Why was Ahbu Graib a big deal?

[billc]

I ask the above question because if Abhu Graib was a big deal, you would think something much worse would get even more coverage. I support the united states military and I think they too often are attacked by the left in our country. Abhu Graib was a classic example of taking the actions of a few, who were already arrested and going thru the legal system of the military, and using them to bash the rest of the military and President Bush.

Now we have a situation that may or may not be about 100 times worse. I bring this up because the obvious bias, which is expected, needs to be shown. There are pictures of an alleged group of U.S. military personel who murdered, yes murdered, afghani civillians and took pictures of what they did. The people who did this have once agaiin been arrested and are going thru the U.S. military legal system. You may be hard pressed to here an in depth around the clock, 24/7 level of coverage of what happened because it may have happened on Obama's watch.

The yawning of the main stream media over this incident is expected. These atrocities committed by criminals who are in the military are only to be used to undermine Republican President's when they are fighting wars, not Liberal Presidents when they are fighting wars.

Completely expected behavior from the press. If you want to know everything that happened here, you need to look it up yourself.

 

[K831]

As I said..... Obama and the reactions of his supporters serves to illuminate just how hypocritical and unprincipled the progressive movement is.



Obama's recent piece in which he uses “Humanitarian intervention” as his reasoning is pretty rich. Can we play name the country where this line of thinking could apply?


And if that is his stance, we should consider Saddam and Gaddafi: Both men routinely killed internal political opponents, one used gas on two occasions, one periodically attacked neighboring countries, one regularly offered training grounds and hiding places for terrorists….that one guy is not Gaddafi. Of course this thing even lacks the Congressional resolution authorizing force that Bush got for Iraq.


back to your point...I would like to know when the liberals plan going off on any of the graphic photos published that allegedly show our soldiers in Afghanistan posing with abused and murdered civilians???

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368314/German-newspaper-publishes-suppress ed-photos-U-S-soldiers-posing-partially-naked-Afghan-corpse.html

guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/us-army-kill-team-afghanistan-posed-pictures-murdered-civilians

When will these be spread all over the front pages of the NYT for 6 months straight the way the Abu Ghraib scandal was back in 2004 when Bush was in office... probably never, since the war was really only an issue when they could use it for their political advantage.


Now that Obama is in office, we see just how disingenuous their concern over it really was. All the while, we wait for Obama to make good on his promise to pull out of the war… yet Obama has continued the war, escalated the war in Afghanistan and spread it into Pakistan, and carried out expanded military interventions in Somalia and Yemen.



It’s true that Obama did his best to avoid a decision on Libya, but France and some other European countries, and the Arab League made voting present too uncomfortable.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I think, personally, the difference is that Abu Graib was something that went on for a long time, there were many involved, and it could not have gone on without tacit approval from the people in charge. It was institutional.

Otoh, a handful of people killing a handful of other people one time or occasionally, without approval of the people in charge, is a tragedy, but not something noteworthy. Sadly, I might add.

If you remember, there was plenty of outrage when those serial killers were uncovered (the ones who bullied other soldiers and killed innocents and then staged a scenario that looked like self defense. And I seem to recall that the **** hit the fan pretty badly when footage leaked of the apache helicopter gunning down those reporters and people, as well as the person trying to help and his kids.

If you don't remember the outrage that spareked, then imo you are just selectively only remembering the things that support your argument.

 

[Blade96]

I do agree with Bill,, it would be something like saying our military sucks because we had this dude. I don't think the people in charge approved it though, unlike abu gharib or however you spell it. I still agree with bill though. Doesnt mean all the military's like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Williams

 

[elder999]

Abu GHraib was a big deal because, as Bruno has pointed out, it had the aura of institutional support,whether it actually had that support or not.

Additionally, it was a first instance of the use of digital media for this sort of thingthre were many photographs, and the images wre riveting,not in the least because of Pvt. Lyndie Englund's smiling buffonery in the midst of it all.

Lastly,it documented the sort of behavior and treatment of prisoners that we-as a nation-were denying could take place.

In the instance of the Afghanistan thrill kill team, they've gone rogue-this has happened in the military before. They've committed murder-this has happened in the military before. They've taken pictures-this has happened in the military before. They've taken trophies from corpses, and even this has happened in the military before.

They are, as bill said, being tried-after being caught-and that's all anyone can or should ask for.

 

[Twin Fist]

there is a point here tho, the protests, and the editorials are not up Obama's *** like they were Bush's

 

[K831]

there is a point here tho, the protests, and the editorials are not up Obama's *** like they were Bush's

Exactly. It's all you heard about under Bush.. day in day out.. someone died, some soldier did this or that. Constant reports on casualties. Stop the war posters and stickers every where. All over college campuses. War criminal, war monger "peace is patriotic" ad nauseum. Pictures of soldiers in Iraq with Bush's face superimposed with horns and fangs and blood....Obama gets elected... pooof. Gone. Not a word. Completely disingenuous.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I love how the Obama supporters here quickly go the route of... ya but abu Graib was institutional and came from the top!!!!!
this was a roving band of misfit criminals acting on their own accord!!!!!!

um really?
you have proof of that?
I say pull your heads out of Obamas *** long enough to get a whiff of fresh air and see what the world actually looks like folks.

