More Iraqi torture photos

[Mycroft]

We don't get to see the actual torture, just the devices used.

Oddly enough, while I can find news articles about this, not many of them come with pictures. I wonder why?

 

[The Fool]

Maybe they were only used for things from that thesaurus list of alternatives to the "T" word that you put together when Americans were the perpetrators....

Iraqi instruments of persistant annoyance Lol........

 

[Mycroft]

Maybe they were only used for things from that thesaurus list of alternatives to the "T" word that you put together when Americans were the perpetrators....

Iraqi instruments of persistant annoyance Lol........

You had your chance to argue your point in that thread. Spare us your sour grapes.

Iron Maiden Found in Uday Hussein's Playground

No profile of Uday Hussein, the psychotic elder son of Iraq's deposed dictator, is complete without a mention of his sadistic reign as Iraq's sports czar. In his capacity as head of Iraq's Olympic committee and also of its soccer federation, he is known to have ordered the torture of athletes who performed below his expectations.

A bad day on the field for a player on the national soccer squad could result in savage retribution: Players had their feet scalded and toenails ripped off for failing to win tournaments. Allegations of torture had even resulted in investigations by international sports governing bodies, most notably soccer's FIFA, but these had failed to produce conclusive evidence — hardly surprising, since no player would dare admit to suffering such abuse, for fear of even worse.

Time.com

 

[Bjorn]

I can only feel sorry for people who read this:

"Beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "There are many more photographs and indeed some videos. Congress and the American people and the rest of the world need to know this."

... and still say "Odd, we don't see more pictures". (The reason might well be that those in the know desperately want to keep them hidden from the public,)

What is you message, Mycroft?

We don't get to see the actual torture, just the devices used.

First of all, do you know if any of such or similar devices were used? Why would it make a difference?

Second, do you know what's in the picture we haven't seen yet?

Third, if Rumsfeld calls it physical violence .... blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman, why do you need to see the violence done by certain devices? Was sodomizing by a broomstick to soft for you?

Were you cruel to animals as a child?

 

[The Fool]

You had your chance to argue your point in that thread. Spare us your sour grapes.

Sour Grapes? over what? you made a complete chump out of yourself tying your argument up into silly knots due to your inability to use the word torture to describe torture commited by americans....
You arr sweet with the word if its directed at Arabs.....

Show him a picture of something and he will happily march along with the line that it is torture...Show him pictures with Americans in it and wild horses could not drag the word torture out of him.....

 

[Cain]

Dude, that's a fairly good start on what could be a respectable Tinman costume.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sour Grapes? over what? you made a complete chump out of yourself tying your argument up into silly knots due to your inability to use the word torture to describe torture commited by americans....
You arr sweet with the word if its directed at Arabs.....

Show him a picture of something and he will happily march along with the line that it is torture...Show him pictures with Americans in it and wild horses could not drag the word torture out of him.....

Fool, you are clearly wrong, yet again. What am I to do with you? He obviously acknowledged the photos of what the americans did was torture, because the title of the thread is 'More Iraqi torture photos'. This could only be so if the other photos were of torture. Next time, please read what Mycroft is saying.

 

[demon]

What? No human shredder?
Ain`t a torture chamber if it ain`t got a human shredder...didn`t have no human shredder at Abu Ghraib either so there.

 

[The Fool]

Fool, you are clearly wrong, yet again. What am I to do with you? He obviously acknowledged the photos of what the americans did was torture, because the title of the thread is 'More Iraqi torture photos'. This could only be so if the other photos were of torture. Next time, please read what Mycroft is saying.

Dammit...you should be more gentle when you tear my position to pieces! I'm a sensitive guy and now Mrs fool wants to know why I am sitting in front of the PC, head on the keyboard, weeping quietly....

 

[a_unique_person]

Dammit...you should be more gentle when you tear my position to pieces! I'm a sensitive guy and now Mrs fool wants to know why I am sitting in front of the PC, head on the keyboard, weeping quietly....

That's alright, I don't think we will hear any more from Mycroft in this thread now.

 

[Mycroft]

Sour Grapes? over what? you made a complete chump out of yourself tying your argument up into silly knots due to your inability to use the word torture to describe torture commited by americans....
You arr sweet with the word if its directed at Arabs.....

Like most Americans, I was shocked and shamed by the revelations of what some American soldiers were up to in the Abu Graib prison. Unlike many, I was also able to look at the specific charges and recognize that the word torture was often applied inappropriately. I do not deny that torture took place, nor do I deny that many of the allegations are indeed abusive, even when I do believe torture is too strong a word to describe them. It's sad that these distinctions are beyond you, I thought you were smarter than that.

