The photos America doesn't want seen

[Batman]

I'd rather have some injured or traumatized prisoners then losing soldiers when there is a manpower crisis.

Proof that decent treatment of the prisoners would have resulted in losing soldiers, please.

They would probably be able to keep it under the wraps you just don't expose that many people to the evidence and swear them to secrecy.

And that would be good why?

And there will always be prisoners who are getting beatings be it in military actions or police actions because sometimes the prisoner will piss off the guy in charge and they'll make an example of his.

Evidence that is what happened please.

[LongVin]

Proof that decent treatment of the prisoners would have resulted in losing soldiers, please.

I was stating that losing the troops to discplinary action because of there actions would be worse.

And that would be good why?

Because its not in your best interests to give yourself negative press.

Evidence that is what happened please.

Its just something that happens. Just watch the news every now and then you hear about a guy who comes out and is accussing the police of beating him up.[/quote]

[Batman]

Proof that decent treatment of the prisoners would have resulted in losing soldiers, please.

I was stating that losing the troops to discplinary action because of there actions would be worse.

Gotcha. Just because he tortured prisoners is no reason to dump one out of the army that unprovokedly invaded a country sort of because its government tortured prisoners.

And that would be good why?

Because its not in your best interests to give yourself negative press.

Then I suggest you instruct your people to comply with the laws they are supposed to protect in the first place. What gives the US negative press is not the release of the pics but the fact that the deeds pictured therein happened in the first place.

Evidence that is what happened please.

Its just something that happens. Just watch the news every now and then you hear about a guy who comes out and is accussing the police of beating him up.

IOW, none whatsoever. Concession accepted.

[brianeyci]

So you're not going to answer the question LongVin? Let me remind you what it was. It was not rhetorical.

Would Abu Ghraib be still happening if there was no leak to the press?

Why don't you give evidence rather than half-assed rationalizations.

Brian

[LongVin]

Proof that decent treatment of the prisoners would have resulted in losing soldiers, please.

I was stating that losing the troops to discplinary action because of there actions would be worse.

Gotcha. Just because he tortured prisoners is no reason to dump one out of the army that unprovokedly invaded a country sort of because its government tortured prisoners.

And that would be good why?

Because its not in your best interests to give yourself negative press.

Then I suggest you instruct your people to comply with the laws they are supposed to protect in the first place. What gives the US negative press is not the release of the pics but the fact that the deeds pictured therein happened in the first place.

Evidence that is what happened please.

Its just something that happens. Just watch the news every now and then you hear about a guy who comes out and is accussing the police of beating him up.

IOW, none whatsoever. Concession accepted.

I'd rather have the soldier at his post. The prisoner probably deserved it. Not that its the point of the matter but the war was legal and justified.

I already stated they should be advised not to do it and if they continue discplinary action would be conducted. I'm just more opposed to the army releasing negative press about itself.

And that is not a concession it is a fact that police will sometimes beat those they are arresting. Its common knowledge and does not need to be proved.

[Keevan_Colton]

Completely different circumstances. One is an act by a sociopath against an innocent.

We are talking about a terrorist that has or has attempted to kill Americans and anyone else he can get his hands on. If someone tried to kill you or your friends and you got your hands on him in all likelyhood you would give him a beatdown.

Completely different circumstances. One is an act by a sociopath against an innocent.

We are talking about a terrorist that has or has attempted to kill Americans and anyone else he can get his hands on. If someone tried to kill you or your friends and you got your hands on him in all likelyhood you would give him a beatdown.

A little reminder shit for brains, none of these people have been convicted of anything.

[Keevan_Colton]

I'd rather have the soldier at his post. The woman probably deserved it.

Just a little word substitution to remind all our viewers at home that LongWind here is a morally bankrupt shit.

[mr friendly guy]

Hey LongVin, I am still waiting for you to back up your assertion that the Iraqi's deserved the beating. But then I can't expect too much a little asswipe like yourself.