 

[elder999]

I love how the Obama supporters here quickly go the route of... ya but abu Graib was institutional and came from the top!!!!!
this was a roving band of misfit criminals acting on their own accord!!!!!!

1) I'm not a "Obama supoorter," far from it, in fact.

2) I didn't say "it was institutional" I said it had an "aura of institutional support, whether it actually did or not."

Reading comprehension, please.

um really?
you have proof of that?
I say pull your heads out of Obamas *** long enough to get a whiff of fresh air and see what the world actually looks like folks.

And, for your reading pleasure:

Documents obtained by The Washington Post and the ACLU show that the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez authorized the use of military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns and sensory deprivation as interrogation methods in Abu Ghraib.[103] Also a November 2004 report by Brig Gen Richard Formica found that many troops at the Abu Ghraib prison were only following orders based on a memo from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, and that “[she] didn't find cruel and malicious criminals that are out there looking for detainees to abuse.”[104] “Gen Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards”, ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said in the union's statement.

Of course, that's from Wikipedia, though it does provide multiple alternate sources...and, since a majorty of those sources are the so-called mainstream liberal media, I guess they're not good enough. No matter. We really don't need to argue about something that can't be proved or disproven, and is secondary to the topic at hand, anyway, which is really "Why doesn't the media pick on Obama the way they did on Bush?" :lfao:

 

[Empty Hands]

"Why was Abu Ghraib a big deal?"

Think about it for five minutes. If it still doesn't make sense, then congratulations, you're a sociopath!

 

[Scott T]

Or maybe after several years of such stories, people are just numb to it.

Although this is one topic where I have to agre with Bill

 

[Steve]

I ask the above question because if Abhu Graib was a big deal, you would think something much worse would get even more coverage. I support the united states military and I think they too often are attacked by the left in our country. Abhu Graib was a classic example of taking the actions of a few, who were already arrested and going thru the legal system of the military, and using them to bash the rest of the military and President Bush.

Have you ever served in the military? I ask presuming that you haven't. Any veteran on these boards knows that behavior like what happened at Abu Ghraib was systemic and a clear indication of at least tacit approval all the way up the chain of command. Abuse to that degree doesn't happen on such a large scale unless it is condoned and even encouraged by the senior NCOs, at the very least.

So, for you to suggest that it was the actions of a few is naive. To suggest that those responsible answered for the crimes is also naive. A Colonel received an Article 15. A Lt. Colonel was acquitted of all charges. These were the only two officers charged.

The highest ranking soldier prosecuted aside from these two was an E5. Most were spec-4s. We're talking a bunch of first term soldiers and a couple with maybe 5 or 6 years in. Abu Ghraib was a SNAFU, and a bunch of low level soldiers were thrown to the wolves. Don't kid yourself.

I think your OP is retarded, and the non sequitur to Obama is also retarded.

 

[billc]

Were talking killing innocent civillians, not the hazing the inmates at Abhu Graib recieved and the point is the difference in media coverage of the events. No one died at Abu Graib. It was used 24/7 to attack a president in the middle of a war, as if he personally conducted the abuse of the prisoners. Obama is now president, this happened on his watch, and you can hear a pin drop with the coverage of this. People were murdered for sport, according to the reports, and yet there is silence. Yes, I have served in the military, I enjoyed my short stay at Fort Benning. The weather was...odd. Cold in the morning, and really hot in the afternoon.

 

[billc]

From an article on the murders:


An investigation by Der Spiegel has unearthed approximately 4,000 photos and videos taken by the men.

Yes, I can see from what I am reading about these MURDERS OF INNOCENT CIVILLIANS, that it is far less of a problem. You guys must be right, what is the death of innocent people to the hazing of suspected terrorists. I mean, the guys hazed at Abu Graib are still alive, unless of course they rejoined the bad guys. So being alive to relive the hazing is so much worse than being murdered. I get it now. You know, I bet Bush had something to do with these murders as well. He probably had Cheney hand pick the killers, just so they could embarass Obama. Y

 

[billc]

I did a quick check and there was at least one death Abu Graib, which just makes the kill team incident even more irritating in the lack of coverage the main stream media is giving it.

 

[granfire]

From an article on the murders:


An investigation by Der Spiegel has unearthed approximately 4,000 photos and videos taken by the men.