A soldier placing panties over the head of a prisoner is wrong, and deserves corrective action. It is, however, a minor offense. There is a huge difference between that and scalding the feet and ripping the toenails off an athlete simply because he failed to win an event. If you can't understand something so basic, then I'm afraid we have no common ground in which to converse.

Originally posted by Cain
Dude, that's a fairly good start on what could be a respectable Tinman costume.

Yes, obviously Saddam's preferred methods of punishment was to force the accused to perform theater. The Wizard of Oz was likely an Iraqi favorite.

How do you think the mask was used?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's alright, I don't think we will hear any more from Mycroft in this thread now.

Sorry, I think Saddam's abuses are worth commenting on. I think any discussion of Iraq would be incomplete without it. I understand you disagree.

 

[demon]

Maybe Saddam had that mask made for Blair and Bush, would be a damn good fit for the pair of them.

 

[Bjorn]

A soldier placing panties over the head of a prisoner is wrong, and deserves corrective action. It is, however, a minor offense. There is a huge difference between that and scalding the feet and ripping the toenails off an athlete simply because he failed to win an event. If you can't understand something so basic, then I'm afraid we have no common ground in which to converse.

Mr. Rumsfeld has seen the pictures we haven't. He's first comment was that 'we have only seen the beginning. There is worse to come':

"Beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "There are many more photographs and indeed some videos. Congress and the American people and the rest of the world need to know this."

As for what we know already: Why do you argue about the panties, and not about the sodomizing? Is Taguba's testimony not good enough for you?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Mr. Rumsfeld has seen the pictures we haven't. He's first comment was that 'we have only seen the beginning. There is worse to come':

I am aware of this.

Originally posted by Bjorn
As for what we know already: Why do you argue about the panties, and not about the sodomizing? Is Taguba's testimony not good enough for you?

In previous discussions I made the point that not everything listed in Taguba qualifies as torture. This is not the same as saying nothing listed in Taguba is torture.

Do you see the difference between those two statements?

Apparantly the Fool and AUP can not, they are of the opinion that because I pointed out that not everything listed was torture, than I am also of the opinion that nothing was torture. This subtle distinction-that doesn't seem very subtle to me-is apparantly beyond them.

So, to answer your question, I mention panties because it's one of the things listed among the actions described as torture that is clearly not torture. Since my point is that not everything listed was torture, the panties illustrate that, sodomy does not.

Try to break away from the America must be all bad or all good mindset. That's a false dichotomy. It is, for example, quite logical to condemn American abuse of Iraqi prisoners while still supporting the goals of the war in Iraq. It's also logical to agree that even if the pretext for going to war in Iraq was false, that the war itself could result in a benefit for the Iraqi people, if their new government is free of the abuses of the old government. The real question is what is best for the Iraqi people, and how best to get from where we are to the realization of that goal.

 

[Bjorn]

In previous discussions I made the point that not everything listed in Taguba qualifies as torture. This is not the same as saying nothing listed in Taguba is torture.

Do you see the difference between those two statements?

Yes I do. Do you agree then, that some of the things liisted in Taguba qualifies as torture?

Since my point is that not everything listed was torture, the panties illustrate that, sodomy does not.

Can I interpret that in your opinion the sodomy was torture?

Try to break away from the America must be all bad or all good mindset. That's a false dichotomy. It is, for example, quite logical to condemn American abuse of Iraqi prisoners while still supporting the goals of the war in Iraq. It's also logical to agree that even if the pretext for going to war in Iraq was false, that the war itself could result in a benefit for the Iraqi people, if their new government is free of the abuses of the old government. The real question is what is best for the Iraqi people, and how best to get from where we are to the realization of that goal.

Which might be a good discusssion, but not the one we're having in this thread.

 

[Skeptic]

You got to love the fact that all the forum's "human right progressive socialists" are ganging up on Mycroft for daring to actually post evidence that Saddam did something wrong (surely it's part of a nefarious plot on Mycroft's part) and then switch gears and start ranting about Bush and Blair--as if they put Saddam up to this.

Clearly, their real point is to bash Bush and Blair; torture only counts if it can be used for that purpose. Otherwise, who gives a damn? It's just worthless third-worlders doing bad things to each other; and since when is that of any concern to our good progressive? It's so much more important to show how Bush (or whomever) is a "racist"...

 

[Cleon]

You got to love the fact that all the forum's "human right progressive socialists" are ganging up on Mycroft for daring to actually post evidence that Saddam did something wrong (surely it's part of a nefarious plot on Mycroft's part) and then switch gears and start ranting about Bush and Blair--as if they put Saddam up to this.

