one of those prisoners would genuinely love to do to you is way worse than anything that's happened to them. Perspective.

It would be kinda cool if people here could disagree with me without having to be insulting.

Atomik
25-02--2006, 04:21 PM
But what every one of those prisoners would genuinely love to do to you is way worse than anything that's happened to them.And that's the thing, really. How we treat our worst enemies is the best measure of our decency as a society. And by that yardstick, we're failing miserably. Arguing that your enemy is lower than you is simply a good way of ensuring that your own behaviour keeps sinking towards a lower and lower standard. Seeing enemies who're capable of atrocities should motivate to raise the moral bar - not lower it.

Starke Ravinmad
25-02--2006, 08:32 PM
How we treat our worst enemies is the best measure of our decency as a society. And by that yardstick, we're failing miserably.

Not so. Look at how all countries treat their enemies. If you use that "yardstick", we're far above over half of the world. It's fine to talk about how much we suck, but in this case we're doing quite well. Sure we could improve, but I would much rather be a prisoner of a Noth American or a western European country than anywhere else in the world.

I still maintaine that making someone uncomfortable or scaring them or embarrasing them is not torture. It's not nice and it's not necessary, but it's also not torture. When (if) they're released they'll be pissed off, but they'll have all their limbs and their families won't have had to watch them die. Instead of being appalled at this, you should check out how the middle east treats their own people, much less enemies. In Iran a woman who commits adultery is buried to her shoulders and stoned to death. Today. Why does no one try to stop that? We're bullies, but we don't torture.

Atomik
25-02--2006, 08:43 PM
Not so. Look at how all countries treat their enemies.That's a vacuous argument. "They're worse than us so we must be ok"? C'mon! Is that the best you can do? You're gonna measure our moral worth on the basis that we're not as bad as fascist dictatorships?


I still maintaine that making someone uncomfortable or scaring them or embarrasing them is not torture.Maintain it all you like. All you're doing is attempting to redefine the dictionary definition of what constitutes torture. Torture can be psychological as well as physical. To try and pretend that you're not torturing someone because there are no scars on their body is Orwellian newspeak.


Instead of being appalled at this, you should check out how the middle east treats their own people, much less enemies.This is fucking pathetic. You could use that argument to justify just about anything. I could arrest you, kick the fuck out of you in the cells, then throw you out on the street and say "Hey, at least you're not in Iraq. They'd have attached electrodes to your balls over there!". Your using the same level of argument that children use in the playground. Just because someone else is worse than you, it doesn't make your behaviour acceptable. I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't far worse countries than those of the West, so your point is entirely irrelevant.


We're bullies, but we don't torture.Yes we do. I'm sorry that you don't agree with the dictionary definition of the word, but I suggest that you stop trying to redefine language to suit your own agenda.

Starke Ravinmad
25-02--2006, 08:55 PM
Not once did I say our behavior is acceptable. You made up the decency yardstick and said by that we're failing miserably. I illustrated that by your yardstick we are doing better than most. I did not imply we're at the top of the yardstick, simply that others are failing a great deal more than us, putting us at a higher spot on the scale than you're giving us credit for. And THAT'S my whole point. What we've done is not as bad as the press it's getting. I described what's really bad to give perspective, not to jusatify anything. Apparently an open mind here only works in one direction.

Atomik
25-02--2006, 09:21 PM
Not once did I say our behavior is acceptable. You made up the decency yardstick and said by that we're failing miserably. I illustrated that by your yardstick we are doing better than most.Rubbish. A mile inch doesn't stop being an inch because someone else has discovered a mile. By that yardstick, we're doing terribly. The fact that others are doing worse changes nothing and is irrelevant to objective moral measure of our own behaviour.


I did not imply we're at the top of the yardstick, simply that others are failing a great deal more than us, putting us at a higher spot on the scale than you're giving us credit for.Agai, rubbish. Scale has nothing to do with it. I'm not interested in scale. I'm fully aware that there are far worse countries. That doesn't mean that I want to see our measure of our own behaviour dragged down towards the lowest common denominator.


And THAT'S my whole point. What we've done is not as bad as the press it's getting.I doubt many would disagree. The press exist to sell papers - not as guardians of our morality.


