Torture in Iraq still routine, report says

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur

Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent.

Nice of you to provide real evidence of this. 70 - 90%, quite a range, quite an assumption.

Just for the hell of it, I will say that 70 - 90% were guilty, and 100% of those 'harrassed' were from the guilty party. That is right, my evidence here tells me that 0% of the innocents were harmed.

You don't read much, do you?


ICRC Report
http://images.indymedia.org/im...ion/8/redcrossiraq.pdf

Bwahaha. Indymedia.org. LOL!

Weren't they the ones that fluffed up some conspiracy theory about the fall of the Saddam statue that turned out to be complete bunk?

Typical. Bash the site without even clicking the link.

It's a copy of the freakin' Red Cross report, you buffoon.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur

Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent.

Nice of you to provide real evidence of this. 70 - 90%, quite a range, quite an assumption.

Just for the hell of it, I will say that 70 - 90% were guilty, and 100% of those 'harrassed' were from the guilty party. That is right, my evidence here tells me that 0% of the innocents were harmed.

You don't read much, do you?


ICRC Report
http://images.indymedia.org/im...ion/8/redcrossiraq.pdf

Bwahaha. Indymedia.org. LOL!

Weren't they the ones that fluffed up some conspiracy theory about the fall of the Saddam statue that turned out to be complete bunk?

Typical. Bash the site without even clicking the link.

You would know. You and your toadies will do the same thing to Fox News.

It's a copy of the freakin' Red Cross report, you buffoon.

Yeah, because the Red Cross would never have an agenda. :roll:

 

[BBond]

OMG, is every piece of information on the planet part of a huge secret liberal agenda if it points out facts which are detrimental to Bush?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: cannedcreamcorn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: cannedcreamcorn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur

Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent.

Nice of you to provide real evidence of this. 70 - 90%, quite a range, quite an assumption.

Just for the hell of it, I will say that 70 - 90% were guilty, and 100% of those 'harrassed' were from the guilty party. That is right, my evidence here tells me that 0% of the innocents were harmed.

You don't read much, do you?


ICRC Report
http://images.indymedia.org/im...ion/8/redcrossiraq.pdf

Bwahaha. Indymedia.org. LOL!

Weren't they the ones that fluffed up some conspiracy theory about the fall of the Saddam statue that turned out to be complete bunk?

Do you mean this bunk here?

I've never seen any denials of this story except from message board apologists desperate to justify the continuous war crime that is the invasion of Iraq.

And he linked to a story that quotes an ICRC report. I'm sure because the Red Cross doesn't completely kowtow to the Bushista BS that its all liberal "bunk" too, huh? But thats the way extremists filter their information these days. If it totally justifies their extremely narrow worldview, then its absolute fact. If it dares to question it, even one little bit, then its "liberal bias", or if you ask the likes of Ann Coulter, TREASON!

You've never seen it debunked elsewhere because the MSM didn't think it was worthwhile. Even Dan Rather wouldn't touch it.

And I've seen it thoroughly debunk on a liberal forum where even the liberals agreed it was a crap claim, and various sites have debunked it as well. The only folks who hold onto this claim are the DU and sites that are so far left they'd make everyone in here look like a conservative.

The new liberals these days seem to bit confused between asking questions that are valid and questions that are full of conspiratal horsesh!t, so stop with the whiney, tired old "You won't dare question blah, blah blah." After all, I'm questioning IndyMedia, which is something YOU don't seem to want to question.

Umm...The original source was the LA Times conducting interviews with the Marines in Firdos Square that day who witnessed Army and Marine Psyops personnel put up the flag (First a US flag, then Iraqi) and commandeer the American APC used to pull down the Statue. They also collected the 75 or so Iraqi civilians that actually stood still for photos.

But I do like your reply, completely free of any corroborating links and using that ol' "Even the Liberals debunked it" line so that you can try to push the claim outside of even what mainstream liberals will accept.