Skeptic, I am constantly in awe of your ability to make up reality in order for you to make snide comments about it.

From actually reading this threat, people are "ganging up" on Mycroft for allegedly claiming, in another thread, that US actions at Abu Ghraib weren't torture, not for posting the pictures above. Argue about thread hijacking if you want, but nobody has objected to posting those pictures or claimed they were dishonest.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Yes I do. Do you agree then, that some of the things liisted in Taguba qualifies as torture?

Already asked and answered. In the previous thread, I went through the list of actions from the Taguba report and listed what I thought was torture and what was not. There were indeed some actions I labeled as torture.

Originally posted by Bjorn Can I interpret that in your opinion the sodomy was torture?

No, you can interpret that to mean sodomy is not a good example to illustrate actions from the Taguba report that are presented as torture but are not torture, which is what I said.

Do you need me to clarify further?

Okay, it's not a good example because:

1) It may have been torture. A good example is something that is clearly not torture, such as photographing a corpse. Taking a picture may be in bad taste and it may be disrespectful, but clearly it will not harm the subject any more than it's already been harmed, and it certainly wont break its will and convince it to divulge information.

2) If it wasn't torture, the difference is purely semantic. Calling it rape might be a more correct term, but it doesn't take anything away from the moral outrage or from the need for corrective action. Nobody would say, It's okay, we didn't torture them. We only raped them.

Originally posted by Bjorn Which might be a good discusssion, but not the one we're having in this thread.

The topic of this thread is the revelation from the Iraqi Olympic committee of the torture devices used by the previous Iraqi administrations to punish athletes who did not perform well enough. Since none of your questions or statement relate to that, it's hypocritical of you to admonish me for changing the topic when you yourself have not yet addressed the topic.

I believe I have answered all your questions and statements in depth, will you do the same for the issues I have raised?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
Skeptic, I am constantly in awe of your ability to make up reality in order for you to make snide comments about it.

From actually reading this threat, people are "ganging up" on Mycroft for allegedly claiming, in another thread, that US actions at Abu Ghraib weren't torture, not for posting the pictures above. Argue about thread hijacking if you want, but nobody has objected to posting those pictures or claimed they were dishonest.

Skeptics comments are essentially correct. When presented with evidence of human rights abuses, these “progressives” chose to:

1) Create a straw-man argument misrepresenting my previous statements, and in doing so deflect the topic.

2) Re-introduce the topic of American abuses.

3) Completely ignore the actual topic which is the abuses under the administration of Saddam Hussein.

One would think that a progressive liberal would be interested in the human rights of everyone and would be willing to condemn human rights abuses even when it's not perpetuated by the United States. It's puzzling to me why someone who seems to value human rights would turn a blind eye to abuses of human rights, and would not celebrate the removal of a brutal dictator and the opportunity to make real changes for the betterment of millions of people.

That's the liberalism I grew up with. I was taught to value equality of opportunity for all women, not just women in the United States. I was taught to value equality of opportunity for all races, not just blacks living in the United States. I was taught to condemn human rights violations everywhere, not just when they are perpetuated by the United States.

Maybe my understanding of liberal values is different from yours. I believe that all people everywhere should have the same privileges I enjoy. The freedom to practice my religion, the freedom to educate myself, the freedom to speak about issues that are important to me and to vote on those issues, the freedom from unreasonable uses of power from my government...on and on! I don't get this liberalism that says we should ignore human rights abuses when it's perpetuated by brown people in far away places. I don't get this liberalism that says it's okay to oppress women if that oppression is supported by a different culture than what I was raised in. I don't get this liberalism that says we have to be understanding of racism just because it's far away and it isn't black on white racism. To me, it all seems like hypocrisy.

 

[The Fool]

Already asked and answered. In the previous thread, I went through the list of actions from the Taguba report and listed what I thought was torture and what was not. There were indeed some actions I labeled as torture.

No you did not....Selective memory again.....the closest you ever got was a qualified "could be torture". on about 2 out of a dozen examples..... I can only assume there was not enough evidence for you to apply the word torture....however, you are quite comfortable using the word torture on any old stray photo as long as it contains an Arab....

I'll give you a tip Mycroft, If you don't want to be seen as the next Nie Trink Wasser make some point of your threads. Your only point to this thread seems to be to complain that the nasty liberals are picking on you....as if this wasn't your goal...Tolling with pics and no point is not really doing you any credit.


anyway....on with the Next Nie Trink Mycroft thread.