Yes, I can see from what I am reading about these MURDERS OF INNOCENT CIVILLIANS, that it is far less of a problem. You guys must be right, what is the death of innocent people to the hazing of suspected terrorists. I mean, the guys hazed at Abu Graib are still alive, unless of course they rejoined the bad guys. So being alive to relive the hazing is so much worse than being murdered. I get it now. You know, I bet Bush had something to do with these murders as well. He probably had Cheney hand pick the killers, just so they could embarass Obama. Y

I did a quick check and there was at least one death Abu Graib, which just makes the kill team incident even more irritating in the lack of coverage the main stream media is giving it.

Say what?

First you say there were no deaths, that's why the lack of coverage of the other incident is so dispicable, now you come back with acknowledging there was at least one death in Abu Graib, and you find the lack of coverage more dispicable?

Well, let me see.

people help out other people every day. but it never gets covered. All we get is bad news on the news. That is dispicable.

maybe we are all sick of hearing about people getting killed the regular old way.

Abu Graig was a black eye for every last member of all branches of the service, and for everybody proclaiming to be an American.

In essence the people in charge of that prison just perpetuated all the things that the guards under Husein did. You know, all the reasons why the man was taken down, that the civilized world accused him off.
Those things that were committed under the the cover of 'interrogation' and 'intelligence' violated the core of everything the United States of America stands for, not to mention a few articles of the Geneva Convention.

See, in combat there is such a thing as a gentleman's agreement. Naturally it works better for people of the same cultural context. But if you break that code of conduct your combatans will suffer GREATLY in the end. So from what I understand US combatants were treated well in captivity....the other side....

There is a little precedent in history one ought to look at in this context: Go check (if you have a strong stomach) of what those Russian soldiers suffered through when they fell into the hands of the Mujahidin...it was NOT pretty. Though I have been told it was somewhat of a matter of 'do unto others' as the Russians did not seem to treat their opponents any better.
There is the matter of Honor. You don't have that, you have nothing.

 

[Steve]

Were talking killing innocent civillians, not the hazing the inmates at Abhu Graib recieved and the point is the difference in media coverage of the events. No one died at Abu Graib. It was used 24/7 to attack a president in the middle of a war, as if he personally conducted the abuse of the prisoners. Obama is now president, this happened on his watch, and you can hear a pin drop with the coverage of this. People were murdered for sport, according to the reports, and yet there is silence. Yes, I have served in the military, I enjoyed my short stay at Fort Benning. The weather was...odd. Cold in the morning, and really hot in the afternoon.

You're a veteran and you're still saying these things? I don't believe you.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I love how the Obama supporters here quickly go the route of... ya but abu Graib was institutional and came from the top!!!!!
this was a roving band of misfit criminals acting on their own accord!!!!!!

um really?
you have proof of that?
I say pull your heads out of Obamas *** long enough to get a whiff of fresh air and see what the world actually looks like folks.

Are you intentionally forgetting the shitstorm over the apache incident?
Sometimes, people do stupid **** and they need to be caught. This goes for any organization in any country.

I didn't give Bush grief (like he would notice ) over many things. Not even over 9/11. By the same toke, I am not blaming Obama for many things. And if it makes you feel any better, I actually think he cacked up a lot of things already and I wouldn't bet pennies to dollars for his chances in 2012.

I am capable of judging things on an individual basis instead of only by who is in charge.

And if bad things are institutionalized, that is worse than if they are individual actions. Because it means a group of people in charge is agreeing with bad things being done.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Are you intentionally forgetting the shitstorm over the apache incident?
Sometimes, people do stupid **** and they need to be caught. This goes for any organization in any country.

I didn't give Bush grief (like he would notice ) over many things. Not even over 9/11. By the same toke, I am not blaming Obama for many things. And if it makes you feel any better, I actually think he cacked up a lot of things already and I wouldn't bet pennies to dollars for his chances in 2012.

I am capable of judging things on an individual basis instead of only by who is in charge.

And if bad things are institutionalized, that is worse than if they are individual actions. Because it means a group of people in charge is agreeing with bad things being done.

I would like to think I agree with you about 2012, but I am looking at the possible candidates and I am not impressed with any of their chances. The ones I would like to see I think are not going to be able to unite the Republican party as a whole, and I honestly think that the Democrats and the more liberal independants would rather anyone but a Republican or conservative candidate be in office.. I know a few of you will toss it back in my face and say its both sides, but I rarely ever run into a democrat or liberal who actually understands their stances... When prodded on issues they seem to agree with conservative values on alot but when told its conservative they rail back and change their minds like you just called them the nastiest word in the dictionary...
I dont know wwhat will happen come 2012.. I know Obamas numbers suck, and people on both sides seem to be unhappy atm, but I imagine if presented with the choice Obama V XXXXXXXX conservative damn near every democrat will stay Obama../shrug

 

[billc]

This post really has less to do with the actual event than it does with how it is being ignored. If this happened when bush was running the war, the coverage would have been non-stop, 24/7, tell me I'm wrong. This would have been regardless of wether or not it was institutional or just a rogue band of criminals.