I Wonder

Boxlicker101

Licker of Boxes
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Posts
33,665
I wonder about this news item. From what it says, this place was many times worse than Abu Ghraib. I wonder if we will read as much about it and hear as much about it as we did about Abu Ghraib. Ha Ha. Thats a joke, Son.

Insurgent 'torture chamber' found in Iraq: US Thu Dec 20, 2:45 PM ET



BAGHDAD (AFP) - A blood-spattered "torture complex" used by Iraqi insurgents, and the remains of 26 people buried nearby, were found in the province of Diyala on Thursday, the US military announced.

ADVERTISEMENT

The news came as at least 36 people were killed in Diyala, most of them in a suicide attack and clashes between suspected Al-Qaeda militants and security forces, officials said.

The grisly discovery near the town of Muqdadiyah, was made during the military's December 8-11 Operation Iron Reeper but only announced on Thursday.

The torture chamber was housed in a area containing three detention facilities, the military said.

"It had chains on the walls and ceilings, a bed still hooked up to an electrical system and several blood-stained items," a statement said.

Thursday's violence occurred in the town of Kanan south of provincial capital Baquba, when a suicide bomber killed 13 Iraqis and a US soldier and wounded 25 others, including 10 US troops, officials said.

The attack took place when a patrol was preparing to enter a building where local councillors were convening, the military said.

"A suicide bomber approached and detonated the explosives" he was wearing, the military said in a statement to AFP.

Baquba police Captain Ahmed Mahmud said the bomber had blown himself up at the office of a local group fighting Al-Qaeda in Diyala, adding that 13 Iraqis were killed.

He said the bomber attacked as volunteers gathered to sign up as members of an Awakening group.

A number of anti-Qaeda groups known as As-Sahwa (Awakening) have mushroomed across Iraq's Sunni regions with the support of the US military, which has said that by December nearly 80,000 Sunni Arabs, as well as Shiites, had signed on to the Awakening movements and neighbourhood-watch groups.

The groups are structured along the lines of the Anbar Awakening Council, the first such attempt by Sunni tribes to form an organised resistance against Al-Qaeda in the western province of Anbar, a Sunni stronghold.

Most of the members of such groups are former insurgents who initially fought the US military along with Al-Qaeda in the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The US military claims that since last year many of them turned against Al-Qaeda following excessive brutalities unleashed by the militant group.

In another incident in Diyala, at least 17 suspected Al-Qaeda gunmen were killed in clashes overnight with Iraqi and US troops west of Baquba, Mahmud said.

The gunbattles, which also involved local anti-Qaeda front members supporting the security forces, took place in the town of Al-Hashmiyat.

"The operation was conducted from Wednesday evening up to Thursday morning and resulted in the killing of 17 Al-Qaeda gunmen. Four Iraqi soldiers and two members of the local Awakening group were also wounded," Mahmud added.

In the town of Hashmiyat, two Iraqi soldiers were killed when a group of gunmen attacked their outpost, police Major Ziyad al-Ani said.

And in the town of Abbara, north of Baquba, another Iraqi soldier was killed when armed men attacked his patrol, Ani said.

One Al-Qaeda militant was also killed by security forces in Abbara, while an Iraqi soldier was killed in a roadside bomb attack in Baquba, Mahmud added.

In the centre of the Iraqi capital, a car bomb killed three people and wounded 18 near the well-known Baghdad Hotel, security officials said.
 
Last edited:
So what you're saying Box, is that Abu Ghraib wasn't that bad? That what happened there was OK because this was worse?
 
So what you're saying Box, is that Abu Ghraib wasn't that bad? That what happened there was OK because this was worse?

No, I am saying that this is vastly worse, incomparably worse. Very little actually happened at Abu Ghraib. That doesn't make it okay, but let's put things in perspective.

What I am wondering is this: Since this is so much worse than Abu Ghraib, will it get heavier news coverage than Abu Ghraib got? Will there be editorials denouncing "The Insurgents"? Will Americaqn celebrities denounce those responsible for these atrocities? If you say yes, you probably also believe that Sant Claus will fly through the air in his sleigh next week delivering presents all over the world.
 
Probably not. Because the 'bad guys' acting bad isn't news and doesn't call into question the ethics or motives of the people that operated this hell hole.

Abu Ghraib did both. That was news.
 
Since this is so much worse than Abu Ghraib, will it get heavier news coverage than Abu Ghraib got? Will there be editorials denouncing "The Insurgents"? Will Americaqn celebrities denounce those responsible for these atrocities? If you say yes, you probably also believe that Sant Claus will fly through the air in his sleigh next week delivering presents all over the world.
:rolleyes: *SIGH!* You know, this question really fucking annoys me Box.