[Batman]

Not that he's going to provide any but

I'd rather have the soldier at his post.

You'd rather is doesn't cut it.

The prisoner probably deserved it.

Evidence fucktard.

Not that its the point of the matter but the war was legal and justified.

Evidence.

I already stated they should be advised not to do it and if they continue discplinary action would be conducted.

So rapists on a first offense should be advised to not do it again. gotcha.

I'm just more opposed to the army releasing negative press about itself.

Then perhaps the Army should work on not giving reason for negative press.

And that is not a concession it is a fact that police will sometimes beat those they are arresting. Its common knowledge and does not need to be proved.

I asked for proof that that is what happend in those specific cases. You answered with a might/could/sometimes handwave. Yes that's a concession.

[LongVin]

So you're not going to answer the question LongVin? Let me remind you what it was. It was not rhetorical.

Would Abu Ghraib be still happening if there was no leak to the press?

Why don't you give evidence rather than half-assed rationalizations.

Brian

There would probably still be beatings and there probably are still some beatings. Not being there I wouldn't know.

[LongVin]

Completely different circumstances. One is an act by a sociopath against an innocent.

We are talking about a terrorist that has or has attempted to kill Americans and anyone else he can get his hands on. If someone tried to kill you or your friends and you got your hands on him in all likelyhood you would give him a beatdown.

Completely different circumstances. One is an act by a sociopath against an innocent.

We are talking about a terrorist that has or has attempted to kill Americans and anyone else he can get his hands on. If someone tried to kill you or your friends and you got your hands on him in all likelyhood you would give him a beatdown.

A little reminder shit for brains, none of these people have been convicted of anything.

hmmm...and that applies to all prisoners of war in every war they aren't charged for anything unless they committed war crimes.

[LongVin]

I'd rather have the soldier at his post. The woman probably deserved it.

Just a little word substitution to remind all our viewers at home that LongWind here is a morally bankrupt shit.

That is real mature.

And no I am not "morally bankrupt" as you put it I just follow the principle that in warfare that sometimes morals must be put aside in order to assure victory.

[LongVin]

Hey LongVin, I am still waiting for you to back up your assertion that the Iraqi's deserved the beating. But then I can't expect too much a little asswipe like yourself.

And you can't say he didn't since none of us were there. I am more inclined to trust the intents of an American Soldier then an Iraqi Prisoner.

[FSTargetDrone]

You're already getting enough of a (well-deserved) rebuttal, but I can't let this by:

I'd rather have the soldier at his post. The prisoner probably deserved it. Not that its the point of the matter but the war was legal and justified.

Hm, "probably deserved it"? Show me your evidence, Mr. Prosecutor.

I already stated they should be advised not to do it and if they continue discplinary action would be conducted. I'm just more opposed to the army releasing negative press about itself.

They should be "advised"? Let's start talking about discipline, professionalism and acting like someone with a few morals.

And that is not a concession it is a fact that police will sometimes beat those they are arresting. Its common knowledge and does not need to be proved.

Such police should be removed and prosecuted, if they are shown to be beating a prisoner without cause.

Look, you cannot let your rage at the other side affect your response to such incidents. We know very little about the individuals held in various locations by the government. I will not give the government the benefit of the doubt. Legally, it must prove its case against a suspect. It cannot arbitrarily decide Mohammed is guilty because he happened to be caught up with others who may or may not have attacked US forces.

The fact that you seem so complacent and trusting of the goverment is disturbing.

[LongVin]

ok Batman did you ever hear of Rodney King? Thats when cops beat up a guy. That guy probably deserved it also. But it happened and there were a bunch of riots about. Thus it happens its COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

[Keevan_Colton]

I'd rather have the soldier at his post. The woman probably deserved it.

Just a little word substitution to remind all our viewers at home that LongWind here is a morally bankrupt shit.

That is real mature.

And no I am not "morally bankrupt" as you put it I just follow the principle that in warfare that sometimes morals must be put aside in order to assure victory.

