NEW Abu Ghraib Photos

[crazyj]

ABU GHRAIB, Iraq (Nov. 1, 2005) - Tabark Addul Rahman (Tabitha). Tabitha was a patient at the Abu Ghraib hospital from Oct 28, 2005 to Nov. 2, 2005. Picture taken by Maj. Brad Wenstrup 344th Combat Support Hospital.

ABU GHRAIB, Iraq (Oct. 30, 2005) - Maj. Lisa Flynn MD provides oxygen to Tabark Addul Rahman, aka Baby Tabitha. Flynn the general and vascular surgeon for the hospital at Abu Ghraib was primary physician for the baby. Photo by Maj. Brad Wenstrup 344th Combat Support Hospital.

ABU GHRAIB, Iraq (October 30, 2005) - Maj. Jose Rodriquez MD (L) and Maj. Brad Wenstrup Chief of Surgery [r] perform surgery on a detainees' leg while Maj. Marie Cadet RN looks on.

BAGHDAD (January 13, 2006) – Soldiers from the 3rd Brigade, 6th Iraqi Division and Company C, 1st Battalion, 87th Infantry, 1/10th Mountain Division hand out rice, meat, blankets and patriotic Iraqi flags Jan. 13 to Abu Ghraib citizens. (U.S. Army Photo by Capt. Shonnel Makwakwa, 1/10th MTN Medical Planner)

CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq (Jauary 9, 2006) – French foreign national, Bernard Planche, who was kidnapped Dec. 5 while working as an engineer in Iraq, was found by U.S. Troops as they patrolled a neighborhood in the Abu Ghraib area of western Baghdad. The Soldiers took him in, provided him with care, and began contacting his relatives and home country. Here, he talks with Soldiers from the 1/10th Mountain Division’s 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, A Company, who were in charge of his rescue (U.S. Army Photo by Pfc. Jason Jordan, 1/10th Mountain Public Affairs)

compliments of black5

[vikingsiddhu]

I'm sorry. Who is abu ghraib?

[Ahiga]

The infamous prison where a number of photos were taken involving the humiliation and 'torture' (Depends on your view of torture. There were cases of physical harm, but other photos were more mental or emotional, such as being naked).

You will be condemned for this being nothing but propaganda..and is no more than the abu Ghirab torture photos. Shows that much of the war is grey, not black and white, and that we are doing a good job as well as a bad one.

[danzig]

You will be condemned for this being nothing but propaganda..and is no more than the abu Ghirab torture photos. Shows that much of the war is grey, not black and white, and that we are doing a good job as well as a bad one.

Sadly you are probably right and he will be, anything bad = truth and good while anything good = just propaganda to cover up the bad which in order to be correct you would have to believe the US as a whole is evil and rotten imo...something it clearly isnt.

[RZZZA]

Doesnt everyone know that Abru Ghriab and all the lindy england stuff was a rare, isolated incident? I know everyone laughs when Condie or Bush or Rumsfeld says "The United States does not condone torture", but its actually not a lie and its not spin, its true. We actually hand out a lot more supplies/food than we torture people. Its just that, yes, sometimes we do have to torture people. But we hand out food, so the two cancel eachother out. At least our torture victims arent very hungry.

[MaximiIian]

Doesnt everyone know that Abru Ghriab and all the lindy england stuff was a rare, isolated incident? I know everyone laughs when Condie or Bush or Rumsfeld says "The United States does not condone torture", but its actually not a lie and its not spin, its true. We actually hand out a lot more supplies/food than we torture people. Its just that, yes, sometimes we do have to torture people. But we hand out food, so the two cancel eachother out. At least our torture victims arent very hungry.

"You will tell us what we want to know or we will beat you sticks- but not on an empty stomach"

But, yeah, I agree with you. Some people cannot grasp that the prison incidents are few and far between, and mostly we are trying to do some good, though that kinda gets interrupted by insurgent (or freedom-fighter, depending on your perspective) attacks occasionally.

[Garbarsardar]

The infamous prison where a number of photos were taken involving the humiliation and 'torture' (Depends on your view of torture. There were cases of physical harm, but other photos were more mental or emotional, such as being naked).

You will be condemned for this being nothing but propaganda..and is no more than the abu Ghirab torture photos. Shows that much of the war is grey, not black and white, and that we are doing a good job as well as a bad one.

