No reason to make up completely random numbers.
Mohammed Bear vs Gitmo
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
No reason to make up completely random numbers.
Perhaps you are unaware that these are epidemiologists with publications in science journals who do this as part of their job on a regular basis.
Or are you one of those who believes the government over the science?
We agree on this. So...maybe its 1...maybe its 100,000...
Without numbers, how can we state its a problem?
Bells
Staff member
Just because you do it behind closed doors, does not make you any better.ranthi said:
Oh I don't have a problem with the figure. I would imagine it is probably a lot more than that. I do however have a problem with the "only".
Actually no. It is basically a requirement that must be met upon their release. No signing.. no release. It's not a guess pet. It is a sad reality.
And you should read the definition of genocide and read it well.
You mean like those people that call me to see if watch and enjoy certain cable channels?
I put no stock in polls..never will.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Thats only if they are US citizens.
Bush signed a military order on November 13, 2001 suspending habeas corpus for non-citizens labeled as enemy combatants.
I did not realise they publish studies on cable channels in science journals.
Nevertheless, the fact that previous studies have shown that media reports undercount war killings by 80% and the fact that several independent polls are supporting this view, is a good indication, don;t you think?
And the polls are about people dying violently in your family, not cable channels.
Unless to you they are of similar importance and levity.
You are telling me that you cant see the difference between sawing someones head off on video and sending it to the news and the piddly shit that happens at gitmo? By definition they may seem alike...in reality, they are FAR different. This is a sick example..I know..but it kind of shows the difference. It is the difference between raping an adult and raping a child. I would personally saw a child rapists head off, bash their skull open and feed their brain to a pack of rabid rottweilers if given the chance whereas jailtime (all be it for a long time) is sufficient for someone who rapes an adult.
Example of the "piddly" stuff that happens to our prisoners in other countries.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm
(Scroll down a little).
He wasnt a prisoner of ours...
I think he is an example of ours, most likely. Or do they treat our "extraordinary renditions" better? In any case, I have heard that some of the torture done on him has been done to our prisoners...boiling people alive...
When we start rounding up Muslims and shoving them into ovens that comparison might have some validity. Until then, it's typical hyperbole.
Bells
Staff member
I don't think she was comparing the two madant.
Reality check:
The detainees at Gitmo were, most of them, captured by local Afghan militia and other tribal forces, and turned over to the US for bounty money - often days later, and after abuse. Many of the ones captured by the US directly were Taliban soldiers, openly bearing arms and captured during combat.
They were all tortured, except possibly the children and the very old, through stress positions etc.
Some were more severly tortured.
None were handled according to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions or any subsequent relevant treaty.
Few were captured under accurately known circumstances, and most appear to be innocent of any "terrorism" connection whatsoever.
- - - - -
The Iraq Body Count definitely underestimates the US civilian kill in Iraq - it says so, right on its web page. Its methods are designed to produce an underestimate that provides a floor underneath all accurate estimates. There is no honest way to describe it as an "exaggeration" of the US civilian kill in Iraq. When the IBC was set up, it was designed to provide a denial-proof count of a fraction of the US civilian kill, to compare with the absurdly low propaganda estimates being released from various sources, and given legitimacy by the authority of those sources. At the time, and still, accurate info was not available from the US military.
- - - -
That would account for the otherwise mysterious failure of the US administration to even bother screening the inmates for terrorist connections, and the adoption of interrogation methods almost useless for obtaining reliable info and completely inadmissable at any trial, but very well suited for obtaining confessions and intimidating a subject population, in the time-honored way of torture prisons everywhere.
The detainees at Gitmo were, most of them, captured by local Afghan militia and other tribal forces, and turned over to the US for bounty money - often days later, and after abuse. Many of the ones captured by the US directly were Taliban soldiers, openly bearing arms and captured during combat.
They were all tortured, except possibly the children and the very old, through stress positions etc.
Some were more severly tortured.
None were handled according to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions or any subsequent relevant treaty.
Few were captured under accurately known circumstances, and most appear to be innocent of any "terrorism" connection whatsoever.
- - - - -
The Iraq Body Count definitely underestimates the US civilian kill in Iraq - it says so, right on its web page. Its methods are designed to produce an underestimate that provides a floor underneath all accurate estimates. There is no honest way to describe it as an "exaggeration" of the US civilian kill in Iraq. When the IBC was set up, it was designed to provide a denial-proof count of a fraction of the US civilian kill, to compare with the absurdly low propaganda estimates being released from various sources, and given legitimacy by the authority of those sources. At the time, and still, accurate info was not available from the US military.
- - - -
If you are an American, you need not form opinions in such ignorance. You have many sources of information about those photos, the charges resulting from them, the circumstances of the prison, etc. You can learn, for example, that the acts depicted were common and took place over several months at Abu Ghraib, that they were embedded in a policy of abuse associated with deliberately adopted interrogation procedures familiar to quite high levels of command, that they took place in other prisons besides Abu Ghraib, that they were common knowledge among hundreds of US military personnel and various contractors (as well as hundreds of Iraqis, of course), and that only the soldiers directly connected with the photographic evidence and their immediate supervisors have been charged or disciplined.rathni said:
It establishes your power to round up people and severely abuse them for years with impunity. Lots of governments have found that very productive, and worth doing.madanth said:
That would account for the otherwise mysterious failure of the US administration to even bother screening the inmates for terrorist connections, and the adoption of interrogation methods almost useless for obtaining reliable info and completely inadmissable at any trial, but very well suited for obtaining confessions and intimidating a subject population, in the time-honored way of torture prisons everywhere.
Last edited:
If she didnt mean to compare the two then she wouldnt have.:bugeye:
Well, considering that we have a more direct interaction with the prisoners that we supposedly ask them to keep for us...I would have to assume that although waterboarding does happen once in a while..boiling people alive? There has never been any evidence that we have been directly involved in or complacent to any activities to the extent of boiling people alive.
Its pretty obvious to me that you have never been in the military and have no knowledge therein or you would know that what is shown in those images can never...ever...EVER...be policy. And I am full aware that those who do that are punished accordingly, but their punishments are only told to the public as a courtesy..they dont HAVE to tell you or keep you in the loop whatsoever.
You, as others have done beforehand and will continue to do till time ends, only pick and choose information from websites that suit your needs at the time. You have lost the ability to think for yourself. I can probably find a website that show that Clinton has 3 boobs but should I believe it because I found it on the internet?