Police Cook Nine Iraqis in Sealed Metal Box Under Scorching Sun

Originally posted by jaden101
but in fact it is true because the overall, Bush hating media will do anything to put down the efforts of the allied troops by both NOT reporting any of the good things they contiually do but also focus on the acts of stupidity by a tiny fraction of allied troops and then try and put the spin on a "culture of abuse" etc etc

It happens but its not reflecting the truth. the whole picture must be seen.

For Eg.

1) If a party of police officers are caught beating the shit out of a black guy, then all the police are racists.

2) If I go to Walmart, and the cashier tries to scam me, then all Walmart employees are scammers.

Its bad reasoning since the malice on one individual does not necessarily mean the whole group is malicious.

thats the point i was trying to make in a rather ironic way with my "helluva quick" statement earlier

apparently you get it and PVS doesn't

GCG: No ; what im saying is that you cannot stigmatise these detainees on the basis of an individual act that happened in 2003.

JADEN: why not...people seem a helluva quick to do it the other way round....a couple of idiots in the US and UK armies abuse prisoners and suddenly everyone in the army are evil torturing bastards apparently

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---jaden, maybe you should stay away from attempting irony and sarcasm on these forums. its impossible to read and apparently nobody got whatever point you were trying to make. it seemed you suggested turning a blind eye to brutality on our side, because some iraqis are torturing bastards.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JADEN: what i was commenting on seeing as you obviously missed the point again is the media's constant condemning of the allied soldiers as being brutal and heavy handed yet at the same time saying that any killings committed by iraqi's are isolated and don't represent anyone but themselves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---for your information mr. "BLAME THE MEDIA!!!!" the only ones painting a rosey picture for the situation in iraq is the bush administration. if they came out and admitted that iraqis frikin hate us and want us to leave, then opinion of the war would fall through the floor. so, they make it seem like 99.9999999% of iraqis are begging us "GIVE US FREEDOM©!!!" while that other .00000001% of "freedom haters" who have been in their "final throes" for the past year attempt to sabotage it. the administration has nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling the truth about how people in iraq feel about the occupation.
thats why its always stressed that the insurgents have nothing to do with the general population.

for your information mr. "BLAME THE MEDIA!!!!" the only ones painting a rosey picture for the situation in iraq is the bush administration

i'm not looking for anyone to paint a rosy picture...i just think that its a bit self defeating to demean, denounce and in most cases completely ignore all the good things that allied troops are trying to do under more pressure than you or i can comprehend

the administration has nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling the truth about how people in iraq feel about the occupation.

and your getting this information from where?

given that resistance is isolated to very few towns and cities in iraq and given that i have spoken to many soldiers who returned from 6 months + duty in iraq and never had so much as a single person shouting at them to get out of iraq because they aren't wanted

of course...the media doesn't show this..because it doesn't help there overwhelming anti Bush propaganda

resistance is people with guns shooting at soldiers
NOT people who's opinion is that they are no more safe then
before the invasion. but im sure you know that and disregarded
it to feel right in your statement.

and btw, never was it implied in any reputable news source that all
our soldiers are thugs. do they have to attach a disclaimer at the end of every article?**

**all soldiers are not thugs, the actions mentioned in this article are of *number of soldiers mentioned* and not of the entire armed forces.

would that make you happy? or is any reporting of the truth to be looked at as anti-bush propaganda? should the media insert bias fluff articles to make you happy? i really dont understand how reporting the facts is bias.

Originally posted by jaden101
given that resistance is isolated to very few towns and cities in iraq and given that i have spoken to many soldiers who returned from 6 months + duty in iraq and never had so much as a single person shouting at them to get out of iraq because they aren't wanted

of course...the media doesn't show this..because it doesn't help there overwhelming anti Bush propaganda

No and it dosen't help Michael Moore either, so hence the suppression of "the Awful Truth" that this just MIGHT work out. Might because we all know nothing is written in stone.