No. The torture photos were about a crime, about Acts no civilized human being should perform to another. Those photos are about what the US Army is supposed to be doing. It is not possible to equate the two sets of photos as mutually effacing, or to uphold and argument of the type: "...see good and bad walk always hand in hand".

And no your photos are not propaganda, they are aspects of the truth in Iraq. As exactly the photos of torture. And of course I accept that for every Iraqi that was tortured there was at least one who was not tortured. Thinking of it it is an achievement...

Now try these photos:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Easter.../KarlKoch.html




See? Not everything was bad in Buchenwald....

[RZZZA]

"See? Not everything was bad in Buchenwald...."


LOL. yeah, there were birds...birdhouses...trees...its was actually quite lovely.

Well I dont think the shame of Abu Ghriab is enough to declare the the U.S. troops are more bad than they are good, more muslims got upset over danish cartoons than they seemed to care about abu ghriab...so I take that as proof that the Iraqi's are willing to tolerate one Abu Ghriab affair if it means the Americans are trying to do the important stuff....like feeding people, and giving them electricity, and a working government...

[Ahlerich]

"See? Not everything was bad in Buchenwald...."


LOL. yeah, there were birds...birdhouses...trees...its was actually quite lovely.

Well I dont think the shame of Abu Ghriab is enough to declare the the U.S. troops are more bad than they are good, more muslims got upset over danish cartoons than they seemed to care about abu ghriab...so I take that as proof that the Iraqi's are willing to tolerate one Abu Ghriab affair if it means the Americans are trying to do the important stuff....like feeding people, and giving them electricity, and a working government...

ya they are probably used to torture because of saddam..nothing new to them. just the torturers are payed from somebody else.

and to the food thing..before the war there was food and electricity and water in iraq.

and the baby on post one of the thread most likely had parents before the war.
and 3/4 of those who receive medical aid from the army werent hurt before the war.

[crazyj]

ya they are probably used to torture because of saddam..nothing new to them. just the torturers are payed from somebody else.

and to the food thing..before the war there was food and electricity and water in iraq.

and the baby on post one of the thread most likely had parents before the war.
and 3/4 of those who receive medical aid from the army werent hurt before the war.

They didn't care about Abu Ghraib in Iraq because they actually know what REAL torture looks like, and could care less if a few of the people blowing them up in markets and on roads were humiliated, with a few geniunely tortured. They can see the difference between the torture we conducted (the leg thing, etc.) and shoving someone on a meat hook or into a woodchipper. They can deal with it because it is still an improvement, and because the torturers AREN'T paid to do so but rather get punished.

You do realize electrical output is higher, but there is simply higher demand now because Saddam is gone? All the satellite dishes, cars, appliances, etc. that people rushed out to buy (because they are also making more money now, for instance Dr.'s made less than $10. usd monthly before the war, and about $400 now) which has caused shortages even though productivity and output is higher? And I don't see mass starvation anywhere, I see people upset because of gasoline lines because now EVERYBODY has a car, rather than just Baathists and those at the very top of the pecking order.

And somehow saying that 3/4 of those who get medical aid (from the U.S.) weren't hurt before the war as somehow an indictment of the U.S. is retarded. If a guy gets hurt by a terrorist, and we come in and save his life, you use the terrorists attack and our treatment as proof of the war being bad? That should be proof that the war on these suckers is good.

Think of all the Germans alive before the U.S. entered the war and led the way to the Rhineland. Those poor guys, they would have been alive if we didn't help out the Allies, so by your logic the American involvement in the war was bad. No war is "good", but would it hurt to use some critical thinking to differentiate between white, black, and grey aspects of one?

and why did nobody try to find a way how to remove saddam without this happening. why did they hurry so much to start the war..ignoring the inconveniences and not prepare for anything? it was not like " we have to attacj today, tomorrow is too late"

Typical. Why didn't "somebody else" (never you) think of a way to remove Saddam without this happening? Uh, because there was no way to remove him without this happening. As for "tomorrow is [not] too late", it might have been had he been able to hand off a WMD to a terrorist group to use in America, which is why "the sooner the better" as far as the administration was concerned. Also, if we didn't invade then we could be sure of his even CRAZIER sons Uday and Qusay taking over, which might have actually made Saddam look good in retrospect.

BTW, contrary to popular opinion the military didn't invade with the soldiers' pants around their ankles and no bullets in their guns. There WAS a plan, but it has had to deal with a flexible and dynamic enemy who doesn't sit around waiting for us to find them. ANY plan would have had it's share of downsides and unintended consequences. If you don't think so, please tell us what plan could have been used to result in pure harmony and bliss in Iraq post Saddam. I am all ears.

