Profile
Search
Register
Log in
uk paper: new Abu Ghraib photos depict rape/sexual assault
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Dan Shay wrote:
ROTTY wrote:
Raping and pillaging has always been a war tactic. It just not in the training manual. Vikings did not invent it Its in human nature....dates back to cave men probably. Its a power and dominance thing driven by false hate.

Its shitty but people should stop being shocked by it! They should just expect it and teach it in schools. Show the nasty stuff to the youth early on instead of depicting these Genrals and commanders as fairy tale like heros like every bullshit history lesson i had.

cant type right now so not gonna correct me spelling....too tired!


Sociologists and anthropologists have studied this to a great degree and by no means is there any consensus on violence being natural to the human condition.

In your example, take the Viking's harsh winter environment. Sparse nutrients and lack of sunlight, causing what modern psychologists refer to as 'cabin fever', or SAD, Seasonal Affective Disorder.

I'm suggesting on the spectrum of nature vs. nurture, that the Viking's culture and local habitat had much more to play than the species, human.

In the past biological anthropologist have looked to chimps going on war parties to justify how we as a species are violent by nature.

But those chimps were observed in times of insane habitat encroachment by humans. The behavior cannot be attributed to the animal's nature alone. Not even close.


There's something that's a broken piece of brain plastic away from everyone. Just a little safety seal bent up and the crazy shit comes pouring out.

The bulk work of human everything- the things we build, the pacts we make, traditions, relationships, etc. are all, before anything else, denials of the rusts, the glues, and the soups down the road. We're alive for now and everything is built up from the earth as high and as dense as we can make it, because under there is the dusts and the heat deaths and the membrane peeling away to spit us all out.

You read about these people who're drafted up into militias in Africa and Central America, just farmers and laborers and what we generally consider to be peaceful people. And yeah they're sent through the pressure cooker first and are totally fucked up in the mente at the time, but a strong theme I've noticed reading their description of this shit - throwing babies up in the air to smash open on the rocks, or raping daughters in front of their parents and siblings, all that horror -is that after the first few are over and the shakes and vomiting spells have passed, -that's when they realize it only matters because we say it matters. God didnít strike them down and nobody even said shit. And when that voice, and those symbols and markers are gone, it's just you and the blank, and people that may as well be speaking dots that can flow past and away you like water through your toes in a stream going to an ocean you'll never ever see. You don't miss that shit anymore. And you're still left same as ever, as changed as ever. Easily another one of those dots that blink out. However many millennia of human progress may as well be built of foam.
Iím not saying thatís an incitement to stop building -we couldnít if we tried. The both aspects are deep in our core.

When it's over and they're back to the shapes of human life and out of the jungles with the beserk motherfuckers and reptile kids they sometimes do say that it felt like they were in a dream or that it's like it wasn't them but something they were viewing.
War and being near death are hallucinatory. Like the most fucked up way possible to approach the outside things. People in these situations seem to get mystical real fast whether they know it or not. probably they don't know it. Or they can't make sense of it. But their innards know.

People like to call this some sort of atavistic, animal brain glitch about stress and self preservation. I donít think so much. Not so much at all. Animals can be brutal, and casually violent, but they donít kill things to prod the cosmic gelatin around and see which way it moves. Cats play with a wounded animal because it stimulates their hunter brain and it amuses them. humans do that a little too. But a cat's not going to torture something to say "fuck this dream we made out of nothing that was even here." The monkey at the typewriter will never write out doofy shit like everything is possible, nothing is forbidden.

Human brains have become liabilities and real awareness of self was a real mistake. The mistake that became our everything. Our best, desperate good -and our evil.
Itís faulty brain plastic
Post Fri May 29, 2009 1:47 am
 View user's profile Send private message
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

That's one of my favorite things I've ever read on here.

Now I'm gonna lurk your other posts.
Post Fri May 29, 2009 2:47 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ROTTY



Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1407
Location: London
 Reply with quote  

Dan Shay wrote:
ROTTY wrote:
Raping and pillaging has always been a war tactic. It just not in the training manual. Vikings did not invent it Its in human nature....dates back to cave men probably. Its a power and dominance thing driven by false hate.

Its shitty but people should stop being shocked by it! They should just expect it and teach it in schools. Show the nasty stuff to the youth early on instead of depicting these Genrals and commanders as fairy tale like heros like every bullshit history lesson i had.

cant type right now so not gonna correct me spelling....too tired!


Sociologists and anthropologists have studied this to a great degree and by no means is there any consensus on violence being natural to the human condition.

In your example, take the Viking's harsh winter environment. Sparse nutrients and lack of sunlight, causing what modern psychologists refer to as 'cabin fever', or SAD, Seasonal Affective Disorder.

I'm suggesting on the spectrum of nature vs. nurture, that the Viking's culture and local habitat had much more to play than the species, human.

