maybe you saw something i didnt, but i never saw images of the brits being stacked in naked pyramids, with electric shockers clamped to their testicles, feces spread all over their bodies and wearing womens underwear. the british soldiers havent come out and said they were raped with glow-sticks and viciously beaten, have they? with the exception of being paraded on televesion, they seem to have been treated about as well as someone in that situation can expect to be treated. this is a very telling statement you make. seems that in your mind to criticize the government and the things they do means you are criticizing america itself. do you also believe that to criticize bush is to criticize america? you have said multiple times in the past that if there wasnt as much criticism of bush, things wouldnt be as bad as they are. we should all just keep our mouths shut, right?
You must have missed the press conference by four of the British hostages, two from the Royal Navy, and two from the Royal Marines. They said they were blindfolded almost the entire time prior to the Iranian dog and pony show, that weapons were cocked behind them as they were told they would be in prison for seven years if they didn't "confess," and that the female hostage was told the rest had been returned to Britain, being kept apart from the others. Hardly treatment under the Geneva Convention. I have no idea why you brought up Abu Ghraib. It has nothing to do with this incident. D&D. Cheerios.
I find it laughable that Iran is now expecting a goodwill gesture from Britain in return for their "kindness". How about go f*ck yourself, Iran? Your gesture of "kindness" was one where you saw opportunity to seize poorly protected soldiers that were clearly not in your waters, parade them around in propaganda moves and mess with their minds, and then give them up as a "gift". And, now we know why you did what you did. You're trying to get Britain to help you in some way in regards to the nuclear row or whatever...because you think your "kindness" deserves to be rewarded. The only thing you deserve is a middle finger for raising oil prices over nothing.
i did miss that. that is very wrong of iran to do that and it does indeed violate the geneva convention, as parading them on tv and making them "confess" is. obviously it was all a show - how well treated they were, showing them eating meals and wearing "nice" suits. iran was wrong in their treatment, but perhaps not in their detainment, as we still dont know for sure if the brits were in their waters. it is disputed territory that both sides have made claims to. abu ghraib is relevant b/c our own government has tossed the geneva convention out the window and we no longer have the moral authority that we once had in these matters. again, what iran did was wrong but compared to how prisoners at abu-ghraib were treated, this was a lavish holiday. EDIT - just read the story on drudge. its horrible how they were treated. having a gun pointed at your head is not a good experience (unfortunately, i know). nobody should be criticizing them for speaking on tv - they were totally coerced and just doing what they had to do to stay safe.
I was trying to point out that, besides the behavior of Iran being a Propaganda Rock Festival, the British were not responsible for the actions of some of our soldiers and their officers. The United States was. The buck stops here. D&D. Post Toasties.
Nah, I was referring to this incident rattling the oil markets in the past few days. I'm not sure we...as consumers...are feeling that at the pump as gas prices were already moving higher. But, yea, Bush likes the bird, too!
As I've said before just because the US has behaved badly doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't criticize the actions of another country.
Huh? What did my last sentence say? "But, yea, Bush likes the bird, too!" What do you think that implies or refers to?
I thought you were saying bush likes to get the bird - as in he loves it when someone sticks their middle finger at him so he can go send a few carrier ships over and launch an attack. Ever think that is actually what causes oil prices to go up, not the Iranians sticking their middle finger at us?
i totally agree, but as far as the average persian is concerned, do you think they see a difference between a brit and an american? we are so tied to brittan in this whole (mis)adventure. i would also add israel into the bunch. like it or not, we are all in it together.
i agree with you. i wasnt talking about individuals, but rather governments and leaders (bush). but i would say bush/torture supporters have no right to criticize, as they fully support a policy much worse than what iran did. its wrong when we do it. its wrong when they do it.
. well if there isnt a picture of it, then it must not be true. actually, i was just making the point that you can criticize but dont pick and choose what you do. no, i havent. you either have me confused with someone else or you completely misinterpreted what i said. I would guess the latter are you equating the two?
i dont get what you are trying to say here. the brits have already detailed what happened to them. are you saying that they are withholding even worse things that were done to them? what is the context of this statement? wrong. this is just one, but i have seen you write similar stuff multiple times. people who support policies of torture are immoral, so as far as that goes i suppose i am equating bush and torture supporters. care to expand on your statement a bit?
no i wasnt trying to say that things are being withheld. i was just showing how stress is applied to prisoners, its pretty much the standard when trying to gain information and make the prisoners break. Now, im sure that iran went relatively 'light' on the soldiers b/c they knew the world was watching. well im glad you can tell me what i think. thats just seems like a pretty a radical statement. and i've mentioned it before but torture is a bit of a loaded word and its not very clear. Putting a prisoner in emotional anguish can be considered torture (by definition). You can say that prisoners put in solitary confinement is torture, but i dont think that most people see it that way. I just think that 'torture' is too broad of a term to really have a constructive conversation about the topic, i.e. how much can one party do to a captive to gain information and/or cooperation? which is the real issue, i think.
no he hasnt, but in his short time here i have noticed multiple posts of his simliar to the one i quoted. "we wouldnt have all these problems if people didnt complain so much."
there are already established limits on how much one party can do to a captive to gain info. the problem is that the bush administration chose to ignore them. and you do realize that torture is not a reliable way to gain info, right? intelligence experts, military officers and military lawyers are all against it. i would like to discuss this with you, but first you need to tell me what your definition of torture is. i asked you before to "unload" it for me, but you havent. does anything qualify as "torture" in your mind? you describe what happened at abu-ghraib as "emotional distress", as if naked pyramids were the worst thing going on there. as if it was all fraternity pranks. lets look at what republican senator lindsey graham said was going on at abu-ghraib http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "The photos clearly demonstrate to me the level of prisoner abuse and mistreatment went far beyond what I expected, and certainly involved more than six or seven MPs," said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former military prosecutor. He added: "It seems to have been planned." lets look at what the united states army said was going on there. the army itself says that people were sodomized with glow-sticks. is that what you call "emotional distress"? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/ 6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts: a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet; b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees; c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing; d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time; e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear; f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped; g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them; h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture; i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked; j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture; k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee; l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee; m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees. 8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26): a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol; c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees; d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape; f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick. h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. here is a report by the red cross, where they interviewed military intelligence officers, who stated that 70 - 90% of the detainees in iraq are totally innocent. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/ "Intelligence officers of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, the Red Cross said in a report that was disclosed Monday, and Red Cross observers witnessed U.S. officers mistreating Abu Ghraib prisoners by keeping them naked in total darkness in empty cells." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs from the view of the Army, physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last "months or even years." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/ as a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war. In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell and America's top military lawyers