[Ahiga]

No. The torture photos were about a crime, about Acts no civilized human being should perform to another. Those photos are about what the US Army is supposed to be doing. It is not possible to equate the two sets of photos as mutually effacing, or to uphold and argument of the type: "...see good and bad walk always hand in hand".

And no your photos are not propaganda, they are aspects of the truth in Iraq. As exactly the photos of torture. And of course I accept that for every Iraqi that was tortured there was at least one who was not tortured. Thinking of it it is an achievement...

Now try these photos:

For one, your photos prove nothing. That there were birds or trees at a place of incredible horror. How shocking!

Next you'll tell me that the sky was blue over the massacre of Armenians by the Turks in WW1 or that a jew who came to watch Jesus being cruxified was happy that he was to bed wed the next day!

At least you agree that the photos prove that the situation in iraq is more than just a black or white truth, and there is good that has been done by the Coalition alongside evil.

The photos of Abu Ghirab depicted many acts of depravdy and torture. Parading someone around naked and forcing him to form a human pyramid with other naked innmates is not a crime I would rank even close to Buchenwald. There is quite likely some torture that had gone on and was depicted in photos that could hover near what many depraved nations did in the past, but many of the photos were more sick than they were inhumane. I hear people revolt about how they threaten prisoners at Guantanimo bay with the blood from a woman's menstral period and wonder why they aren't up in arms towards the torture going on in, say, the Sudan. Raping and setting fire to an entire village ranks a little higher to me than threatening someone with a woman's bodily fluids, and while I am NOT Dismissing or condoning the acts, yes, Buchenwald ranks far higher to me than the naked photos of Abu ghirab. I'd sooner let my naked self be forced onto another naked prisoner than I would suffer Buchenwald, or suffer the other grievous tortures (Although the media really did focus on the nakedness and the humiliating acts, so the case of beating a prisoner to death is truly the only one that sticks in my head about the whole prison scandal. I'd like to know what other actions happened there so I could better understand it) that went on in abu Ghirab.

And yes, guess what. Those photos which depicted the good that has come from the Coalition do show that good has accompanied the bad to have come to iraq. There is terrible acts and noble acts being committed in the violence and desperate situation in Iraq. It's not saying 'well, to get good you have to accept the bad', but it is saying that good and evil can and will go hand in hand in war, and 'you' (The nation, the army, whatever), need to combat letting the evil prop up. Putting the sadists who committed the Abu Ghirab prison scandal is exactly that, though we may have had those higher up escape it

[Garbarsardar]

For one, your photos prove nothing. That there were birds or trees at a place of incredible horror. How shocking!

Next you'll tell me that the sky was blue over the massacre of Armenians by the Turks in WW1 or that a jew who came to watch Jesus being cruxified was happy that he was to bed wed the next day!

Please take the trouble to follow the link I provided before you continue on this line of argument.

At least you agree that the photos prove that the situation in iraq is more than just a black or white truth, and there is good that has been done by the Coalition alongside evil.

I don't need the photos to understand the obvious. Nobody denies that a peacekeeping mission involves caring for the population, providing medical and social services. We are the civilized ones, remember?

The photos of Abu Ghirab depicted many acts of depravdy and torture. Parading someone around naked and forcing him to form a human pyramid with other naked innmates is not a crime I would rank even close to Buchenwald. There is quite likely some torture that had gone on and was depicted in photos that could hover near what many depraved nations did in the past, but many of the photos were more sick than they were inhumane. I hear people revolt about how they threaten prisoners at Guantanimo bay with the blood from a woman's menstral period and wonder why they aren't up in arms towards the torture going on in, say, the Sudan. Raping and setting fire to an entire village ranks a little higher to me than threatening someone with a woman's bodily fluids, and while I am NOT Dismissing or condoning the acts, yes, Buchenwald ranks far higher to me than the naked photos of Abu ghirab. I'd sooner let my naked self be forced onto another naked prisoner than I would suffer Buchenwald, or suffer the other grievous tortures (Although the media really did focus on the nakedness and the humiliating acts, so the case of beating a prisoner to death is truly the only one that sticks in my head about the whole prison scandal. I'd like to know what other actions happened there so I could better understand it) that went on in abu Ghirab.