In the past biological anthropologist have looked to chimps going on war parties to justify how we as a species are violent by nature.

But those chimps were observed in times of insane habitat encroachment by humans. The behavior cannot be attributed to the animal's nature alone. Not even close.


Im talking about War Dan. Not what is built into us. My use of the term human nature was a bad one! I used vikings as it is a cliche reference people associate with raping and pillaging. Im saying war brings out another kind of animal in us. The...be the army of one adverts.....do your country an honour shit we get poured down our throats should also have a shit load of small print with it stating the possibilities of going slightly crazy and doing things to another human being which you could not possibly imagine doing any other situation in your life.

But that some cool knowledge about vikings.
Post Fri May 29, 2009 2:51 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
xGasPricesx



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1568
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
That's one of my favorite things I've ever read on here.



Cosigned.
Raoul has been bringing the fire as of recent, his post in the Canada: Cross Country thread was brilliant as well.
Good show.
Post Fri May 29, 2009 3:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Hanya



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 64
Location: strummerville
 Reply with quote  

any one ever read "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer? It touches on this issue and how it developed during the Bush Admin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/books/22schuessler.html
Post Fri May 29, 2009 8:33 am
 View user's profile Send private message
box johnson



Joined: 25 Nov 2008
Posts: 1123
Location: Denver
 Reply with quote  

shambhala wrote:
The importance of those photos lies in their capacity to shock people into a state of outrage.


Do you remember the outrage of Abu Ghraib, part one? A whopping 11 GI's did time. It was all about stringing up England, playing it up for the news cycle, then moving on. You'll get your shock, just not the results.
Post Fri May 29, 2009 9:05 am
 View user's profile Send private message
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

shambhala wrote:
firefly wrote:
Maybe there's something I don't understand but I don't see why these pictures can't be used in court without publishing them for the whole world to see.


You and Jesse are both entirely missing the point. First, you can easily scramble the face of the victim. That's a given.

The issue is that you release the pictures for the very reason that Obama wants to keep a lid on them. To create outrage. People quietly huff and puff and make vague references to putting torture officials on trial, but it won't happen unless there is broad public support for doing so. Will Rush Limbaugh be able to call rape pictures "frat antics?" I don't think so. Those pictures are not being released because they are presumably so shocking, offensive, and heart-stopping that they will profoundly affect people, which would probably create political pressure for investigations and prosecutions. Images affect people much, much more deeply than words. The importance of those photos lies in their capacity to shock people into a state of outrage.


I understand that. I never actually said that I don't think the pictures should be released to the public.

I'm just saying that if Obama's excuse is that he doesn't want to put the troops in harms way, then AT LEAST use the pictures in court and prosecute them. But I know that he doesn't want to do that either. Something about "looking forwards and not wasting time with the past" (which sounds like a crock of shit to me).

But yeah, now that I think of it, he probably doesn't want to release the pictures so he won't be pressured to prosecute the war criminals that he's protecting.
Post Fri May 29, 2009 9:52 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  

shambhala wrote:
You and Jesse are both entirely missing the point. First, you can easily scramble the face of the victim. That's a given.
It doesn't begin to address the violation of depicting that moment publically. It's not necessarily about being identifiable or practical fallout for the victim. It's a further loss of control, tantamount to a second rape.

If you acknowledge the rape itself as being an especially egregious crime, then you can't ignore this aspect of this decision in any conscience.


Quote:

The issue is that you release the pictures for the very reason that Obama wants to keep a lid on them. To create outrage. People quietly huff and puff and make vague references to putting torture officials on trial, but it won't happen unless there is broad public support for doing so. Will Rush Limbaugh be able to call rape pictures "frat antics?" I don't think so. Those pictures are not being released because they are presumably so shocking, offensive, and heart-stopping that they will profoundly affect people, which would probably create political pressure for investigations and prosecutions. Images affect people much, much more deeply than words. The importance of those photos lies in their capacity to shock people into a state of outrage.
We all know that there is nothing you can put in front of our people that will actually incite them to do fucking anything about fucking anything. There have been no secrets at any point during the last eight years of atrocity, everyone knows everything and is perfectly comfortable denying the undeniable. There is NO picture you could show to the American people that would prompt ANY pressure on ANYone. EVER.

Things will not be achieved by stirring up the public. The public is un-stir-uppable. You've seen it again and again. They wouldn't react with more than a grumble if it was their own families in those pictures. You think the people who keep the Saw franchise profitable are going to be mobilized by the plight of an anonymous brown woman?