I described what's really bad to give perspective, not to jusatify anything.You might want to make that clearer next time. From here, it sounded as though you were trying to justify torture by redefining the word.


Apparently an open mind here only works in one direction.If I didn't have an open mind, we wouldn't still be having this conversation.

matthew
26-02--2006, 12:51 PM
Doktor Atomik.. don't you think that language can create its own reality.. if i say i am torturing someone it would mean something different to you as it would to me. If i am abusing some it could be seen as torture.. given how you interprete it..

Abuse is a general term for the use or treatment of something (person, thing, idea, etc.) that causes some kind of harm (to the abused person or thing, to the abusers themselves, or to someone else) or is unlawful or wrongful. Its close synonyms are mistreatment and maltreatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse


imho this was abuse not torture... you say ''I suggest that you stop trying to redefine language to suit your own agenda.'' imho you are guilty of this as well .




No torture was done in Abu Ghraib. Were prisoners treated badly? Yes. Is it acceptable? No. Were the perpetrators dealt with? Yes. But calling it torture is just an attempt to manipulate everyone's opinions at a time when the whole world is wound up and looking for an excuse to go off.


I agree with you...

Atomik
26-02--2006, 01:02 PM
Doktor Atomik.. don't you think that language can create its own reality..Yes, I do. Which is why I think it's shocking that people are attempting to redefine words in order to manipulate people's perception of something.


if i say i am torturing someone it would mean something different to you as it would to me. If i am abusing some it could be seen as torture.. given how you interprete it..It has nothing to do with how I interpret it. It's the dictionary definition of the word. I'm sorry if you don't find the facts convenient, but I don't think we should be changing our language to suit a political agenda.


imho this was abuse not torture... Your opinion has nothing to do with it. It was torture. Your opinion doesn't change something that's an established fact. Let me remind you again, since you appear to be ignorant of the actual facts:


torture
noun
1 [u] the act of causing great physical or mental pain in order to persuade someone to do something or to give information, or as an act of cruelty to a person or animal:Now you might not like this definition of torture, and you might like to argue that our current definition of the word causes confusion or is misleading or whatever you like. But it's still a fact that according to the current definition of the word, torture was what took.

matthew
26-02--2006, 01:42 PM
Yes, I do. Which is why I think it's shocking that people are attempting to redefine words in order to manipulate people's perception of something.

I don't think the word is being re-defined but if you look what abuse states in a dictionary.. you could say it was abuse with the same level of authority. 'Torture' is being used to manipulate peoples perception of something.




It has nothing to do with how I interpret it. It's the dictionary definition of the word. I'm sorry if you don't find the facts convenient, but I don't think we should be changing our language to suit a political agenda.

Under the Geneva convention 'enemy combatants' can be kept with out trial.. so it seems if you decied to interprete something somebody else can deciede to interprete it differently.. confusion and manipulation is then distorted to reflect a 'political agenda'.. We are all guilty of it..



Your opinion has nothing to do with it. It was torture. Your opinion doesn't change something that's an established fact. Let me remind you again, since you appear to be ignorant of the actual facts:

Now you might not like this definition of torture, and you might like to argue that our current definition of the word causes confusion or is misleading or whatever you like. But it's still a fact that according to the current definition of the word, torture was what took.


I am not ignorant of the facts


TRANSITIVE VERB:
a·bused , a·bus·ing , a·bus·es

To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
Obsolete To deceive or trick.NOUN:
(http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/schwa.gif-byhttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/oomacr.gifshttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gif)

Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority; drug abuse.
Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse.
Sexual abuse.
An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses against its citizens.
Insulting or coarse language: verbal abuse.
"How often misused words generate misleading thoughts"

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/abuse

We could argue all day if 'Torture' or 'abuse' is appropriate.. Why are you so keen to use the term 'Torture' over the word 'abuse' ?.. when this could be defined as 'abuse'... shock horror you may have a alternate agenda !!! .


How we treat our worst enemies is the best measure of our decency as a society

and how we treat those abusing others is a sign of us as a society also... on the whole we treat prisoners with due care .. do people abuse there power.. ofcourse.

Atomik
26-02--2006, 01:56 PM
.. you could say it was abuse with the same level of authority.I agree. Just because it's abuse, it doesn't change the fact that it's also torture.