Good. Because some people still question that torture was what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison

And yes, guess what. Those photos which depicted the good that has come from the Coalition do show that good has accompanied the bad to have come to iraq. There is terrible acts and noble acts being committed in the violence and desperate situation in Iraq. It's not saying 'well, to get good you have to accept the bad', but it is saying that good and evil can and will go hand in hand in war, and 'you' (The nation, the army, whatever), need to combat letting the evil prop up. Putting the sadists who committed the Abu Ghirab prison scandal is exactly that, though we may have had those higher up escape it

@crazyj

If the purpose of this thread is to underline the statement, I emphasized in Ahiga's paragraph, I have absolutely no qualms with this, although I don't see any point in going into so much trouble to state the obvious.

If, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intention, the purpose of posting those photos is to prove that DOING YOUR JOB is somehow equivocal or can counterbalance "despicable acts of torture" and therefore the two sets of photos could be equated, you have failed to convince me.

[Ahiga]

Please take the trouble to follow the link I provided before you continue on this line of argument.

Fine. it's about the hedonistic woman who I recall having heard was a complete and utter sadist. She would fondle the men walking to the gas chambers. Koch gets executed for his actions, while his wife was not. The point I can see made in this is that the Nazi'd did not officially sanction cruelty to prisoners.

I do not understand the purpose of the link. It states "Under their strict policies, the Nazis did not tolerate wanton cruelty to the concentration camp prisoners.", yet it's practically a common fact to everyone here that the nazi's sought out to do this..yet this says they weren't?

Ok, Ok, I get your point. The Nazi's punished the actions of few yet still committed the unspeakable horrors. I assume your arguement is 'we punished those who committed it at Abu Ghirab, and do not tolerate wanton cruelty, but you believe the prison camps in Eastern Europe and elsewhere which hold terrorists and the like are committing cruelty as bad and even worse than abu Ghirab."

It's possible. Though, the link of the Nazis and us would be a bit incorrect in the sense that the Nazi's were doing it for Ethnic cleansing, while our government is doing it to presumed and actual terrorists, as well as insurgents and soforth?

Alright. I get what it is further along. The Camp commander was nice to animals and such. Again, these photos aren't, as I see them, simply photos of nice pretty things. They, if taken after the Abu ghirab scandal, represent the attempt of righting a wrong (As seen with the surgery on the detainees leg, perhaps?), and being upright and civilized, as we should have been.

Now, that may be my opinion formed during the debate and arguements going on here. as you saw it, I understand, it looked like "There's good, which means good always comes with the bad". I suppose my view of this as stated above and at the end formed during the arguements and as I got to know more and think more.

I don't need the photos to understand the obvious. Nobody denies that a peacekeeping mission involves caring for the population, providing medical and social services. We are the civilized ones, remember?

Well, your points being made tend towards saying we are committing uncivilized acts (Which is very possible). So I assume your saying "We're the civilized ones, remember?" in a snide manner to assault my stance thus far on the Abu Ghirab Scandal. We are only as civilized as every other civilized nation which has also committed similiar atrocities. Russia is civilized. And I am willing to assume there have been such unspeakable acts for Britain, yet they are also civilized. No, I'm not excusing it, but I am pointing out that civilized nations can commit uncivilized behavior. It is barbaric, but are we a barbarian for committing a barbaric act, or does it require perpetual and overt acts of barbary to become one, where your population accepts it? Our population acted in horror for it, as I am sure some/many government officials did as well. Does that not speak that we are not accepting of such actions? Please note that while I dismiss forcing men into a naked pile as torture but an act of deprivation that requires punishment, I do realize that there must have been acts of literal torture with bodily harm or moderate or excessive mental harm, and that we needed to punish those responcible. I can't say I am suprised, though. Is there a war that is very rough where either side has not had instances of stupid, disgusting, and unspeakable actions or acts?

Good. Because some people still question that torture was what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison

Well, if you cannot provide the sources yourself I'll go and search for them, but since you seem knowlegable in the subject, it'd help if you could link to something outlining the acts of torture at abu ghirab.

If the purpose of this thread is to underline the statement, I emphasized in your paragraph, I have absolutely no qualms with this.

If, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intention, the purpose of posting those photos is to prove that DOING YOUR JOB is somehow equivocal or can counterbalance "despicable acts of torture" and therefore the two sets of photos could be equated, you have failed to convince me.