And my rather calm listing of fact can only be responded to with hyperbole. "conspiritorial bullshit" is what you called this claim, even though you provide only opinion and hearsay to refute them. And its all whining especially if you can't refute it, huh?

And Indymedia wasn't the source of the report. The International Commitee of the Red Cross was. Here is a link to that report and many others.

Indymedia wasn't the source of your bunk link either. The story you linked was not the bunk story I was talking about. Indymedia had this entire conspiracy story drawn up about the toppling of the statue and the size of the crowd, complete with pictures, which didn't hold up under scrutiny. It appears they have since removed that story as it doesn't appear to be posted on their site any longer.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
OMG, is every piece of information on the planet part of a huge secret liberal agenda if it points out facts which are detrimental to Bush?

How funny coming from a person who blames Bush for practically every ill in the world.

 

[cannedcreamcorn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: cannedcreamcorn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: cannedcreamcorn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur

Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent.

Nice of you to provide real evidence of this. 70 - 90%, quite a range, quite an assumption.

Just for the hell of it, I will say that 70 - 90% were guilty, and 100% of those 'harrassed' were from the guilty party. That is right, my evidence here tells me that 0% of the innocents were harmed.

You don't read much, do you?


ICRC Report
http://images.indymedia.org/im...ion/8/redcrossiraq.pdf

Bwahaha. Indymedia.org. LOL!

Weren't they the ones that fluffed up some conspiracy theory about the fall of the Saddam statue that turned out to be complete bunk?

Do you mean this bunk here?

I've never seen any denials of this story except from message board apologists desperate to justify the continuous war crime that is the invasion of Iraq.

And he linked to a story that quotes an ICRC report. I'm sure because the Red Cross doesn't completely kowtow to the Bushista BS that its all liberal "bunk" too, huh? But thats the way extremists filter their information these days. If it totally justifies their extremely narrow worldview, then its absolute fact. If it dares to question it, even one little bit, then its "liberal bias", or if you ask the likes of Ann Coulter, TREASON!

You've never seen it debunked elsewhere because the MSM didn't think it was worthwhile. Even Dan Rather wouldn't touch it.

And I've seen it thoroughly debunk on a liberal forum where even the liberals agreed it was a crap claim, and various sites have debunked it as well. The only folks who hold onto this claim are the DU and sites that are so far left they'd make everyone in here look like a conservative.

The new liberals these days seem to bit confused between asking questions that are valid and questions that are full of conspiratal horsesh!t, so stop with the whiney, tired old "You won't dare question blah, blah blah." After all, I'm questioning IndyMedia, which is something YOU don't seem to want to question.

Umm...The original source was the LA Times conducting interviews with the Marines in Firdos Square that day who witnessed Army and Marine Psyops personnel put up the flag (First a US flag, then Iraqi) and commandeer the American APC used to pull down the Statue. They also collected the 75 or so Iraqi civilians that actually stood still for photos.

But I do like your reply, completely free of any corroborating links and using that ol' "Even the Liberals debunked it" line so that you can try to push the claim outside of even what mainstream liberals will accept.

And my rather calm listing of fact can only be responded to with hyperbole. "conspiritorial bullshit" is what you called this claim, even though you provide only opinion and hearsay to refute them. And its all whining especially if you can't refute it, huh?

And Indymedia wasn't the source of the report. The International Commitee of the Red Cross was. Here is a link to that report and many others.

Indymedia wasn't the source of your bunk link either. The story you linked was not the bunk story I was talking about. Indymedia had this entire conspiracy story drawn up about the toppling of the statue and the size of the crowd, complete with pictures, which didn't hold up under scrutiny. It appears they have since removed that story as it doesn't appear to be posted on their site any longer.

So the story about the toppling of Saddam's statue being faked that was on Indymedia is bunk, but the story in Editor and Publisher and the Los Angeles times is not? Ok I guess I can accept that.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BBond
OMG, is every piece of information on the planet part of a huge secret liberal agenda if it points out facts which are detrimental to Bush?

TLC has become a joke. He's either Skoorbing us now or he has really turned into a cartoon.