Answer: No, it won't. See, here's what you're not getting--or at least what you seem to be not getting given this question. This is not a matter of a double standard. We NEVER have expected the insurgents to be nice. They blow themselves up, they mutilate and beat women, they are religious fanatics. In fact, this is exactly what we expect from them. Barbaric behavior that follows the dictum that the end justifies the means.

So this isn't news, is it?

What is news is when the "good guys"--when the CIVILIZED people who PRIDE themselves on being civilized and NOT DOING THAT SORT OF STUFF--do it. That is when it become hypocrisy and newsworthy. Especially when they're in a country that they're suppose to be "freeing" from the barbarians who do this sort of shit. Let me clarify with another example: it's hardly news if an oppressive, religiously fascist group treats other religions horribly, with bigotry, bias and intolerance. It's quite another if religious groups in a democracy, boasting about their country's "freedom of religion," do the same.

Get it? So stop asking leading questions as if you're pointing out some nasty hypocrisy in news reporting. First, we all know that news reporting goes after whatever it thinks will get people watching it--that could be Abu there or it could be Briteny--and second, you're barking up the wrong tree anyway. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Now if England or France or Germany start yelling at us about our use of torture, and then we find out they're using it as well, THEN you can start pointing the finger and shouting "double standard!" and "wonder" if the news will report as much on their wrongs as it has on ours.

Till then, Abu gets the spotlight because it's not something WE are supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be the "good guys."
 
Last edited:
No, I am saying that this is vastly worse, incomparably worse. Very little actually happened at Abu Ghraib. That doesn't make it okay, but let's put things in perspective.

What I am wondering is this: Since this is so much worse than Abu Ghraib, will it get heavier news coverage than Abu Ghraib got? Will there be editorials denouncing "The Insurgents"? Will Americaqn celebrities denounce those responsible for these atrocities? If you say yes, you probably also believe that Sant Claus will fly through the air in his sleigh next week delivering presents all over the world.


I think the reaction to Abu Ghraib came because of our "Holier than thou" and "We've come to save you uncivilized heathens" attitutde. Evangelical hypocrites always get the heaviest news coverage and loudest horse laughs.
 
:rolleyes: *SIGH!* You know, this question really fucking annoys me Box.

Answer: No, it won't. See, here's what you're not getting--or at least what you seem to be not getting given this question. This is not a matter of a double standard. We NEVER have expected the insurgents to be nice. They blow themselves up, they mutilate and beat women, they are religious fanatics. In fact, this is exactly what we expect from them. Barbaric behavior that follows the dictum that the end justifies the means.

So this isn't news, is it?

What is news is when the "good guys"--when the CIVILIZED people who PRIDE themselves on being civilized and NOT DOING THAT SORT OF STUFF--do it. That is when it become hypocrisy and newsworthy. Especially when they're in a country that they're suppose to be "freeing" from the barbarians who do this sort of shit. Let me clarify with another example: it's hardly news if an oppressive, religiously fascist group treats other religions horribly, with bigotry, bias and intolerance. It's quite another if religious groups in a democracy, boasting about their country's "freedom of religion," do the same.

Get it? So stop asking leading questions as if you're pointing out some nasty hypocrisy in news reporting. First, we all know that news reporting goes after whatever it thinks will get people watching it--that could be Abu there or it could be Briteny--and second, you're barking up the wrong tree anyway. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Now if England or France or Germany start yelling at us about our use of torture, and then we find out they're using it as well, THEN you can start pointing the finger and shouting "double standard!" and "wonder" if the news will report as much on their wrongs as it has on ours.

Till then, Abu gets the spotlight because it's not something WE are supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be the "good guys."

And, if and when we ever catch up to those who operatd this torture/murder site, we will be expected to treat them as honorable soldiers under the Geneva Convention.

ETA I think that somewhere in the Bible there is a passage that says something like: "Take the beam out of thine own eye before you complain about the moat in somebody else's eye." I think that, as a corollary, people should complain about the beams in the eyes of one group rather than the motes in the eyes of another.
 
Last edited:
The war is no longer popular enough for the media to make money off reporting on the enemy.
 
And, if and when we ever catch up to those who operatd this torture/murder site, we will be expected to treat them as honorable soldiers under the Geneva Convention.


Excuse me? No we won't. They wouldn't come under the Geneva Convention. You're blowing smoke out of your youknowwhat on that claim.

Talk about extremists.
 
Excuse me? No we won't. They wouldn't come under the Geneva Convention. You're blowing smoke out of your youknowwhat on that claim.

Talk about extremists.

True. Geneva Convention rules are out. Not that we would have to worry about it, anyway. there are much more 'quiet' ways of dealing with things.
 
