If I heard Star News Asia correctly, an Australian newspaper has published pics from the Abu Ghraib scandal that happened a couple of years ago.

The US didn't want them published, as there was concern the pics would inflame opinion against the US.

The pics shown on Star News were pretty graphic, far worse than what was shown when the scandal was first reported.

The scandal itself is old news, and many of the people involved have already been charged, sentenced and are serving time right now.

The timing of the release of these photos makes me wonder. With all the fury still raging over some cartoons, this pics are sure to add fuel to the fire. Was that the intended result ? To prolong the anger and protests against the US ?

It also amazes me how quickly people in various Arab cities are able to find out about these things, and organize mass protests (riots). It seems that the protests about this particular event are already happening even as the news is just being reported.

Obviously, the news can be spread over the internet very quickly, but to organize large protests within hours, or even minutes, of the news being released ?

The pics shown on Star News were pretty graphic, far worse than what was shown when the scandal was first reported.

This is all a bunch of crap intended to discredit the Bush administration and further incite the radical islamo-wacko movement. It is old news. It happened two years ago. People have been removed and punished. The prison process was totally revamped after these incidents were reported. The prison itself is in the process of going away entirely. So what purpose is served by rehashing old news? Nada! Zip! Squat! ###### all!

Yeah it makes little sense if it wasn't showing new evidence, or a person who hadn't been brought before the courts and dealt with already. Sounds like an editor looking for a bit of tabloidian scandal to get readers interested.

cv

I personally find pics(videos) of scared to death civilians,threatened by swords and guns, more disturbing.

I personally find pics(videos) of scared to death civilians,threatened by swords and guns, more disturbing.

Funny how showing a video of an innocent hostage having his head cut-off doesn't incite violent protests, but a simple cartoon results in days of rioting and 11+ deaths.

Bill O'Reilly is on Fox right now, ranting about how this pics shouldn't have been published, and that it has put Americans in danger.

(Oh yeah, he has now referred to the Australian newspaper as "the sleazy Australian newspaper")

When it was brought up that Fox's own news program showed the pics, he ranted on about how he wouldn't show the pics on his show, but he doesn't refer to Fox as "the sleazy Fox network".

I suppose I could riot and destroy the kebab shop downtown but as I eat there alot I would be easy to spot in a police lineup.

I think some of the more radical mosques have rapid deployment mobs ready at a moment's notice. I can understand them being offened, but the reaction is just so out of porportion. If they were published in a muslim country where this kind of thing may be outlawed, fine, but in secular countries with a free press you have to accept that sometimes you will have to see something you don't like being published.

If they don't like it, they don't have to live in a secular society with a free press.

cv

The pictures were first shown on Australian multicultural television station SBS.

Their motive was "the main perpetraters escaped all punitive measures'

It's hardly 'old news' after 2 years, specially if a number of perpetrators haven't been put to justice yet.

And comparing the reactions to the treatment of hostages, doesn't get anyone off the hook. One being worse than the other doesn't make any of the two less of a crime.

First of all: The pics haven't been published since the Pentagon wouldn't release them!

If they had released them all at one, this wouldn't have created 'two' news-posts, with time apart. (And inflaming people 'again'.)

Secondly: The pictures shows what we all knew; the main perps have yet to be brought to trial and the handling of the inmates was indeed widespread, to the point that it HAD to be known and sanctioned by those in power at the locations and most likely higher up.

Instead a handfull of the lowest ranking personell get to take the full rap for it. Sad really.

Edited February 16, 200620 yr by TAWP

the "sleazy" australian newspaper

The Sydney Morning Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/the-photo...9890737099.html

and the SBS television channel showed them also last night.

if you don't want to see them - don't look ....

The hypocritical lamestream media - CNN comes first to mind - won't publish the Mohamad Cartoons but will splash these photos (old news) to further incite hatred against the US and the present administration.

F*ucking shameful...

Instead a handfull of the lowest ranking personell get to take the full rap for it. Sad really.

We were always taught that with Leadership comes Responsibility. The higher the rank, the greater the responsibility.

The unfortunate part is that you may not have any clue what your lowest ranking personnel are up to, but you still are responsible for them.

Too often though, those in the Leadership positions suddenly decide that CYA (Cover Your Ass) is more important than Duty and Honour. The higher in rank you are, the better support you're likely to get from the "Old Boys Network".

It must be awfully hard to suddenly see your whole career on the line, and possible jail time, because some privates and corporals stepped over the line.

It's not an excuse, but if you think about it from the standpoint of those leaders, the situation really sucks.

And if you think about it, who should bear the ultimate responsiblity for those abuses ? The people that actually commited the crimes, or their superiors ? The Sergeants and Platoon Commanders ? Sergeant-Majors and Company Commanders ? Regimental Sergeant-Majors and Battalion Commanders ? Should it go up to the highest General in the area, or even higher ? Just where does the buck stop ?

Who holds the highest position and therefore the greatest responsibility ?