I should not have meant it could counterbalance it. What I should have meant is that the photos show that there has been progress being made, and that the war is not as black and white as we see it. It doesn't justify Abu Ghirab, but it helps to wipe the dirty mark from our record. Improvement and trying to right the wrong is better than condoing it and turning a blind eye.

Because explaining a conceptual argument with a comparative example is just so nonsensical!

Not really. He's trying to make the conceptual arguement that there was good at the Concentration camps. The way I saw it for my arguement before it changed was that he was trying to say 'the good thats at abu ghirab now does nothing to the fact that there was evil there. There are countless examples of a few good things at a place of evil.' Yet, the point I wished to make is that there is steady improvement and a desire to do better, apparently, by the coalition. There is good at a place where we committed horrible acts to try and show that we are trying to make amends for the act, instead of just leaving it there and turning our eyes in shame.

Which would mean...by the above logic you post...that...the photos of the torture/humiliation/whateverthehellwordyouwanttousetoday mean about as much as you say his pleasant photos do.

Have a blast.

No, I don't. His examples are just the good which comes naturally with nature, or of human's providing a place for birds to eat, and could be there regardless of the camp. There is no sense of trying to make amends for the actions or to find forgiveness for the concentration camp's torture in those photos - It's just a pretty birdhouse and some concrete thing. If it were germans choosing to feed or liberate the camp before the allies came and forced them to, then it would be the same as what these photos of Abu Ghirab would be, in my mind.


My point is that good is trying to be done to make amends for the action, and to do better, to act the way we should have from the get go. Edited: Again, as stated above, these opinions formed as we debated and argued. I'm not sure they were mine from the start.

[crazyj]

@crazyj

If the purpose of this thread is to underline the statement, I emphasized in Ahiga's paragraph, I have absolutely no qualms with this, although I don't see any point in going into so much trouble to state the obvious.

If, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intention, the purpose of posting those photos is to prove that DOING YOUR JOB is somehow equivocal or can counterbalance "despicable acts of torture" and therefore the two sets of photos could be equated, you have failed to convince me.

No, mostly the point of this thread was to point out that pictures of Abu Ghraib from nearly 3 years ago are still being recycled as "news" when the situation has changed dramatically. The point of this thread was to point out how the U.S. doesn't tolerate such behavior and acts to correct it. The point of this thread was to underline the fact that Abu Ghraib was a deviation from the norm, whereas these sorts of hospitals and projects define the norm. Also, the point of this thread was to underline the fact that our military DOES consider taking care of civilians (and enemy combatants) a part of the job, regardless of the fact that it really ISN'T the job of the military to care of every single individual in need worldwide. It was also to emphasize why our nation and military is considered different from what the rest of the world has produced, and how we have influenced the rest of the world for the better, precisely because operations such as those detailed in this picture have now been accepted as being a part of the job.

Also, I appreciated the irony your pics were supposed to inspire, but I hope you consider statues and parks in a death camp (which stayed a death camp until Allied victory) as different from turning a prison (which experience SOME isolated torture) into a completely different place within a few years, of a nations own free will and consciousness.

True.

However, the question is, will US stay in Iraq until the security situation improves absolutely?

What matters in this war is that if Bush loses, there will be greater chance that US-led coalition force will leave Iraq, much like what happened in Vietnam. Different party, different foreign policies.

You need to look at what's going on in Afghanistan. You've got democracy working just around Kabul and majority of provinces are still controlled by local warlords who profit from illegal drug and arms trafficking.

I don't know... US just might walk away like she did in Vietnam, leaving in Iraq much worse condition than pre-2003 Iraq. Who is responsible? US citizens, but they're not going to pay much price for that, at least in terms of blood being shed.

You answer your own question. We will only stay in Iraq until it has improved enough *meaning is debatable, look at peacekeeping still going on in the former Yugoslavia, with such ops only thing keeping mayhem from breaking out again* if Bush wins. If he is succeeded by any radical Dems, and we pull out, you are correct in that we may walk away and Iraq will be much worse. However, you are wrong in asserting the U.S. won't pay a high price in blood. Not only would that make all the casualties suffered until that point pointless (and amplify the pain, especially for vets that lived through it), but it would also result in more American casualties at home. You have to see what a boon for al-Qaeda and all Islamic fascist theocrats that would be don't you? And you must realize that if they succeed there long term and establish another Taliban, their ability to export that government to neighboring countries whether through infiltration and then democracy or though outright continued war on the "infidel" governments of the area is exponentially increased. It is this domino effect, leading to ever MORE money and military resources that would allow them to continue the attacks within America at an increased and more devastating tempo, whose natural results are the deaths of U.S. citizens.

