Iraqi Torture

[Tesseract]

I'm afraid it's not really seen that way. I don't know what your aware of in terms of prison ethics, but both Turkey and France have prisoners who would be happy to swap establishments.

 

I dont understand how it can be seen any other way thats the definition, so thats what it is.Its not abuse as Rumsfeld says.

[atinymonkey]

It's connected to the legality of the action taken, rather than the action itself. If a prisoner is a supect rather than a convict then the term is abuse. If it were outside of a prison, say in a private house or army barracks, then it would be torture.

 

I'd have to get a legal dictionary to find clear definitions.

[Tesseract]

It's connected to the legality of the action taken' date=' rather than the action itself. If a prisoner is a supect rather than a convict then the term is abuse. If it were outside of a prison, say in a private house or army barracks, then it would be torture.

 

I'd have to get a legal dictionary to find clear definitions.[/quote']

 

That seems stupid, whoever thought of that must have been an idiot.I think torture is torture no matter where it takes place.Somebody just wanted it to be abuse so that the front page of the news dosnt say "Americans Torturing...."

[atinymonkey]

I know it's semantic, but terminology often is.

[Tesseract]

Has anyone gone to the link I posted earlier?

[atinymonkey]

Yes, it's not very convincing. I've got 5 of those chairs in my garden. Everywere from Greece onwards is littered with them.

 

 

Interesting if it's true though.

[blike]

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/ne...service_id=2020

Hold on while I chuckle.

 

1) Notice the standard US Military Police issued prisoner overalls that Nicholas Berg is wearing.

 

Well duh, it was in retaliation for prison abuse. Guantanamo bay? I thought we were in Abu Gharab here.

 

2) Notice the white plastic chair that Nicholas Berg is sitting on. It is identical to the white plastic chair that the now infamous Pfc. Lynddie England is sitting on at the Abu Ghraib prison as shown here. This same white plastic chair can also be seen in other photographs of U.S. torture in the same prison.

 

ROFL. I have that white plastic chair in my backyard. That white plastic chair is mass produced in the gadzillions and is found in all regions of the world. Please, you'll have to drum up better evidence than this.

 

3) The color and texture of the wall as shown in the frames taken from the video are the same as those of the Abu Ghraib prison.

 

Probably true. Not unlikely though, considering many places in Iraq use the same color scheme.

 

4) Towards the end of the video, at frames 9306 through 9368, a person with a US military cap temporarily pokes about a quarter of his left head into the video.

 

Uh, thats someone's left hand, you can see the pinky finger. Good try though. They're probably holding another camera.

 

5) The body is completely motionless even as the knife is brought to bear – not so much as an instinctive wriggle.

 

Good point. Maybe he was already dead. How does that prove it happened in Abu Gharab?

 

Seriously, Al-Jazeera is a laugh. That's the second time you've quoted them as your news source. hrm.

[atinymonkey]

ROFL. I have that white plastic chair in my backyard.

 

Waitagoddamnminute, you have that chair and I have that chair. Is that a 'message' of some kind?

 

Jesus. I'm locking the doors.

[Tesseract]

Let me try:

"A Reuters journalist in Dubai first named the Muntada al-Ansar al-Islami website as the source for the video – at http://www.al-ansar.biz. Although the site has now been shut down, Aljazeera looked at the site within 90 minutes of the story breaking – and could find no such video footage. But Fox News, CNN and the BBC were all able to download the footage from the Arabic-only website and report the story within the hour."

How do you explain this?

 

"Islamic prisoners are made to wear by the US Military Police at the Guantanamo, Cuba."

Why would an Iraqi terrorist band sateal an orange jumpsuit that they use at Guantanamo Bay just for Nick Berg?

 

"The color and texture of the wall as shown in the frames taken from the video are the same as those of the Abu Ghraib prison."

 

So it just happens that the colour of the walls are the same.And that it just happens that a chair the same as Nick Berg is sitting on is right beside the yellow coloured wall.

 

"he body is completely motionless even as the knife is brought to bear – not so much as an instinctive wriggle."

 

So they killed him before and just pretended to slice of his head?I dont think he was killed at all.

 

"jt little emerges and when the head was raised – not a drop of blood is seen to fall."