'Torture' is being used to manipulate peoples perception of something.I really couldn't give a shit. Whatever the word is or isn't being used for does not change the fact that it is a correct and factual definition of what took place. Whether people's perceptions are being manipulated is another issue.


Under the Geneva convention 'enemy combatants' can be kept with out trial.. so it seems if you decied to interprete something somebody else can deciede to interprete it differently.. confusion and manipulation is then distorted to reflect a 'political agenda'.. We are all guilty of it.. Yet again, you make the classsic arrogant and ignorant mistake that you constantly make when debating issues such as these with me. You assume that my views can be neatly categorised into some convenient left-wing pigeonhole, and you seem to therefore assume that you must know what my opinion is in regards to every single aspect of the Iraq conflict or the war on terror. So with that in mind, could you please point me to the post where I said that I don't believe it's reasonable to hold enemy combatants for an indefininte period?


I am not ignorant of the facts

TRANSITIVE VERB:
a·bused , a·bus·ing , a·bus·esWell all you'd done is to demonstrate your ignorance. Could you point me towards the post where I said that abuse isn't a correct and reasonable definition of what took place? Are you actually debating with me, or some fictional character whose views you're attributing to me?


We could argue all day if 'Torture' or 'abuse' is appropriate.. Why are you so keen to use the term 'Torture' over the word 'abuse' ?.. when this could be defined as 'abuse'... shock horror you may have a alternate agenda !!! .Yet again, I don't think I've actually expressed a preference between the two words. Is it possible that we could maybe limit this discussion to views that I actually hold and opinions that I've actually stated rather than words that you seem intent on putting in my mouth? My comments have been made in response to the stated denial that the abuse that took place was torture. This is clearly factually incorrect when taken in the context of the dictionary definition, so I've pointed out that error. Now if you'd care to ask me whether I think 'abuse' would be a more accurate description before shooting your mouth off, then you might find that my opinion surprises you.

matthew
26-02--2006, 02:32 PM
I agree. Just because it's abuse, it doesn't change the fact that it's also torture.

eh ??? even if i accept it was torture the implications are that it is percieved quite differently.. you may not give a shit.. heck neither do i.. but ''Whether people's perceptions are being manipulated is another issue'' THAT is a BIG issue.. so maybe thats what i am argueing over.. rather than what you or i may think.:o



Yet again, you make the classsic arrogant and ignorant mistake that you constantly make when debating issues such as these with me. You assume that my views can be neatly categorised into some convenient left-wing pigeonhole, and you seem to therefore assume that you must know what my opinion is in regards to every single aspect of the Iraq conflict or the war on terror. So with that in mind, could you please point me to the post where I said that I don't believe it's reasonable to hold enemy combatants for an indefininte period?

apologies.. it was merely a e.g..

It was not personal .. i meant 'you could' as in 'it could be' not 'Dok is saying'

Saying that .. you are good at hiding what you think .. so sometimes i may just pigeon hole you .. only to find i aint far off the truth.. clearly i can be hideously wrong.. thats not always my fault though. You do it also.. but i doubt either us wish to squable endlessly about it..?.

I may have subconciously chose that subject because you said:


Then why did the US refuse to classify detainees as POWs, if not in an effort to avoid their responsibilities under the Geneva Convention?

I was not meaning to be arrogant or ''assume that you must know what my opinion is in regards to every single aspect of the Iraq conflict or the war on terror.''.. i am not as devious as all that, am i ?.

Atomik
26-02--2006, 03:18 PM
eh ??? even if i accept it was torture the implications are that it is percieved quite differently.. you may not give a shit.. heck neither do i.. but ''Whether people's perceptions are being manipulated is another issue'' THAT is a BIG issue.. so maybe thats what i am argueing over.. rather than what you or i may think.:oI agree it's a big issue. You're welcome to debate it. However, the issue I was debating was whether or not the abuse that had taken place was correctly described as torture.


apologies.. it was merely a e.g..Accepted :D


Saying that .. you are good at hiding what you think .. so sometimes i may just pigeon hole you .. This is another misconception on your part. I don't feel it necessary to 'hide' what I think, and quite often I simply don't have the time to go into the minute detail of what I think. To interpret that as 'hiding' something is putting a bizarre spin on things, to say the least. I don't think I've ever been reluctant to share my point of view if I have a clear opinion on something! Just because a particular point hasn't risen during the course of a discussion, it doesn't mean that I'm 'hiding' something.