However, as far as Jaden101's statements about the U.S. soldiers he mentions above, I'm going to support them 100% because I have 2 cousins in the U.S. Marines who both came back from their year TOD in Iraq. One was there from the opening shot of the war and came out in late 2004 when the roadside bombs started.

The second one came home a few months ago and was involved in the Fallujah offensive where he said we 'totally ****ed them up' big time. And never once have I heard them say that the Iraqis said anything harsh to them.

In fact both of them said many of the people were very friendly and some who were more fluent in English spoke with several of them many times in the roadside cafes and other places. But no that wouldn't interest anyone who was against this thing now would it?

and btw, never was it implied in any reputable news source that all our soldiers are thugs.

thats just not true...i cant even begin to count how many times i heard the term "culture of abuse" when refering to US and UK troops in the mainstream media

to me that sounds pretty much like condeming all soldiers

would that make you happy? or is any reporting of the truth to be looked at as anti-bush propaganda? should the media insert bias fluff articles to make you happy? i really dont understand how reporting the facts is bias.

so why does the media choose its facts in such a one sided manner...they are hardly clambering over each other to tell the masses about the many inmates and guantanamo bay who are learning to read and write while in custody and the many who have been released with the ability to go and support their families because of what they learned while imprisoned

by the way...here is a little link for all the anti bush people on this site who spout about how the allies have supposedly killed hundreds of thousands of iraqis since the war began

the figures are compiled from charity sources, red cross, iraqi hospitals, media reports etc

they show that the best estimate for the current death toll is 25881 maximum

not to mention that most of those have been killed by insurrgent attacks

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Originally posted by jaden101
thats just not true...i cant even begin to count how many times i heard the term "culture of abuse" when refering to US and UK troops in the mainstream media

to me that sounds pretty much like condeming all soldiers

never. and i mean NEVER in the u.s. media has such a bias bullshit lie tag been placed on any issue like that. if thats the way it is over in the u.k., then sorry to hear that. over here, its facts. sure they are often presented with convenient timing, and there may be bias in that timing, but never is there opinion stated as headline like that. if there is, its the type of media people laugh off and dont take seriously.

unless you are referring to editorial comments, in which both sides are guilty. you know, when journalists from the right tell the left that they support terrorism. same bullshit. but you blindly generalise in that statement so grossly it actually made me flinch.

Originally posted by jaden101

so why does the media choose its facts in such a one sided manner...they are hardly clambering over each other to tell the masses about the many inmates and guantanamo bay who are learning to read and write while in custody and the many who have been released with the ability to go and support their families because of what they learned while imprisoned

they are being held for 3+ years without being charged for a crime. that basically makes the prison a concentration camp. i dont care if they are being stuffed with the finest cuisines, sipping the most expensive champagne, and receiving daily blowjobs from supermodels. the fact stands that they are illegally imprisoned. they were basically kidnapped, stolen away from their families, and locked away overseas. unless you are so frikin blind and deluded to believe they are all terrorists, how the hell can you be ok with this? THAT is being supportive of evil. yes, i said it. deal with it because its true, and i think you really need to reevaluate your opinion on this.

Originally posted by jaden101
by the way...here is a little link for all the anti bush people on this site who spout about how the allies have supposedly killed hundreds of thousands of iraqis since the war began

the figures are compiled from charity sources, red cross, iraqi hospitals, media reports etc

they show that the best estimate for the current death toll is 25881 maximum

not to mention that most of those have been killed by insurrgent attacks

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

of coarse they fail to mention the death toll from the fallout. starvation, disease, etc resulting from bombing. no water and no sewage system = death.
get those figures and then we'll talk. (btw after 'desert storm' the death toll from such was around 100,000...hardly trivial i would say)

if there is, its the type of media people laugh off and dont take seriously.

but its not...unless thats what you consider the BBC to be...

unless you are referring to editorial comments, in which both sides are guilty.

