leak of prisoners images

W

wavejumper

Guest
I am really curious as to how did the pictures of abuse of Iraqi detainess reached the public. I find it extremely suspicious that Rumsfeld or whoever did not manage to get the whole thing covered up before it hit the big networks. There are for example no pictures of Guantanamo detainees or any other US secret detention centres. I am sure they use the same fine techniques in all these facilites but somehow only the Iraqi ones are coming out and I find Rumsfeld resigned acceptance that more images may come out and that the one currently not published will eventually leak a bit too fatalist...it sounds as if he wants them to...are they using this as a way to further enrage arabic population in order to create enough havoc in the region thus allowing them to postpone the handover dates of June 30th? Fellow conspiracy theory DAAM posters input welcome.
 
"are they using this as a way to further enrage arabic population in order to create enough havoc in the region thus allowing them to postpone the handover dates of June 30th? "

I seriously doubt it. Unless they wanted to throw the next election down the toilet.
 
WJ, I thought the same thing at the Senate meeting with Rummy, he was asked if he expected more pictures to be released and he said 'absolutely'. I would have thought though if they tried to suppress further releases, they would get out anyway, through the arabic network.

I think piggy is correct, the American public probably wants their boys and girls home as an electionerring ploy more than anything else
What I find disturbing about the pictures is the 'thumbs up' gesture we see and the smiling, what the hell is that about!?
 
election

I don't know if a worsening of the situation in Iraq spells election doom for Bush though, it means a lot more bucks for the companies sponsoring its campaign.
 
Re: election

I think it does. Look at his ratings over the last year.

Since the release of these pictures they've plummeted.

The more pictures get released and the worse the violence gets the worse are Bush's ratings in the polls.

This is the last possible thing he wants. It also might spell the end of Rumsfeld...but I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't happen.
 
Re: election

> he was asked if he expected more pictures to be released and he said 'absolutely'.

He had no real option as far as I can see since, thankfully in my view, some US citizens still believe in freedom of speech/information and are using the first amendment of their constitution to disseminate information about this issue.
 
ok

i accept the above comments, but let's say he looses, someone has still got to go there and clean the mess up...rebuild the country, look after those oil pits...and who owns the comanies that do that job?...so maybe he knows he hasn't got a chance and is trying to plan his family future in the area?
 
Re: election

I don't suppose anyone still believes that they're still playing Barney to Saddam do they. Or maybe there's a critical path for torture,
start off with bags on heads and a bit of light beating
next nakedness and humiliation
progress to sleep depravation and electrodes
then if they still haven't cracked bring in Barney.
Although I imagine that with my low pain threshold I'd have started to see far worse than big singing purple dinosaurs very early on in the procedings.
 
Re: ok

"so maybe he knows he hasn't got a chance and is trying to plan his family future in the area?"

You're forgetting about the entire Republican party who want to stay in power and not play opposition to the Democrats again.


Anyway, if you believed any of that then you also believe that Bush is the one calling the shots on this war. I doubt he is.
 
piggy

i agree its not bush; its rumsfled, dick chainey, rice and the associated industrial/weaponry conglomerates behind them...perhaps they see they have lost public beilef, let gergie take the fall, and let's continue working on Iraq as private companies now that most of the work has been done, because the Iraq plan was all Rummy and associates concocted before 9/11...ok, its mostly speculation, but thats the premise of the thread, specualting, I dont know these as facts.
 
Re: piggy

Okay then. Fair enough if you want to speculate.
I don't agree...I think it's conspiracy theory taken one step too far, but fair enough.

Remember these people are motivated by more than just money. Power is important to any politician...these lot in particular.
I really don't think they'd knowingly allow themselves to be humiliated this much because they realised or thought they were going to lose the next election.
 
Re: piggy

Wavejumper's suspicions crossed my mind too. Are the major governments really more honest and (a lot) less clever than we think.

In a similar way, I was sure that even if the weapons of mass destruction didn't exist before the invasion of Iraq that the allies would "find" some somewhere. But they didn't; I still can't figure out why they didn't plant some unless they really thought they were there and got it badly wrong - I don't know what's worse. But then again, they aren't that honest when they regularly re-writing history by constantly shifting the goalposts?

Rebecca
 
Re: piggy

"Wavejumper's suspicions crossed my mind too"

Why?



When I first went to report the American war against Vietnam, in the 1960s, I visited the Saigon offices of the great American newspapers and TV companies, and the international news agencies.

I was struck by the similarity of displays on many of their office pinboards. "That's where we hang our conscience," said an agency photographer.

There were photographs of dismembered bodies, of soldiers holding up severed ears and testicles and of the actual moments of torture. There were men and women being beaten to death, and drowned, and humiliated in stomach-turning ways. On one photograph was a stick-on balloon above the torturer's head, which said: "That'll teach you to talk to the press."


God knows I'm all for conspiracy theories :) but I do think you can go too far with them.
How easy do you think it would be to plant chemical weapons factories in Iraq? I'd say about as easy as it would have been for Saddam to somehow sneak all his weapons into Syria...ie nearly impossible.
It's fair to say I'm suspicious of nearly everything this 'coalition' does...but I don't think they're infallable either. You only have to look at the disaster that has been the after war war to see that they sometimes get their spin badly wrong.
 
Re: piggy

But spin is just another word for lying that makes it easier for people to let them get away with it.

I think theycould have easily planted "evidence" of research programs. And if the WMD had nothing to do with the invasion in the first place (which is what I think) then why didn't they come up with something more plausible. There was most definitely a conspiracy to hide the truth of why they wanted to invade Iraq. I don't know what the truth is - maybe it's a combination of factors (may be as simple as genuinely wanting to get rid of a tyrant and getting handy access to oil while they were at it), but I don't believe the BS I've been fed. I do agree that no matter what they were trying to do, it definitely hasn't gone to plan.

Rebecca
 
Re: piggy

"But spin is just another word for lying that makes it easier for people to let them get away with it."

Absolutely yes.

For whatever my opinion is worth on the matter, I think the reasons for invasion were revenge, oil, strategic placement in the middle east and war (ie money)...oh and more oil of course and not forgetting Israel.

Even planting evidence of programmes wouldn't be that easy. The whole world would be looking over their shoulders. Any discrepencies and it would all backfire. Plus, they've been under enormous pressure from those in the know to admit they were wrong. Weapon's inspectors have been saying for a long time that there was probably nothing there.
I also think that there was a certain amount of belief on their part (and from the rest of the world) that there must've been something there. Of course, I don't believe that it was even part of the reason they went to war. It was just a plausible excuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top