True. Geneva Convention rules are out. Not that we would have to worry about it, anyway. there are much more 'quiet' ways of dealing with things.


Yeah, there are. Unfortunately the administration was too dumb to do that with Saddam (assuming we really wanted him gone--which we didn't for a long time, because he was the lesser of several evils).
 
Yeah, there are. Unfortunately the administration was too dumb to do that with Saddam (assuming we really wanted him gone--which we didn't for a long time, because he was the lesser of several evils).

We didn't want him gone in '91, which was why we only went as far as we did. Hussein was a small fish making a lot of noise, which was convenient for US operations in the Middle East. Much as it was in the mid-80s, when Moamar Qaddafi was the villain of the day (and, funnily enough, interviewed by Geraldo Rivera a few years later). A bigmouth with a pulpit.

The only difference is that Hussein needed to be made larger than life, to quell questions and media coverage concerning US operations. The little fish in '91 became the 'Jaws' we had to hunt down.
 
Agree. My problem with strings like this is ideologues (from either side--I have views that span the political spectrum) who blow crap "facts" out of their nether regions just because they match their prejudice/rantofthemoment.

That's why I just shy away from anything that has the fingerprints of ami (among others) on it. It's frustrating to see ignorance and ideological rant paired like that to make "facts" up as they go along.

There's no formal declaration of war against any sovereign entity left on the table in Iraq. Ergo, no application of the Geneva Convention. If we caught the guys who we thought ran this torture chamber, by the setup of what we have going, the proper procedure would be to turn them over the the Iraq government we've set up there. Of course, we might, instead, keep them wrapped up in our own military prisons--not because that's what the system we've set up in Iraq would permit, but because we could get away with it and they might be useful to us.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
And, if and when we ever catch up to those who operatd this torture/murder site, we will be expected to treat them as honorable soldiers under the Geneva Convention.


Excuse me? No we won't. They wouldn't come under the Geneva Convention. You're blowing smoke out of your youknowwhat on that claim.

Talk about extremists.

Of course we won't. Or, at least, we shouldn't. They are strictly criminals and cutthroats of the worst kind, and should be treated as such. Either hang them from the nearest tree or turn them over to the Iraqi authorities for trial and hanging. However, there are many, including some on AH who seem to think that even the worst kind of criminals are entitled to the protection of the GC.
 
Why the fuck do you imply that people treated under the Geneva Convention are seen as "honorable soldiers"? Cheap bullshit rhetorics. Cut it out.
 
Why the fuck do you imply that people treated under the Geneva Convention are seen as "honorable soldiers"? Cheap bullshit rhetorics. Cut it out.

Among other things, the GC requires certain treatment for POW's and, by that, it means soldiers, etc. fighting for a nation against another nation. These people are not that, by any reasonable definition. They are strictly criminals, and deserve to be punished as such. However, some people will refer to them as "insurgents" as if they were patriots or partisans, fighing against an occupying force. They are not. All they are doing is torturing and murdering their own countrymen, except some of the terrorists, to describe them more accurately, are not even Iraqi, and not even Arab.

I define soldiers as "honorable" because most of them are.
 
And you propose treating criminals...how exactly? Swift execution whithout a fair trial? And does this hold true for all criminals? Or just the ones that is on the other side?

Granted, "our" criminals are probably less in numbers and most of their crimes less severe than those of the criminals/terrorist/insurgets/enemy combatants/holy freedom fighters/whatever label you're comfortable with. (But certainly not all are less severe). Does that make a diference, or do you propose swift vigilantism with all it's possible negative side effects on Americans too?
 
And you propose treating criminals...how exactly? Swift execution whithout a fair trial? And does this hold true for all criminals? Or just the ones that is on the other side?

Granted, "our" criminals are probably less in numbers and most of their crimes less severe than those of the criminals/terrorist/insurgets/enemy combatants/holy freedom fighters/whatever label you're comfortable with. (But certainly not all are less severe). Does that make a diference, or do you propose swift vigilantism with all it's possible negative side effects on Americans too?

No, I propose treating criminal suspects in the sovereign nation of Iraq the way criminal suspects are treated in most countries. Arrest them, turn them over to the civil authorities for trial and, if convicted, sentencing. Of ourse, the criminal suspects in this case are probably heavily armed and ready to die, and take as many other people with them as possible, so peaceable arrest will probably not be possible. This is the case with many criminal suspects in the US also and, if a gun battle is necessary, so be it.

I refer to these criminal suspects as "terrorists" because they use the tactics of terrorism. They plant bombs in mosques and markets and schools and railroad depots and other public places, targeting Iraqi civilians. The persons who were tortured and/or murdered at this place were not soldiers; they were Iraqi civilians.
 
Back
Top