(Just in case you don't know, the highest position would be the Commander in Chief, also known as.....The President)

Sad, but lets face it - bloody predictable behaviour from the media these days. (selling papers/ratings is their only agenda) I often wonder if the media during WWII was like it was today - we'd all be speaking German and Japanese.

Sad, but lets face it - bloody predictable behaviour from the media these days. (selling papers/ratings is their only agenda) I often wonder if the media during WWII was like it was today - we'd all be speaking German and Japanese.

Well, the news media has developed a slightly Nevile Chamberlin attitude toward which topics they want to publish, eh?

Sad, but lets face it - bloody predictable behaviour from the media these days. (selling papers/ratings is their only agenda) I often wonder if the media during WWII was like it was today - we'd all be speaking German and Japanese. blink.gif

Well, since you mentioned it, the media then were exposing the wrongdoings of Hitler as much as the media now those of the Bush admin. We'd all be speaking American English without them in a few years.

Have a nice day. :D

Well, since you mentioned it, the media then were exposing the wrongdoings of Hitler as much as the media now those of the Bush admin. We'd all be speaking American English without them in a few years.

Have a nice day. :D

Is this supposed to be English?

I am not speaking American English yet, thank you.

Edited February 16, 200620 yr by zzap

I am not speaking American English yet, thank you.

Bet you're using their software, watching their movies, etc......

cv

I am not speaking American English yet, thank you.

Nor the Queen's English!!!

I am not speaking American English yet, thank you.

Nor the Queen's English!!!

Quite right old bean ! Pip pip Jolly ho and stop telling porkie pies to the lasses in the nick, you sheep shagging flaming <deleted> !

(I speak 2 languages, English and.........................Bad English)

(did you know that you can't write "w a n k e r s" in Bedlam ?)

Edited February 16, 200620 yr by Kerryd

"Bet you're using their software, watching their movies, etc...... whistling.gif"

Well, they're good for something, aren't they?

Just don't mention 'the war', or 'Islam'.

Nor the Queen's English!!! biggrin.gif

What about responding to the contend of comments, that would make a change from the customery one-liners, wouldn't it?

Now, watch out for the spell-check police!

Edited February 16, 200620 yr by zzap

I am not speaking American English yet, thank you.

Or any other kind as far as I can see.

They DO have a bunch of different tenses in Brit-speak, right?

quote name='zzap' post='647373' date='2006-02-16 21:17:54']

Well, since you mentioned it, the media then were exposing the wrongdoings of Hitler as much as the media now those of the Bush admin. We'd all be speaking American English without them in a few years.

I am not speaking American English yet, thank you.

Or any other kind as far as I can see.

They DO have a bunch of different tenses in Brit-speak, right?

quote name='zzap' post='647373' date='2006-02-16 21:17:54']

Well, since you mentioned it, the media then were exposing the wrongdoings of Hitler as much as the media now those of the Bush admin. We'd all be speaking American English without them in a few years.

Ulysses G. old friend,

You wrote "Or any other kind as far as I can see."

It begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.....should be a sentence.....but....where is the subject....and what is the verb?

Chownah

Great post, Ulysses G.!!!

I am not speaking American English yet, thank you.

Or any other kind as far as I can see.

They DO have a bunch of different tenses in Brit-speak, right?

quote name='zzap' post='647373' date='2006-02-16 21:17:54']

Well, since you mentioned it, the media then were exposing the wrongdoings of Hitler as much as the media now those of the Bush admin. We'd all be speaking American English without them in a few years.

Ulysses G. old friend,

You wrote "Or any other kind as far as I can see."

It begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.....should be a sentence.....but....where is the subject....and what is the verb?

Chownah

Great post, Ulysses G.!!!

It's not about the grammar; The meaning is easily understood.

Perceptive post, Chownah!

It's not about the grammar; The meaning is easily understood.

Ahh, you did get the meaning... Well done, "Ulysses"!

Well, since you mentioned it, the media then were exposing the wrongdoings of Hitler as much as the media now those of the Bush admin. We'd all be speaking American English without them in a few years.

Or any other kind as far as I can see.

Not yours though.

I am not speaking American English yet, thank you.

Or any other kind as far as I can see.

They DO have a bunch of different tenses in Brit-speak, right?

quote name='zzap' post='647373' date='2006-02-16 21:17:54']

Well, since you mentioned it, the media then were exposing the wrongdoings of Hitler as much as the media now those of the Bush admin. We'd all be speaking American English without them in a few years.

Ulysses G. old friend,

You wrote "Or any other kind as far as I can see."

It begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.....should be a sentence.....but....where is the subject....and what is the verb?

Chownah

Great post, Ulysses G.!!!

Chow,

You england is pretty good considering it's a 'second' language for you.

The people who abused prisoners have been tried and convicted. Aby Ghraib has been turned over to Iraqi’s who invariably treat their prisoners much worse than Lyndie England.

This is another example of the impotent left trying to hard to find evidence of a crime that never occurred.

I am not speaking American English yet, thank you.

Nor the Queen's English!!!

but the prince is greek