Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Well at least the abuse wasn't systomatic...oh wait..Follow

#1 May 15 2004 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

http://newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040524fa_fact

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story. He said, “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.” The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld’s testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, “Some people think you can ******** anyone.”


In the crazy old mans defense the Intel community has fuc[b][/b]king despised him since day one, but what do I know about that.

Burn baby burn.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#2 May 17 2004 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
***
1,102 posts
I knew one day I'd find a real reason for my inexplicable dislike of Rumsfeld. :P
#3 May 17 2004 at 8:37 AM Rating: Decent
*********
#4 May 17 2004 at 8:38 AM Rating: Decent
how come some posters get to say f'uck without it being censored and some dont?
#5 May 17 2004 at 8:42 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Special premium feature, you have to pay extra $$
#6 May 17 2004 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
I believe it is $10.99/month for unlimited swearing, Fu[/b]ck. $3.99/month for di[b]ck and sh[b][/b]it only. It all depends on what swearing is worth to you. It is my main form of communication so I have to pay. But, you can still say ********** for free, so not all is lost.
#7 May 17 2004 at 9:23 AM Rating: Good
[************************************* testing
**** ****



Edited, Mon May 17 10:24:36 2004 by czaemon
#8 May 17 2004 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Sudden board-wide attack of Tourette's syndrome aside... what are your predictions? Rumsfeld will step down?

Funny that he wanted to "wrest control" away from Dubya's daddy's old gang, but I suppose those connections are all a lot more incestuous than I want to know about.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#9 May 17 2004 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
**** all that.

They've known waht's going on... They should just 'fess up and say "How the **** Else are we gonna get anything out of these ***************

Instead they're sucking the publics **** and trying to throw toss blame around like a hot potato,
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#10 May 17 2004 at 12:11 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
What the ****?
Why can't I say ****?
My moneys green too.
Smiley: cry


test ~ roostersucker

Edited, Mon May 17 13:11:58 2004 by Kelvyquayo

Edited, Mon May 17 13:11:21 2004 by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#11 May 17 2004 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
One of the issues I've been thinking about, but haven't really heard anyone else express is the following:

If on the one hand, the photos are the result of "psychological torture", and the intent was to show pictures showing folks being put in embarassing positions and otherwise humulitated, and the intent was to simply show the photos to other prisoners to get them to talk, and we've got these reports of horrible abuse in the prison, then it begs the question: Are those reports the result of actual abuse? Or the result of people believing the photos?

I'll admit that I haven't scoured the internet looking for pictures, but are there actual photos of people being beaten and sodomized? Or just photos showing naked prisoners stacked up on in positions where it looks like they are about to be abused?

Are we actually seeing evidence of rampant abuse of prisoners? Or is this just a very poorly concieved psy-op gone horribly wrong?

I haven't done nearly enough research to be able to do more then just pose the question. However, I find it odd that we've got these pictures on the one hand, none of which I've seen show actual physical abuse, and on the other hand we have claims by Iraqi's of horrible torture and abuse. Are the two related in more then a casual way?


If this was a psy-op, then it was a really really really stupid one IMO. But it would explain a lot about what we've been seeing and hearing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 May 17 2004 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I'll admit that I haven't scoured the internet looking for pictures, but are there actual photos of people being beaten and sodomized? Or just photos showing naked prisoners stacked up on in positions where it looks like they are about to be abused?
Tell your pal Rummy to release the hundreds of additional photos and movies they have of the abuse but refuse to release and we'll know for sure.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 May 17 2004 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
I hate to admit it but I sort of agree with Gbaji on this one. I keep asking myself who took the pictures and why did they take them. Could anyone really be this stupid to film themselves doing this?

But then I think that people are stupid enough to make pictures of themselves destroying things (vandals), raping women (drugged and undrugged), snuffing people or being killed (faces of death). Sure some of that is done for profit and the intent is to make money not to show how stupid they are but, a suprising amount of that crap is just done by really stupid people.

I dont think that it was a sinister plot by Rummy, and trust me I blame him for a lot of ****, I just think it was a bunch of young yokels who got power over a group of people and thought it would be fun to show their friends and families what they did to help fight the war on terror.

Edit-- course I would like to see the rest of the pictures, If they got one of Rummy in a cowboy hat saddled up to a hooded Iraqi then I am pretty sure he ordered it, or at least likes to play cowboy=P


Edited, Mon May 17 16:50:35 2004 by flishtaco
#14 May 18 2004 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
#15 May 18 2004 at 9:41 PM Rating: Default
***
3,571 posts
So, Rumsfeld is a horny old man who likes it in the ***.

Didn't we already know this?



In all seriousness, this is pretty pathetic. Bureaucracy.... What a pain in the ***.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 339 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (339)