i am not as devious as all that, am i ?.I don't think you're devious. But you do have a habit of pigeonholing people's views. We're not all left/right stereotypes. For example, I don't believe we should withdraw our troops at this point, but that's certainly not a view shared by the anti-war movement as a whole. Sometimes I find it pointless discussing these things with you because you seem to have a very pre-conceived notion of what I think, to the point that it feels as though you're debating with an imaginary figure that holds a set of opinions to which I do not subscribe.

matthew
26-02--2006, 03:43 PM
[
I agree it's a big issue. You're welcome to debate it. However, the issue I was debating was whether or not the abuse that had taken place was correctly described as torture.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/27/usint10545.htm have seperated 'abuse' and 'torture'.. they seem to think it was 'abuse'' . Calling it 'torture' is manipulative [even if you drag the OED into it].. You may disagree but by using 'torture' you ARE giving in to a alternative agenda.. you may not think so but imho you are. 'We' are 'argueing' it was abuse.. that really should be the end of it.. We should be able to agree to disagree.




This is another misconception on your part. I don't feel it necessary to 'hide' what I think, and quite often I simply don't have the time to go into the minute detail of what I think. To interpret that as 'hiding' something is putting a bizarre spin on things, to say the least. I don't think I've ever been reluctant to share my point of view if I have a clear opinion on something! Just because a particular point hasn't risen during the course of a discussion, it doesn't mean that I'm 'hiding' something.

Maybe not.. but if you don't give much away anything or swing into somebody based on 'how you see it' clearly mis-communication can occur.





I don't think you're devious. But you do have a habit of pigeonholing people's views. We're not all left/right stereotypes. For example, I don't believe we should withdraw our troops at this point, but that's certainly not a view shared by the anti-war movement as a whole. Sometimes I find it pointless discussing these things with you because you seem to have a very pre-conceived notion of what I think, to the point that it feels as though you're debating with an imaginary figure that holds a set of opinions to which I do not subscribe.


I also said: only to find i aint far off the truth..

wich has happened a few times

clearly i can be hideously wrong..

wich has happened a few times

thats not always my fault though.

imho a truth

You do it also..

do you disagree ?

but i doubt either us wish to squable endlessly about it..?.

I don't.. i have read enough of your posts to realise the way you debate.. and sometimes in the event of you not giving much away .. i can jump to conclusions.. I think once we managed 3 pages or so before you ended up agreeing with a point that if you had decieded to just answer the stinking question .. could have been cleard up previously. It's like playing chess sometimes. I don't mean to be offensive , so get the fu..mmm i don't think think you would see the funny side of sarcastic verbal abuse to quell a arguement that could go on for days...:o

Atomik
26-02--2006, 04:22 PM
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/27/usint10545.htm have seperated 'abuse' and 'torture'.. they seem to think it was 'abuse'' . Calling it 'torture' is manipulative [even if you drag the OED into it].. You may disagree but by using 'torture' you ARE giving in to a alternative agenda.. you may not think so but imho you are. 'We' are 'argueing' it was abuse.. that really should be the end of it.. We should be able to agree to disagree.I haven't even expressed an opinion regarding which word is more applicable, so I don't see whay I'd be agreeing to disagree over. The point that I've been making is that torture is a correct description of what took place - as according to the dictionary definition. That's not an opinion - that's a fact. If you want to discuss whether it's manipulative to use the word torture, then as I've already said, that's another debate.


Maybe not.. but if you don't give much away anything or swing into somebody based on 'how you see it' clearly mis-communication can occur.Again, you're projecting your own spin. It's not that I haven't "given anything away". My opinions on specific issues simply haven't cropped up during the course of the debate. I don't even know what specific opinions I'm meant to be concealing! If you'd care to enlighten me, I'd be happy to share my opinions with you.


do you disagree ?Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking whether I agree with.


