Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos Include Images Of Rape And Sexual Assault

Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/abu-ghraib-abuse-photos-i_n_208430.html

Comment from the article:

"Really disgusting - there is nothing which now differentiates us from the most brutal and oppresive regimes in the world. America no longer has any moral standing and has shown it's self to be a defender of human rights only when it's convenient.

Exactly what is the American ideal we're at war to defend?"

So, are the usual suspects on here going to keep turning a blind eye?

 

why attempting to censor? to protect the previous administration? who gave orders for such practices? and then say it was not as bad as you think?

for sure U.S. credibility has suffered a lot since the so-called war on terror (aka oil rush) started, and to change that bad image, it needs more than just a different color president who had the word "change" as a slogan in his campaign, it requires much more and time of course,

would be more convincing to American people and the world, if they actually closed Guantanamo prison and the many other secret prisons around the world, and sent those who committed such practices to court, not to sacrifice with one small soldier to hide the real ugly face behind it, and save the big war criminals from any responsibility for their crimes,

but to censor?

 

imad - I believe the attempt to censor is being made in earnest as to not pour gasoline on the fire (ie these photos can be used to recruit terrorists in the future.) I'm not going to say I agree with the decision, but I will say that I can understand it, it seems to be coming from a reasonable place.

The Bush/Cheney admin truly made the world far more dangerous by their actions over the last 8 years. That's what's so infuriating about Cheney's nonsense. It was their policy of torture that lead to Abu Ghraib which has been a huge recruiting tool for terrorists which in turn has helped make the world far more dangerous.

Obama is definitely trying to change America's image and I think he thinks these photos will do more harm than good because they will linger on long past this debate.

 

Still I would like to see them. And I do agree they tried fighting fire with fire and failed miserably, creating a bigger fire in the process. Some one should lock Cheney up in a cell at abu ghraib, or ADX Colorado I maybe happy with that.

 

Right on target as usual Zibblu. Normally I would insist on the photos being released, but if Obama thinks its a bad idea, then it must be! Aside from the report in the telegraph, I hear that Dick Cheney personally went out there to sodomize young Iraqi children. Other reports now seem to indicate the insurgent detainees consisting of Iraqi's and foreign Al Queda fighters were mostly homosexuals and actually enjoyed being sodomized. One report indicates the prisoners repeatedly asked for the Village People and Queen to be played during the interrogations. In furtherance of their torture, those requests were denied by the Americans. Oh the humanity!

 

lol haha

yup. "America no longer has any moral standing"..... we all wish that America's moral standard were like in Iran or Libya!

 

Update: For all of you who bought into this story, it now appears that General Taguba never saw the photographs that he reported.

Gibbs distributes Salon's Taguba piece

 

That wont stop Thraxed, Imad, new, and the others from running with this crap like its gospel. In that spirit, I'm standing by my stories I read which indicate that if Sodomy did occur, the Iraqi and foreign fighter detainees enjoyed it.

 

How about to protect our soldiers in the field

 

Like sheep herded to the slaughter. Its sad to watch. Funny. Typical. But sad.

 

There are people who will believe any nonsense that they hear, as long as it discredits the USA.

 

It's become pretty popular/PC for Americans to bash themselves. I believe it was the Ditsy Dykes (Dixie Chics) that first popularized this form of self deprecation.

 

And of course, thraxed, imad, new etc have run from the thread as soon as they were proven wrong. What more could you expect from them?

 

or maybe there was nothing worth a reply?

all I got is, protecting our soldiers, as if they really care about soldiers? if they cared about soldiers it would be because they want to calm the public and not actually about the lives of soldiers, you should know better how politics work there.

what may happen to soldiers more than happening now? I still see it as protecting the previous administration, or at least some of its decisions, as they do not want them to look as the complete idiots and liars they are, there is an interest to keep on the soldiers and anything that would make the public demand a complete withdrawal, is a threat to the benefits, not the soldiers whom they do not really care about since the beginning when they sent them to fight an enemy that did not exist,

got it?

btw, new did not post here so how can he run from a thread he did not post in?

 

And when that does not work, some resort to name calling. Calling people "idiots", "fat", "moron", "cunt", etc...

Yep, there are some real intelligent and mature people listed in that group.

 

This, right here. Not worth to reply to? Figures, something that doesn't coincide with what you say, isn't worth replying to. LMAO. I don't expect anything less from you.

And we all know how new is.

 

so you were expecting something like:

me saying: "it is to protect war criminals"
somebody else say: "it is to protect soldiers"
then me say: "no it is to protect war criminals! damn it!"
and somebody else say: "no, I said it is to protect soldiers!! so it is to protect soldiers!!!"
then me say: "IT IS TO PROTECT WAR CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
and then somebody else say: "IT IS TO PROTECT SOLDIERS!!!!!!!!!!!"

and so on?

the link you have, saying what means "it is not that bad" if it was not that bad, then why there is a need to censor?

what we know, is that people do not run from a place they have not been in.

 

Isn't saying "war criminal" as many times as possible one of your main objectives for posting here? It certainly isn't for the html, javascript or google help.

 

I think imad is of the delusional belief that all American soldiers are war criminals. I never see any of the America-bashing crowd complaining when captured American soldiers get their eyes gouged out, throats slit or heads chopped off. Nor do I hear them complaining when outsider insurgents kill hundreds of Iraqi citizens, or when Taliban militia kill Afghan citizens.

Like I say, some people will believe anything, as long as it makes Americans look bad. I understand his viewpoint. He just doesn't want the facts to get in the way when he forms an opinion. That makes it a lot easier to hate the infidels.