Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

Hemel · 05-16-2004, 04:36 AM

This morning we have a report over here that arrests are expected soon of soldiers who provided the hoax pictures to The Mirror newspaper. So ... perhaps these particular pictures really were hoaxes? (It's maybe taking a conspiracy theory too far to suggest that two or three soldiers were granted a big payoff to hoax The Mirror?

)

But for all of that - why? Are they just non-thinking people, who played a sort of April Fool's joke that had bigger consequences than they thought? Did they not consider they'd be endangering people over in Iraq? And why didn't The Mirror assure itself of their provenance before publishing ... might it have been commercial pressures to hit the streets first, because of falling circulation?

I don't know. But it seems to me there just end up being more questions. Including - hey, maybe the pictures were of some strange unoffical initiation ceremony into the services ... ?

For Rumsfeld - yes, we have the same report over here, that he authorised physical coercion and sexual humiliation. I understand also that this has been rigorously denied. But I wonder - because this morning too we have a report that a detainee at Guantanamo was subject to physical abuse - pepper thrown in his face and a severe beating - and that there are videos of abuses that happened at Guantanamo. If this is so, then just maybe some sort of general policy could be the case? Or is it that prisons, as per Zimbardo, just breed this kind of thing?

I note too that in a report yesterday there was a suggestion that there has been a rethink on treatment of detainees in Iraq, with such things as sleep and sensory deprivation now not permitted ... even though, it would seem, defence lawyers previously had said this sort of thing was okay. Which certainly does suggest to me, if this report is true, that there was some sort of policy. In fact, I think, bearing in mind that we over here have places where certain techniques are taught and soliders are taught how to resist them, it's very likely.

btw, there's also a report that Tony Blair won't stand down until Iraqi elections, so at least till next January. His view, apparently, is that he got us into this mess and he has to see it through. Just suddenly, of all things, if this really is his sentiment, I admire him for it. Though I'd rather we hadn't got into this mess in the first place!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iraqis Forgive Americans	Radagast	General Messages	166	06-07-2004 09:25 PM
Endgame in Iraq	Valandil	General Messages	58	06-05-2004 04:00 PM
An American Apology to Iraqis	Ruinel	General Messages	4	05-13-2004 12:54 PM
We Were Soldiers (2002)	IronParrot	Entertainment Forum	4	12-31-2002 10:41 AM

05-16-2004, 04:36 AM	#11
Hemel Elven Warrior Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: on the boats Posts: 264	This morning we have a report over here that arrests are expected soon of soldiers who provided the hoax pictures to The Mirror newspaper. So ... perhaps these particular pictures really were hoaxes? (It's maybe taking a conspiracy theory too far to suggest that two or three soldiers were granted a big payoff to hoax The Mirror? ) But for all of that - why? Are they just non-thinking people, who played a sort of April Fool's joke that had bigger consequences than they thought? Did they not consider they'd be endangering people over in Iraq? And why didn't The Mirror assure itself of their provenance before publishing ... might it have been commercial pressures to hit the streets first, because of falling circulation? I don't know. But it seems to me there just end up being more questions. Including - hey, maybe the pictures were of some strange unoffical initiation ceremony into the services ... ? For Rumsfeld - yes, we have the same report over here, that he authorised physical coercion and sexual humiliation. I understand also that this has been rigorously denied. But I wonder - because this morning too we have a report that a detainee at Guantanamo was subject to physical abuse - pepper thrown in his face and a severe beating - and that there are videos of abuses that happened at Guantanamo. If this is so, then just maybe some sort of general policy could be the case? Or is it that prisons, as per Zimbardo, just breed this kind of thing? I note too that in a report yesterday there was a suggestion that there has been a rethink on treatment of detainees in Iraq, with such things as sleep and sensory deprivation now not permitted ... even though, it would seem, defence lawyers previously had said this sort of thing was okay. Which certainly does suggest to me, if this report is true, that there was some sort of policy. In fact, I think, bearing in mind that we over here have places where certain techniques are taught and soliders are taught how to resist them, it's very likely. btw, there's also a report that Tony Blair won't stand down until Iraqi elections, so at least till next January. His view, apparently, is that he got us into this mess and he has to see it through. Just suddenly, of all things, if this really is his sentiment, I admire him for it. Though I'd rather we hadn't got into this mess in the first place!