It's like playing chess sometimes. I don't mean to be offensive , so get the fu..mmm i don't think think you would see the funny side of sarcastic verbal abuse to quell a arguement that could go on for days...:oI don't have the slightest problem with it, so long as I know you're joking. :D

matthew
26-02--2006, 04:49 PM
I haven't even expressed an opinion regarding which word is more applicable, so I don't see whay I'd be agreeing to disagree over. The point that I've been making is that torture is a correct description of what took place - as according to the dictionary definition. That's not an opinion - that's a fact. If you want to discuss whether it's manipulative to use the word torture, then as I've already said, that's another debate.

Well abuse is also a correct description to use [thats also a fact].. so why the big debate ?.


Again, you're projecting your own spin. It's not that I haven't "given anything away". My opinions on specific issues simply haven't cropped up during the course of the debate. I don't even know what specific opinions I'm meant to be concealing! If you'd care to enlighten me, I'd be happy to share my opinions with you.

Well get around to posting if you think it is torture or abuse . and we might all be able to agree or disagree.. a move the fuck along. If it is 'open to interpretation' then why the hell have you been argueing the toss ?.




Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking whether I agree with.

All the things you accuse me of doing..



I don't have the slightest problem with it, so long as I know you're joking. :D


Well then.. ''get then fuck off my back, man.'':D

Atomik
26-02--2006, 05:12 PM
Well abuse is also a correct description to use [thats also a fact].. so why the big debate ?.I never said it wasn't, so you tell me!


Well get around to posting if you think it is torture or abuse . and we might all be able to agree or disagree.. a move the fuck along. If it is 'open to interpretation' then why the hell have you been argueing the toss ?.Fucking hell. It's both! That's not an opinion - that's a fact based on the dictionary definition of the terms! I thought we'd established that?

matthew
26-02--2006, 06:04 PM
I never said it wasn't, so you tell me!

I am not the one who started it.. You argue that ''people are attempting to redefine words in order to manipulate people's perception of something.''.. that never really happened..


Fucking hell. It's both! That's not an opinion - that's a fact based on the dictionary definition of the terms! I thought we'd established that


No... because somebody does not think it was torture .. you decieded to kick off.

Atomik
26-02--2006, 06:36 PM
I am not the one who started it.. You argue that ''people are attempting to redefine words in order to manipulate people's perception of something.''.. that never really happened.. Bloody hell! Now you're trying to rewrite history as well!!! Let me remind you....


Starke Ravinmad[/b]]No torture was done in Abu Ghraib.

I agree with you...See?


No... because somebody does not think it was torture .. you decieded to kick off.Do you still not get it? It has absolutely nothing to do with what people 'think'. It was torture. That's a demonstrable fact, objectively proven by reference to the dictionary definition of torture. Now if you want to debate whether the use of the word 'torture' is constructive, or misleading, or emotive.... fine. That's a different discussion. But whether you like it or not, what took place was torture, regardless of whether the choice of that word to describe it pleases you or not.

Starke Ravinmad
02-03--2006, 12:24 AM
My mistake was not looking up the word "torture" before using it. I didn't realize it covers just about any excessive pain or cruelty. I mistakenly thought it only refered to extreme pain/mental anguish. Under the "proper" definition it can be used to describe things like a boxer losing a fight or even someone with a broken heart. Somehow my whole point was missed and the entire thread became a debate about the word "torture".

I, for one, will still not be using that word to describe anything except extremely horrific situations. I think that is the general perception.

Atomik
02-03--2006, 12:30 AM
Are you getting confused between the defintions posted for torture and abuse?

Atomik
02-03--2006, 12:32 AM
I, for one, will still not be using that word to describe anything except extremely horrific situations. I think that is the general perception.That's certainly not the general perception of people with an adequate grasp of the English. If you don't understand what words mean, I suggest you refrain from using them and from criticising others for using them correctly.

Starke Ravinmad
02-03--2006, 04:18 AM
You seem to have no problem belittling people. A trait you might want to work on.

You are wrong. Ask people away from this discussion to describe torture and you will realize it. Until then, you only know what YOU know.

Atomik
02-03--2006, 08:54 AM
You seem to have no problem belittling people. You belittle yourself through your own ignorance and through your inability to admit when you're wrong.

The word 'torture' was quite correctly used to describe the physical and mental treatment of prisoners held by American forces. You incorrectly objected to its use. Your error was pointed out to you. Rather than doing the reasonable thing and admitting you made a mistake, you're now stamping your feet and whinging because you haven't the humility to accept that you're wrong.