Victory at any cost...

Remember we went in to bring freedom to the people of iraq, it was the only reason left on the fucking checklist that didnt prove to be pure bullshit...turns out it was bullshit too. Then again, some people need a dictator dont they?

[FSTargetDrone]

That is real mature.

And no I am not "morally bankrupt" as you put it I just follow the principle that in warfare that sometimes morals must be put aside in order to assure victory.

With that rationale, then please tell us why we simply don't start, say, carpet bombing areas in Iraq where we think or know enemy forces are located. Why not make an example to some nearby town by incinerating the area?

[Batman]

hmmm...and that applies to all prisoners of war in every war they aren't charged for anything unless they committed war crimes.

Small problem-the US isn't currently at war with anybody. Am I to take this that the US is at war with every country that happens to have one of its citizens imprisoned at Guantanamo?

[LongVin]

Yeah. Some people need dictators because they can't handle democracy.

[LongVin]

hmmm...and that applies to all prisoners of war in every war they aren't charged for anything unless they committed war crimes.

Small problem-the US isn't currently at war with anybody. Am I to take this that the US is at war with every country that happens to have one of its citizens imprisoned at Guantanamo?

War on Terror. They were operating against Americans thus they are considered part of an organization that is actively working against the United States.

[Keevan_Colton]

Yeah. Some people need dictators because they can't handle democracy.

Just checking you're still a racist shit head.

[LongVin]

Yeah. Some people need dictators because they can't handle democracy.

Just checking you're still a racist shit head.

Has nothing to do with race. I don't care where the country is if the people show they can't handle democracy they shouldn't have it. Be it in Africa, The Americas, Asia or Europe.

[Keevan_Colton]

Yeah. Some people need dictators because they can't handle democracy.

Just checking you're still a racist shit head.

Has nothing to do with race. I don't care where the country is if the people show they can't handle democracy they shouldn't have it. Be it in Africa, The Americas, Asia or Europe.

Alright, since america keeps electing fucking morons we'll come blow up your shit and take away your democracy...how does that sound?

[brianeyci]

So you're not going to answer the question LongVin? Let me remind you what it was. It was not rhetorical.

Would Abu Ghraib be still happening if there was no leak to the press?

Why don't you give evidence rather than half-assed rationalizations.

Brian

There would probably still be beatings and there probably are still some beatings. Not being there I wouldn't know.

You're a blazing retard. Ignorance is no excuse, if you don't know what happened in Abu Ghraib then you should shut your mouth. There aren't pile ups of naked bodies or threats of electrocution or dogs biting your ass. Without the leak to the media there would have been no incentive at all to change all of this. Had the military been successful in covering them up and doing what you're saying, those 10 convicted soldiers would have got off scott free. It was only the media pressure, the pressure from NGO's and the press that stopped the abuse. The pressure on the United States of America to clean up its act.

Why don't you provide evidence that a military can handle its own internal affairs and bring people to justice without external civilian organizations getting involved.

Brian

[mr friendly guy]

Hey LongVin, I am still waiting for you to back up your assertion that the Iraqi's deserved the beating. But then I can't expect too much a little asswipe like yourself.

And you can't say he didn't since none of us were there. I am more inclined to trust the intents of an American Soldier then an Iraqi Prisoner.

Ha ha. Moron boy makes the claim, but he expects us to disprove it. Let me explain this slowly for you. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. Its called the burden of proof. You know, the logical principal which tells us who has to provide the evidence, which coincidentally is one of the rules on this board.

Using your bullshit logic, I can easily argue, how do you know the Iraqi's DIDN'T deserve it. I would rather trust someone who hasn't been convicted as opposed to American Soldiers who have been convicted of abuse.

And no I am not "morally bankrupt" as you put it I just follow the principle that in warfare that sometimes morals must be put aside in order to assure victory.

And you can't see the contradiction in that statement. Tell me, were you always this stupid, or did your mother drop you too many times as a child?