Edit: 4 other points

1)Comparative analysis it is ---Torture Under Saddam Links to Videos and Pictures

2)On Policy---read this article for some insights into problems with interrogations, as well as the nature of the policy debate if you are wondering if it is condoned up top.

3)As far as eastern European or other unsavory prisons are concerned, just think that if all countries had standards and accountability like the U.S. than torture couldn't be conducted anywhere, without being condemned and halted.

4)For some reason I laughed when I kept seeing "naked human pyraminds" in all the above posts because I was reminded of a friend of a friend I met who was in a frat, and who was really drunk one night and told us about the "elephant walk" ritual in his frat whereby all the pledges stripped naked, squated down in the duck position, grabbed the schlong of the guy in front with both hands*if possible* (from behind and underneath, pulling towards themselves) and then duckwalked in a big human circle. I was laughing because that is something I couldn't be paid to do, and I think I'd take the "naked human pyramids."

[Gaidin]

For one, your photos prove nothing. That there were birds or trees at a place of incredible horror. How shocking!

Next you'll tell me that the sky was blue over the massacre of Armenians by the Turks in WW1 or that a jew who came to watch Jesus being cruxified was happy that he was to bed wed the next day!

Because explaining a conceptual argument with a comparative example is just so nonsensical!

At least you agree that the photos prove that the situation in iraq is more than just a black or white truth, and there is good that has been done by the Coalition alongside evil.

Which would mean...by the above logic you post...that...the photos of the torture/humiliation/whateverthehellwordyouwanttousetoday mean about as much as you say his pleasant photos do.

Have a blast.

[leeho730]

I should not have meant it could counterbalance it. What I should have meant is that the photos show that there has been progress being made, and that the war is not as black and white as we see it. It doesn't justify Abu Ghirab, but it helps to wipe the dirty mark from our record. Improvement and trying to right the wrong is better than condoing it and turning a blind eye.

True.

However, the question is, will US stay in Iraq until the security situation improves absolutely?

What matters in this war is that if Bush loses, there will be greater chance that US-led coalition force will leave Iraq, much like what happened in Vietnam. Different party, different foreign policies.

You need to look at what's going on in Afghanistan. You've got democracy working just around Kabul and majority of provinces are still controlled by local warlords who profit from illegal drug and arms trafficking.

I don't know... US just might walk away like she did in Vietnam, leaving in Iraq much worse condition than pre-2003 Iraq. Who is responsible? US citizens, but they're not going to pay much price for that, at least in terms of blood being shed.

[Ahiga]

True.

However, the question is, will US stay in Iraq until the security situation improves absolutely?

What matters in this war is that if Bush loses, there will be greater chance that US-led coalition force will leave Iraq, much like what happened in Vietnam. Different party, different foreign policies.

You need to look at what's going on in Afghanistan. You've got democracy working just around Kabul and majority of provinces are still controlled by local warlords who profit from illegal drug and arms trafficking.

I don't know... US just might walk away like she did in Vietnam, leaving in Iraq much worse condition than pre-2003 Iraq.

Very possible. Unless an ironclad solution comes, considering how the conflict raging today between sunni and shi'ite burst from acts of terrorism, no matter when we leave it might boil over into chaos like Liberia (I think).

It's kind of irritating how this administration deals in potentially endless struggles. A war on something which will exist so long as someone can terrorize another, and a fight which may end in failure no matter when its ended.

[crazyj]

Nobody here has denied the torture. No guilty consciences either. Its not "newsworthy." Its to show people whose ideas of Abu Ghraib are 3 years out of date that things have changed while they've been fretting, and enjoying the fact that my "NEW" in the title is actually true, whereas a thread with a similar title started not so long ago should have said "3 years old but unpublished."

[Nihil]

Nobody here has denied the torture. No guilty consciences either. Its not "newsworthy." Its to show people whose ideas of Abu Ghraib are 3 years out of date that things have changed while they've been fretting, and enjoying the fact that my "NEW" in the title is actually true, whereas a thread with a similar title started not so long ago should have said "3 years old but unpublished."

Sounds resonable. Fair enough.

[RusskiSoldat]

Both are true and both are propaganda.
What's your point?
Also, I see the army has got those new uniforms.