Thursday, February 16, 2006

New Abu Ghraib Photos Surface







These new pictures were released by an Australian TV show on SBS, Wednesday February 15th. The tone of the show was as, "These are the pictures the US doesn't want you to see."

Around the blogosphere, the discussion is about the timing. Another provocation against Muslims?

The best that can come from these photos, is pressure for indictments at higher levels.

I posted these pictures, but not the cartoons. I supported the freedom of the press to print both. I made a value judgement.

Hitchins is right that Abu Ghraib's better now than when under Saddam. I said that before it is repeated to me. That said on with the discussion.

13 comments:

DesertPeace said...

One wonders who the real 'terrorists' are after seeing these photos. It's no surprise the US does not want them to be seen.. it's evidence for a War Crimes Tribunal.

CB said...

These pictures don't confuse who the real terrorists are. What court has Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, al Zarqawi or al Zawahiri held to convict jihadist of beheading journalists and civilians? In which court have they tried and convicted the perpetrators of murdering school children in Beslam or in Iraq or Afghanistan? Which court holds those same people accountable for shooting women in public forums who were accused of adultery? Don't be confused, there is nothing to be confused about!

sonia said...

What's really funny (in a sad sort of way) is that no Muslims are rioting when those Abu Ghaib photos are published, and millions are rioting when the cartoons are published. Something's wrong here. Muslims seem to care more about an alleged insult to their prophet than about real torture of their own people. They are burning Danish embassies, but not American ones! Strange people!

As for publishing.... Only a handful of Western newspapers dared to publish the cartoons. All the Western media is showing the Abu Ghaib pictures. I was really scared to post the cartoons (and I am glad they are deeply hidden in my archives now). I didn't bother posting the Abu Ghaib pictures. They are everywhere and nobody is scared to post them. They aren't controversial enough...

Renegade Eye said...

Sonia is correct that the prison pictures, are more to fight against, then the cartoons.

The answer to CB is, to be the exporter of democracy, you are held to higher standard than a Mullah Omar.

The prison torture was kept in secret. Once it was exposed the Geneva Convention was pushed aside, the coalition lost the claim to a moral high ground, after overthrowing Saddam.

All of the smartest interrogators know casual conversation is how information is obtained.

Scottage said...

It's hard to look at those photos (Sonia, it's much preferable to look at you :-) ). I think the lack of protest at these horrible photos is because certain key elements wanted to get a point across, and the point has been gotten across. The next protest will be as carefully planned and deliberate, and it will probably have as little to do with the topic they blame it on as these protests have to do with the Mohammad Cartoons.

Indigo Red said...

I'm very anti-socialist, but anybody who likes Bossa Nova, Ella, and Isabel Allende can't be all bad.

I published the cartoons and the torture pics because the MSM kept telling us how bad they were but never giving an example of what all the fuss was about. The cartoons were just stupid and the torture pictures are interpretive. I don't think any of the illustrations are worthy of the strife we've seen.

The Muslims are being stirred by people with very definite agendas which have been spelled out for us. As long as the rioting goes on, everyone will be distracted from the real activities.

We may have lost the moral high ground concerning immediate behavior (it's easier for the civilized to act the barbarian than the barbarian to act civilized), I think the ultimate morality should be judged according to the desired outcome. One side wants total subservience and the other wants personal freedom for every individual. Unfortunately, it is necessary to adopt the means of the barbarian to achieve the desired ends.

LG said...

Hello RE & friends,

Just a little thought > Well if we simply argue Abu Ghraib is better now than when under Saddam we tend to ignore a significant factor.
That is >who supplied political/military fuel to create a Saddam Hussein? US and other imperial powers were behind Saddam for a long period of time and only recently(i.e in post-cold war days ) the stratergy of the US ruling class in midle east region started to change. This is why US administration is playing an extremly careful game when it comes to taking Saddam Hussein to courts. In most cases Saddam will be able to bring former US and British leaders to testify.

And I these riots against cartoons show that masses lack correct political leadership. If it is provided masses will rise against both US/Brit and Iraqi/Afghan rulers :) And the cartoon issue is USED by various parties to justify what they've been doing.

Nice to see good discussions developing in the blogsphere regarding these issues; the more you read, talk and write about these things, the more you make things difficult to people who should be responsible.

Reidski said...

I never thought I would ever say this, but ... sonia is 100% correct.

Comparing the reaction to the cartoons and the reaction to these disgusting images tells us what a fucked up world we live in!

Fontaine said...

You know, blaming Saddam's reign on terror on the United States because we shipped money and arms to him in the 80s is a bit misguided. To start, Saddam wasn't nearly as insane as he became later and one is ultimately responsible for his actions.

It's like blaming TruValue Hardware Store for giving Timothy McVeigh the money he needed to bombing the OKC federal building or saying it wasn't Andrea Yates' fault she killed her five children, but her husband purchased the house which contained the bathtub in which she murdered her children (or, by extension, it's NASA's fault for giving Yates' husband the financial means to purchase the house where the killings took place).

CB said...

Ren,

The point of my posting is that we have been held accountable, whereas the jihadists have not. We have held public trials and there have been convictions. The hallmark of democracy is not that mistakes aren't made, it is that remedy is available.

Renegade Eye said...

Greetings Fontaine:

I don't buy it, that you believe the analogy you made. Weapon sales have different dynamics government to government, than a consumer buying nails at the hardware store.

Joe the Working Schlub said...

Nothing humiliates the general American public anymore. Even the video and photos are badges of honor.

Brik D said...

This is in response to IndigoRed's comment of "I think the ultimate morality should be judged according to the desired outcome."

Morality is not that pliable. Something is either moral or it isn't. Yes it's that simple. Even if the end justifies the means, it doesn't make them moral.