 

He had no blood?hmm

 

"he Jordanian accused of the beheading Berg is himself believed to have been killed in March, according to two Islamist groups. An eight-page leaflet circulated this week in Falluja said Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in the Sulaimaniya mountains of northern Iraq during a US bombing. But even if it were the Jordanian, one discussion room member observes his face is so well-known that "why would he bother to cover it?"

 

How about this?

 

It just depends on how one interprets the data, it would be much easier to have been there and seen it.

[blike]

You can believe what you want to believe, but the 5 points al-jezeera gave were crap.

[Tesseract]

You can believe what you want to believe, but the 5 points al-jezeera gave were crap.

 

Theyre not crap theyre intriguing coincidences that dont make any sense when put together.I think it gives enough info for doubt to stir.

[blike]

Point 1: Interesting

 

Point 2: Irrelivant. Doesn't prove a thing. I have the same chair.

 

Point 3: Not an uncommon wall color in iraq:

 

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/coalition/deployment/marines/15th.meu.jpg

 

Point 4: Completely fabricated. There is no military hat. Thats someone's left pinky.

 

Point 5: Proves nothing. Mayhaps he was dead already. That has nothing to do with Abu Gharab and says nothing about his killers.

 

So essentially we're left with point 1 as the only interesting point. I know that's not all it takes to convince you, because if so I've got a bridge to sell you.

[Tesseract]

Well seperatly it dosnt sound very convincing but if you put it together:

The middle eastern news service couldnt get the video after searching is reported site but

the US news got it in less than an hour from an unknown place.Nick berg got a stolen jumpsuit that is only used by Americans in Guantanamo bay (they didnt even use the suits in Iraq), Nick has sitting in a chair in front of a yellow paited wall like in Abu Gharib (you can see the same chair in the last picture), He was supposedly killed but didnt struggle or bleed at all (even though he had his head cut off) there was another person (probably filming the execution, for what reason?) he was killed by a man that was killed a year ago, and that even if he was alive why would he wear a mask (everybody knew who he was annyway, wat was the point).He also had a strange accent.

Together the points sound fairly convincing.Im just saying.

[Sayonara]

Repeating the same things over and over deosn't make them more believable.

 

"...but if you put it together" We call this a house of cards.

[Tesseract]

Repeating the same things over and over deosn't make them more believable.

 

"...but if you put it together" We call this a house of cards.

 

Well its meant to be viewed together.It dosnt help anything to take it apart piece by piece and scrutinize it.We wouldnt ber anywhere in science if we had to examine every part of reality, it would wind up nowhere.

I dont see it as a house of cards.Its a bunch of evidence that supports a different idea.

[Sayonara]

Well its meant to be viewed together.It dosnt help anything to take it apart piece by piece and scrutinize it.We wouldnt ber anywhere in science if we had to examine every part of reality' date=' it would wind up nowhere.

I dont see it as a house of cards.Its a bunch of evidence that supports a different idea.[/quote']

That's kind of the point of science. Objective testing to isolate variables.

 

If one piece of evidence won't support the weight of scrutiny, neither will a conclusion that is based on it. That's why it's called a house of cards - you can't make a stable structure on bad foundations.

[Tesseract]

That's kind of the point of science. Objective testing to isolate variables.

 

If one piece of evidence won't support the weight of scrutiny' date=' neither will a conclusion that is based on it. That's why it's called a house of cards - you can't make a stable structure on bad foundations.[/quote']

 

Well what do you think are the bad foundations.

[Sayonara]

See Blike's points above.

[Tesseract]

See Blike's points above.

Umm, did you see my points above?

[Sayonara]

Now you just sound stupid, sorry.

[Tesseract]

Now you just sound stupid, sorry.

 

Did you read anything except for what Blike said, because that might be your problem?

[Sayonara]

The intervening posts would suggest that I did, yes.

[Tesseract]

The intervening posts would suggest that I did, yes.

And you think it dosnt make any sense?

[Sayonara]

Jesus Christ.

 

"Look at my evidence!"

 

It's not very good

 

"Yes but look at my evidence!"

 

This, this, this and this don't work very well

 

"No you have to look at it as a whole or it doesn't work"

 

Yes we know, that's called a house of cards

 

"Look at my evidence!"

[Tesseract]

Jesus Christ.

 

Umm I only wrote one of those.