Until then, you only know what YOU know.Meaningless rubbish. The dictionary definition of the word is quite clear. It's been pointed out to you. It's there in black and white, yet you can't back down and accept the facts. Just because you don't know what a word means and aren't familiar with its correct use, that's no reason why the English language should be rewritten to suit your ignorance. Prisoners were tortured at Abu Ghraib. The fact that you don't appear to know what the word means doesn't change that.

sensamelia
02-03--2006, 10:05 AM
the abuse of hostages by american and british soldiers is horrendous
how can they be against these attrosoties and then perform them
it beggars belief
war is evil

shaggie
02-03--2006, 12:36 PM
http://home.flash.net/%7Elauras34/abu1.jpg

http://home.flash.net/%7Elauras34/abu2.jpg


Here's a detainee (woman's underwear on his face) being taught the difference between 'abuse' and 'torture'.

http://home.flash.net/%7Elauras34/abu3.jpg


Another detainee, dead and in ice. Torture didn't kill him; abuse did.

http://home.flash.net/%7Elauras34/abu4.jpg

Starke Ravinmad
02-03--2006, 02:08 PM
You belittle yourself through your own ignorance and through your inability to admit when you're wrong.

Again you are wrong. Read back a few posts and you'll see that I admitted making a mistake with the definition. You even quoted me from that post, how did you manage to miss that part? Read this thread again and see who's been verbally abusive and who hasn't. Got anger issues?


Meaningless rubbish. The dictionary definition of the word is quite clear.

Is it? Lets look at it again.
tor·ture (tôrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifchhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifr)
n.


<LI type=a>Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.What constitutes "severe"? Is that "anything more than a little bit"? Or is it "extreme", in which case I was right from the beginning? Let's look it up.
se&#183;vere (shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-v&#238;rhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif)
adj. se&#183;ver&#183;er, se&#183;ver&#183;est

Causing great discomfort, damage, or distress: a severe pain; a severe storm.Okay, what is "great"? Shall we look it up too? Or is it interchageable with "extreme"? Clearly, the meaning of "torture" depends on what you consider extreme. And I don't consider being embarrased or uncomfortable to be extreme. It's abuse, but considering the circumstances it's not extreme. Bruises and abrasions are not extreme. Losing limbs and watching loved ones being raped is extreme.

Again (which means I'm repeating it), not once did I condone the actions or try to justify them. Now can we agree to disagree or would you like to insult me some more?

Atomik
02-03--2006, 02:54 PM
Again you are wrong. Read back a few posts and you'll see that I admitted making a mistake with the definition.You made a half-hearted, sarcastic admission of error, which implied that the English language was more at fault than yourself - a fact supported by the way you re-open the issue in your latest post and try once more to redefine the notion of torture. That kinda shows how deep your original sincerity ran, doesn't it?


Read this thread again and see who's been verbally abusive and who hasn't. Got anger issues?All I've done is to point out your error, which you seem unwilling or unable to accept in good grace. I find it hilariously ironic that you should accuse me of being abusive, while in the very same sentence you make a snide, personal attack.


Lets look at it again.Yes, let's. Have you actually read the definition you just posted?
tor&#183;ture (t&#244;rhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifchhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifr)
n.

<LI type=a>Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.
What constitutes "severe"?I suggest you look at those images again. If you don't think those people look severely anguished, I suggest you find someone to inflict the same torture on you and see if you retain the same perspective.


Again (which means I'm repeating it), not once did I condone the actions or try to justify them. Now can we agree to disagree or would you like to insult me some more?No, I'm afraid we can't agree to disagree. The word 'torture' is correctly used to describe mental abuse of the kind found at Abu Ghraib. This use of the word conforms to its dictionary definition. I'm sorry you feel the need to try and squirm out of a corner by quibbling over the specific application of the term 'severe' in this context, but it does not change the fact that you are attempting to manipulate language to suit your own perspective, rather than looking objectively at what a word actually means.


Now can we agree to disagree or would you like to insult me some more?For someone who apparently objects to the behaviour of others, you sure do seem to spend a lot of your posts sniping and bitching. You might want to take a cold, hard look at your own confrontational behaviour. Seeing as this thread is now becoming little more than a clash of personalities, it's now locked.