agreed

they are being held for 3+ years without being charged for a crime.

unless you are so frikin blind and deluded to believe they are all terrorists,

does anyone remember the FACT that over 10,000 kuwaitis were...and i quote " illegally imprisoned. they were basically kidnapped, stolen away from their families, and locked away overseas." for 10 years and then executed...

not to mention the fact that many (and by that i dont mean all so dont try your favourite tactic of twisting my words) were caught with guns in hand, fighting allied troops

as for the fact that no charges have been brought...alot of that has to do with internal legal wrangles over certain issues to do with the military commissions that were supposed to try the prisoners... i think the issue was resolved quite recently...saw a bit on the news about it anyway

so in part you can blame the fact that the US does adhere to the rule of law and human rights to the fact that many of the prisoners are still being held...because if there wasn't such a prolonged fuss about the legality then many of them would have already been tried....and those who were innocent would have been released...nice going human rights protesters...you kept innocent people in jail longer than needed

of coarse they fail to mention the death toll from the fallout. starvation, disease, etc resulting from bombing. no water and no sewage system = death.

that would be the same water and sewage systems that the allied troops keep trying to fix and the "insurrgents" keep trying to sabotage?

and here is another little figure...since the last gulf war...500,000 shi'ite and kurdish iraqi's were executed by saddams troops...

or how about the 10's of thousands of iraqis that starved while kofi annan's son skimmed of millions from the oil for food programme...money that was supposed to allieviate hunger during the UN imposed sanctions

or how about the fact tha between the last gulf was and the current one...saddam built over 40 presidential palaces...one of which was about 20 times the size of buckingham palace...replete with gold taps and floors...all using money from the oil for food programme

That sounds like a nice human thing to do.JM

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
That sounds like a nice human thing to do.JM

does anything you type have any meaning? why not just go: skldghlskjghlsjkhfglwkhrghpq2gv,vnljksnfujpwgjp, because that is just about as comprehendable as what you post here.

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
That sounds like a nice human thing to do.JM

wallbash

That contribution made no sense at all

Originally posted by GCG
wallbash

That contribution made no sense at all

That means she has higher brain functions.

OH, MY GOD! TERRY SCHIAVO HAS BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH US FOR YEARS AND WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT!

no, i already stated the truth.
JM is a psych student working on her final dissertation for her p.h.d.
the study is on internet psychology. its all a front. ✅

Originally posted by FeceMan
You guys...I think she was being sarcastic.

That means she has higher brain functions.

OH, MY GOD! TERRY SCHIAVO HAS BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH US FOR YEARS AND WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT!

Dude most of her contributions are pear-shaped !

Originally posted by jaden101

that would be the same water and sewage systems that the allied troops keep trying to fix and the "insurrgents" keep trying to sabotage?

and here is another little figure...since the last gulf war...500,000 shi'ite and kurdish iraqi's were executed by saddams troops...

or how about the 10's of thousands of iraqis that starved while kofi annan's son skimmed of millions from the oil for food programme...money that was supposed to allieviate hunger during the UN imposed sanctions

or how about the fact that between the last gulf war and the current one...saddam built over 40 presidential palaces...one of which was about 20 times the size of buckingham palace...replete with gold taps and floors...all using money from the oil for food programme

Well traditionaly the UN has stood by and said nothing in response to ethnic massacres because of their Utopian stance that sees peace to the exclusion of all things. Most notably Cambodia and Rwanda.

They bent the rules of UN res 1441 to exclude American chemical weapons inspectors in what were to be unconditional (or is that UNconditional) palace inspections and then covered for Saddam for 14-72 hours when Iraq closed their palaces to move their stuff around,and washing Saddam's hands to make it lok legit. All this in return for a few ****in' barrels of oil...the last thing seen moving out of Iraq before the second war srated was a convoy headed for Syria. THERE'S your chemical weapons (or at least a sure bet that there was something they were trying to dispose of in a hurry.)