Abu Ghraib Watch

This discussion is closed.
Cossack
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#101
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#101
(Original post by vienna95)
well, just my opinion, but i would have gone for "can we try and keep on topic please?" or "lets not get into the whys and whatfors of the war"...interestingly you preferred "they're argument now seems to be based on the fact that Iraq could have in the future provded stuff for terrorists - theres no evidence of it but they could have - stupid argument"

and you thought i wouldnt reply?!

anyway...enough of that.
yep it was badly written and I accept your critiscm....*slaps self on back of hand...'bad cossack, bad* ive just posted something else on the topic but i think ll delete it cos it ant adding anything to the actual topic
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#102
Report 14 years ago
#102
(Original post by Cossack)
What do people think, should someone high up in the Bush Administration have resigned for what occured, Rumsfeld for example, in order to demonstrate that they were not underplaying the seriousness of what went on?

It seems to me that they are trying to push responsibility down as far as possible in order to save face during an election year.
I cannot believe that someone more senior didn't know what was going on and this shouldn't be too hard to show a more senior officer known of the actions (whether officially approved or not) then he/she should be prosecuted.

Had this senior officer not known then perhaps he/she should have. Perhaps he/she was negligent; fell asleep at the wheel. Perhaps this in itself is enough to bring a court martial.

What clearly isn't right and proper is that the only people being prosecuted so far are seven soldiers with an average rank of private first class. This stinks.
0
Cossack
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#103
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#103
(Original post by Howard)
I cannot believe that someone more senior didn't know what was going on and this shouldn't be too hard to show a more senior officer known of the actions (whether officially approved or not) then he/she should be prosecuted.

Had this senior officer not known then perhaps he/she should have. Perhaps he/she was negligent; fell asleep at the wheel. Perhaps this in itself is enough to bring a court martial.

What clearly isn't right and proper is that the only people being prosecuted so far are seven soldiers with an average rank of private first class. This stinks.

agreed...my dads a pretty high ranking Brtish officer and having spoken to him about it he reckons it would be just about impossible for it to have happened without their knowledge...and more likely that there was pressure being put on to get 'results' in terms of confessons and information and this was the way in which those in both junior and senior positions in the jail thought they could acheive that
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#104
Report 14 years ago
#104
why dont we wait until we can have a proper look at the memos that were being put about at the time. they were only released yesterday so all of this conclusion drawing is abit permature for me. from what i know so far, Bush shouldnt be incriminated by any of the documents open to the media.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...a_prisoners_dc

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/po...23ABUS.html?hp
0
Outrageous
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#105
Report 14 years ago
#105
(Original post by vienna95)
can be true or can never be true? either way, is irrelevant to my point.



an article whos claims are substantiated.


fake pictures, by their definition, would not display acts that would have occured.



i) a personal assesment without substance
ii) totally inaccurate
iii) you accuse me of being a racist with the evidence suggesting the contrary.



another lie. no such assertion was ever made.


again, you make a claim that brings nothing to the debate.



entirely irrelevant material that may be discarded for the purposes of this discussion.



personal remark #742942



another clear fabrication that has been refuted and demonstrated, yet you persist without any evidence.



more irrelevant material.

I really could not say if you are a racist, unless you think you hate a race or think its less superior than others. I don't see the relevance of your complex of being a racist to Abu ghraib.

However, I do find that you just have all these rosy opinions of the US admin and the israeli admin (how ironic) and that you refuse to even view or let alone allowe yourself to think that they might be doing wrong too.

What you call irrelvant is just history and I guess if you find that tough to deal with seein as you must resort to evading the questions and the facts then you will find proof even harder to tackle.

Are you saying ALL pictures from Abu ghraib are fake? As or israeli well I have not seen them yet. Have you? No then I don't think you call them fake. You accuse me of lies when in fact all I am doing is stating what you said yourself. In case you forget I refer you to your own comment. You can cover them up anyway you like but that does not disguise the fact that your outlook on rape and sex crimes in war is void of all humanity. You seem to think everybody just makes it up because they are on drugs and unstable characters. Maybe the truth is too bitter?

Afterall why admit the heros you are actually rooting for are terrorist themselves. Because you call something by a different name does not make it any different. If it walks like duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck then it is a duck. Abu Ghraib is a living prrof of military taking their lead from israeli prisons and not least the US admin. Israeli prisons won't let anybody inside. After Jenin it has become difficult for actual peace loving groups to account for what is actually going on.

And you probably think that in light of the suicide bombings in iraq and the attacks on american and allied troups are a sign of iraqis still wanting the US there? Hardly. That is what I said in a different topic. US presence is unwanted. They removed saddam and they raped the public and stipped them of all dignity and morality. GO HOME instead of persisting to stay.

As long as they stay no amount of terrorism (read: wars on terror) will remove the terrorism. Terrorism is a conswquence of US foreign policy. Not the other way around.
0
Outrageous
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#106
Report 14 years ago
#106
(Original post by vienna95)
why dont we wait until we can have a proper look at the memos that were being put about at the time. they were only released yesterday so all of this conclusion drawing is abit permature for me. from what i know so far, Bush shouldnt be incriminated by any of the documents open to the media.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...a_prisoners_dc

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/po...23ABUS.html?hp
Although yesterday Bush claimed he had never ordered torture, news papers today claim that "Bush also agreed with justice and pentagon lawyers that a president could ignore treaties and US law." Lovely. So reassuring. You can practice terrorism without having to answer for it. Whats the point of treaties? Like everything else that the US admin says and but doesn't do - for show only.

US is also the only country which has reserved the right not have its soldiers' actions accounted for at War court in Haag. Why the exception?

But hey maybe all the news papers are lying too. Its just not substantiated you see.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1648)
78.78%
Leave (444)
21.22%

Watched Threads

View All