Seriously?
Post Fri May 29, 2009 10:43 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

People can make a distinction between reality and movies, usually. Not saying that I disagree with you, I think it would take a lot more than these pictures to get anyone riled up. Although, personally I feel so far removed from any situation where I believe that I could make any difference in such a case that it's almost a waste of energy for me to bother. That's why we appoint people to make those decisions for us right? Change we can believe in?
Post Fri May 29, 2009 11:56 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  

jakethesnake wrote:
People can make a distinction between reality and movies, usually.
Yeah I probably worded that lazily, I just meant that if that's the type of image people seek out in their escapist fiction, I can't see it being as jarring as one would like it to be in the real world. Especially a version of the real world that probably seems LESS real to most Americans than their torture porn.
Post Fri May 29, 2009 12:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

I think most of the Abu outrage was faux and more representative of the growing dissent toward the Bush administration rather than our actual treatment of prisoners.

I doubt these pictures would expose much or cause outrage but I think they should still be made public. I also doubt that they would cause any further danger because I assume that "the other side" already assumed that we were assaulting prisoners.

I guess it could urge a few people to scream "jihad," but I'm not sure that it would do so anymore than a deathc ount in Iraq statistic.
Post Fri May 29, 2009 12:12 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:

There's something that's a broken piece of brain plastic away from everyone. Just a little safety seal bent up and the crazy shit comes pouring out.

The bulk work of human everything- the things we build, the pacts we make, traditions, relationships, etc. are all, before anything else, denials of the rusts, the glues, and the soups down the road. We're alive for now and everything is built up from the earth as high and as dense as we can make it, because under there is the dusts and the heat deaths and the membrane peeling away to spit us all out.

You read about these people who're drafted up into militias in Africa and Central America, just farmers and laborers and what we generally consider to be peaceful people. And yeah they're sent through the pressure cooker first and are totally fucked up in the mente at the time, but a strong theme I've noticed reading their description of this shit - throwing babies up in the air to smash open on the rocks, or raping daughters in front of their parents and siblings, all that horror -is that after the first few are over and the shakes and vomiting spells have passed, -that's when they realize it only matters because we say it matters. God didnít strike them down and nobody even said shit. And when that voice, and those symbols and markers are gone, it's just you and the blank, and people that may as well be speaking dots that can flow past and away you like water through your toes in a stream going to an ocean you'll never ever see. You don't miss that shit anymore. And you're still left same as ever, as changed as ever. Easily another one of those dots that blink out. However many millennia of human progress may as well be built of foam.
Iím not saying thatís an incitement to stop building -we couldnít if we tried. The both aspects are deep in our core.

When it's over and they're back to the shapes of human life and out of the jungles with the beserk motherfuckers and reptile kids they sometimes do say that it felt like they were in a dream or that it's like it wasn't them but something they were viewing.
War and being near death are hallucinatory. Like the most fucked up way possible to approach the outside things. People in these situations seem to get mystical real fast whether they know it or not. probably they don't know it. Or they can't make sense of it. But their innards know.

People like to call this some sort of atavistic, animal brain glitch about stress and self preservation. I donít think so much. Not so much at all. Animals can be brutal, and casually violent, but they donít kill things to prod the cosmic gelatin around and see which way it moves. Cats play with a wounded animal because it stimulates their hunter brain and it amuses them. humans do that a little too. But a cat's not going to torture something to say "fuck this dream we made out of nothing that was even here." The monkey at the typewriter will never write out doofy shit like everything is possible, nothing is forbidden.

Human brains have become liabilities and real awareness of self was a real mistake. The mistake that became our everything. Our best, desperate good -and our evil.
Itís faulty brain plastic


"Love is real"
--John Lennon
Post Sat May 30, 2009 6:21 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Bandini
WIZARD APPRENTICE


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 4669
Location: jerk city
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

Retired U.S. general denies seen photos in Iraq flap

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A retired U.S. general has denied reports that he had seen the pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused that President Barack Obama is seeking to keep secret, Salon reported on Friday.

The British newspaper Daily Telegraph reported that retired Major General Antonio Taguba told them he had seen the images Obama said will not be released. The newspaper quoted him as saying: "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."

Taguba told the Salon.com website that while the Telegraph quoted him accurately, he was referring to pictures from Abu Ghraib that showed horrific abuse and not the 44 pictures the American Civil Liberties Union was seeking to have released.

"The photographs in that lawsuit, I have not seen," he told Salon.

The Obama administration at first agreed to release the 44 pictures but reversed course, arguing that they could put U.S. troops abroad at greater risk.

The administration also accused the Daily Telegraph of misquoting Taguba, with the White House going so far as to cast doubt on the accuracy of the British press in general.

Taguba, who retired in January 2007, led an investigation in 2004 into abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison which included allegations of rape and sexual abuse.

Photographs of abuse at the prison outside Baghdad were published in 2004 and caused deep resentment in the Muslim world, damaging the image of the United States as it fought against insurgents in Iraq.

Obama has set a goal of improving America's image in the Muslim world and plans to deliver a speech next week in Cairo aimed at reaching out to Muslims.

(Reporting by Diane Bartz, editing by Philip Barbara)

Post Sat May 30, 2009 10:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:32 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon