< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Lefties rejoice

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Friday, September 30, 2005

Lefties rejoice

[UPDATE: Visitors from No Right Turn will want to read this post]

Photos and video from Abu Graib back in October 2003 will be released. Lefties rejoice! Again they can portray the United States as a sick sick sick country!

Oh by the way - below is a video of Iraqi prisoners being remotely detonated by some of Saddam's buddies back before the invasion. Provided and hosted by Tincanman. There's a related Reuters article at The Age.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO DOWNLOAD (1Mb Windows Media)

Saddam_torture_video

BELOW: Men in Fallujah desecrate the burnt body of a US security contractor for the camera. More images and video at Ogrish.com under Archives->War->Iraq.

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 9/30/2005 10:44:00 AM

57 Comments:

Blogger Chris said...

So if my crimes are worse than your crimes does that excuse you?

9/30/2005 11:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, but if your crimes are so much worse than mine that they are beyond reasonable comparison, and a third party takes an aggressively negative stance to me but neutral/slightly supportive stance towards you, what excuses them?

Kimble

9/30/2005 12:16:00 PM  
Anonymous george said...

Spend some time looking at the grief caused when political leaders get out of hand.

webmaster@massgraves.info

If you think for one second that the Iraqis just love having Islamic nutters blow them to chops because it was wrong the Americans had the courage to take down Saddam, you are wrong.

photographs of baathist crims with underpants on their head? What a horror!

9/30/2005 12:16:00 PM  
Blogger tincanman said...

No, it does not excuse you. But then you could argue - if you hit me, am I entitled to hit you back? What then happens if you hit my disabled friend? Can I hit you then?

It does mean the popular image the left has been painting of Saddam as some non malignant, kind and benevolent ruler over a peaceful Iraq, is a little bit warped.

He was not a nice person. To pretend he was is a plain, pure and simple lie.

9/30/2005 12:27:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Well said Kimble.

When organisations like the "American Civil Liberties Union" focus on the comparatively minor transgressions of now-convicted US soldiers over the far worse crimes of the former Iraqi regime (some of whom would have been prisoners in Abu Graib) and present-day terrorists, then one can assume they aren't interested in liberty at all. They clearly identify with hatred Islamists hold for the USA and capitalism are actively working to destroy it by becoming some sort of voluntary propaganda outlet.

Compare the three NY Times news reports from WW2 below with the present day NY Times. Every US loss in Iraq is carefully mentioned, while successes are ignored or only discussed briefly. The AP and Reuters hire local stringer photographers to get photos of damaged US equipment but can't be bothered embedding real journalists with US troops to see how the real war is going.

The media is on the other side, and so by the way is the modern Left.

This war is seen by many as simply another way of attacking capitalism and the United States.

9/30/2005 12:29:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

Which media are you talking about? The Murdoch press perhaps? You keep rabbitting on as if the media is this vast left wing conspiracy when if you look at the MSM in the US in particular it is incredibly conservative. In Australia, by far the largest circulation newspapers are the Murdoch tabloids such as the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun. A more pro war bunch of newspapers you would be hard pressed to find. They are not above inventing complete fictions to support their spin on the war. The Fairfax press has at least an equal number of conservative commentators who are still dribbling out the same pro war pap way past it's use by date.

9/30/2005 01:04:00 PM  
Blogger JamesP said...

Does anyone really think the Abu Graib soldiers were excused for what they did? Apparently court martial, jail time, and world wide vilification were not enough for some people. Everyone knows about Ms England but do you know even one of the names of the people in that video? Probably not...

9/30/2005 01:07:00 PM  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

I find it amusing that as the decision is made to release the Abu Ghraib photos that show American atrocities, you decide to link to proof of Saddam's atrocities. We all know about Saddam's atrocities, and we certainly don't excuse them. However, America went to war to remove Saddam from power for the atrocities he did or that were committed in his name. Who will go to war to bring down the American government that created the situation for American atrocities to occur, and then tried to cover them up?

It's not about excusing Saddam, it's about bringing to justice those who commit injustice - whoever they are, wherever they are. Your post tries to excuse American injustice by pointing the finger at historical injustice, deflecting attention and disgust away from America. It's almost the same as if the photos of Abu Ghraib were released so you show photos of the Holocaust, to prove that America is good for doing what it could to defeat the Germans. For every photo presented of Iraqi atrocities, a dozen more photos can be presented of American atrocities against Iraqis. The excuse that America is at war is the same excuse that can be claimed by the Iraqis - they are at war. One wrong doesn't make another wrong right. They're all wrong.

I'm disappointed that you think it's important to try and cover up the present by reflecting on the past.

9/30/2005 01:08:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Ackers don't try and put words into my mouth again. Try and imagine a rational explanation for media bias other than some sort of big unprovable conspiracy. I know you think misrepresenting someone elses opinion counts as a fair method of discussion, but after a while it becomes tiring having to correct and/or ignore you.

Media types coming from a ~80-90% lefty background (US studies of voting habits of journalists from national media outlets, mostly from before Fox News became popular) means most subjects covered by said big media outlets are inevitably spun from a lefty point of view. Topics negative to the left are only shallowly examined while anything a rightie does becomes the next Big Disaster.

The media focus on FEMA, Michael Brown etc over the people in charge of the first responders (the State Governor, the NO Mayor) after Hurricane Katrina is a perfect US example.

The focus on supposed 'links' between Brash and the Exclusive Brethren at the expense of calmly analysing the EB pamphlets is a perfect NZ example.

9/30/2005 01:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Who will go to war to bring down the American government that created the situation for American atrocities to occur, and then tried to cover them up?"

Well done space-cadet, it is EXACTLY THIS sort of statement that the post was refering to. By saying that the US government (you know, those guys that have prosecuted the guilty parties at Abu Graib rather than giving them big fat bonuses) should be taken down, just as Saddam was, for what they have done, you are declaring the atrocities committed and SANCTIONED under Saddams rule with the actions being PUNISHED under the US authority.

"Your post tries to excuse American injustice" Bullshit! Where does it do that?

" For every photo presented of Iraqi atrocities, a dozen more photos can be presented of American atrocities against Iraqis" Does that tell you something about the people taking the photos?

You are a parody of the very people at which the post was targetted.

Kimble

9/30/2005 01:19:00 PM  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

al said: "The AP and Reuters hire local stringer photographers to get photos of damaged US equipment but can't be bothered embedding real journalists with US troops to see how the real war is going."

It's difficult to do so when the US army shoots so many AP and Reuters journalists. It'd be stupid of them to try and embed themselves with an army that doesn't want the truth to be seen, and when 13 journalists are killed by the US out of over 50 total deaths in 2 years (more than all those killed in 20 years of Vietnam), that's about a 1 in 4 chance of being killed by the US, simply by being a reporter. And you wonder why it's rare for journalists to be embedded these days? I'd like to see you volunteer to be embedded with US troops and know that, statistically, you have a 25% chance of being killed by those same US troops. I suspect the chance increases dramatically if you film them doing something they don't want others to see.

9/30/2005 01:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I suspect the chance increases dramatically if you film them doing something they don't want others to see."

Dude, you are fucking clown-shoes crazy. Of the 25% killed by the Americans, how many were standing on the Americans side of the firefight? How many were "imbedded" with the opposition? In other words, how many were standing in the most fucking stupid place to stand in a firefight?

Oh and how many worked for Al Jazeera?

Kimble

9/30/2005 01:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Allan, you're an idiot. For journalists to have a 25% chance of being killed by the US, one quarter of all journalists in Iraq must be killed by Americans. What your statistics show is that IF AND ONLY IF a journalist gets killed there is a 25% chance that it is by an American. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you're going to use stastics, you should learn how to use them first.

Tim

9/30/2005 01:38:00 PM  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

I don't see much difference between "25% of journalists are killed by US forces" or "if you're killed there's a 25% chance that it was by a US soldier", so I'm wondering who the real idiot is.

9/30/2005 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

See if you can count how many of the following were 'embedded' Alan.

Journos killed by US forces in Iraq.

Source:
http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/Iraq/Js_killed_by_US_13sept05.html

1. Journo killed during 2003 invasion by missile in Baghdad. Missile fired in support of fighting around Al Jazeera bureau.

2 & 3. 2 cameramen killed when tank shell accidentally hit the Palestine Hotel, again during combat related to the invasion. Tank commander involved claimed he was returning fire received from Palestine Hotel. Journos deny this.

4. Cameraman killed while pointing video camera at a US tank on patrol outside Abu Ghraib Prison. Reuters said local commanders were aware they were filming in the vicinity. "Neither Dana nor Shyioukhi were wearing flak jackets, and their car was not marked press."

5. Kurdistan TV director caught in fire aimed at armed group near Kurdistan TV building. US military accepted responsibility.

6 & 7. Cameraman and journo accidentally shot during what was thought to be a suicide bombing following a power cut. US military accepted responsibilty.

8. Journalist shot when his car failed to stop for a checkpoint. Prominent signs in area saying 'no filming'.

9. Journo killed while standing near a disabled US vehicle being fired on by US helicopter (ie was being destroyed).

10. "Freelance" cameraman killed by US snipers after spotted accompanying insurgents. Examination of videotape confirmed cameraman was accompanying insurgents during attacks.

11. Now this one sounds bad - News producer supposedly shot by US troops using live ammo to disperse a crowd.

12. News producer shot dead after his car failed to pull over for a US convoy.

13. Soundman killed. Disputed - Reuters says the US "opened fire". US military says soundman's car was travelling at high speed towards the scene of a fight between "armed men" and Iraqi Police.

9/30/2005 01:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Photos and video from Abu Graib back in October 2003 will be released. Lefties rejoice! Again they can portray the United States as a sick sick sick country!"

It looks like the photos and videos will be doing that all by themself. The Iraqi people must be so pleased to now have American torturers instead of Baathist ones. Are you at least going to condemn the actions of the Americans in the videos?

9/30/2005 01:54:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

The real idiot is the fool who tries to perpetuate the nonsense that the US Army targets jounalists and assasinates them. Is that what you are trying to say? If it is you'de better nake sure you either have very good evidence or you have confidence in your anonimity or you have very deep pockets.

9/30/2005 01:54:00 PM  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

Kimble, the post is titled "Lefties rejoice," and then the words, "Lefties rejoice! Again they can portray the United States as a sick sick sick country!" implies that lefties will be pleased about the release of the Abu Ghraib photos, but then the post points out the atrocities committed by Saddam and Iraqis, which is implying, "before you start focusing on how sick America is, just think about how sick Iraq is..." The message of the author is very clear - why should we be focusing on American atrocities, when Saddam and the Iraqis commit so many of their own? (I still believe one injustice is not excused by the injustice of another. To think it is just makes you as bad as the Iraqis, who are probably saying that the injustice committed by America justifies our injustice aimed at them. The cycle just keeps on going...)

I'm surprised at the rabid misunderstanding - or the pretended misunderstanding - by rightwingers of their own rightwing posts. Personally, I just see the rabid, ignorant and frothy-mouthed verbal diarrhea - particularly from you, Kimble - as excuses to mouth off at anything and anyone, without any real intelligence behind the arguments at all.

9/30/2005 01:56:00 PM  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

I don't need to say the US targets journalists and assassinates them when there's so many others saying it instead.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/iraq-07m.shtml
http://csmonitor.com/2005/0218/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalists.html

Do a search for 'US targets journalists' and there are 477 other websites out there saying the same thing. Do a search for 'US accidentally kill journalists' (or any other variation of those key words) and there are exactly 0 websites that say that.

I don't need to say anything. :-)

9/30/2005 02:06:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Yet another spineless anonymous trying to manufacture our opinion for us and suggest what skanky be-arch and her lover boy did is equivalent to the torture examples given above.

Abusive - clearly yes. Breaching the US military's own guideline for Military Police - yes. Was skanky be-arch an MP? No, she was a reservist secretary. What was she doing there? Clearly the unit involved had major discipline problems and was not performing its duties. Have they been punished? Yes.

Will lefties carp on about Abu Graib as if its an example of systematic problems in the US military even though said US military has clearly resolved the problem using pre-existing military law and procedures? Of course they will.

Will lefties carp on about the everyday atrocities committed by "insurgents" and demand they stop? Of course not.

9/30/2005 02:11:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Why would you do a search for a country name killing specific journalists?

Here's some other searches you might like:

"Hitler is alive"
1,500 hits.

"Jews killed Hitler"
29 hits.

"Alan Howard idiotarian"
0 hits (until this post is indexed by Google - I give it three days).

9/30/2005 02:17:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

So your evidence is that 477 fuckwits with blogs all said the same thing so it must be right? Stop wasting my time.

9/30/2005 02:19:00 PM  
Blogger tincanman said...

Alan: I don't see much difference between "25% of journalists are killed by US forces" or "if you're killed there's a 25% chance that it was by a US soldier", so I'm wondering who the real idiot is.

Ok. Mathematics is not my strong suit, but let's look at this. There is 100 journalists in Iraq. (For example). For the first statement to be true 25 of them must die at the hands of American soldiers. For the second statement, an indetermined number will die of which 25% will be because of the United States acting in a combat zone. So let's say 40 die then 10 of those would've been because the United States acted in a combat zone.

There is a significant difference between the two.

9/30/2005 02:23:00 PM  
Blogger JamesP said...

In other news Google reports 70,000 attacks by killer zombies in New Zealand this year. Make sure you lock your doors!

9/30/2005 02:25:00 PM  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

I think many lefties feel that the insurgents will stop when their reason for existing ceases to exist - eg. the US leaves. If NZ is invaded by Indonesia, for example, and kiwis become 'insurgents' to the occupying Indonesian forces, how likely will it be, do you think, that the 'insurgents' will stop fighting the occupying forces because the Indonesians are there in NZ's best interests? Or do you think that it would be more likely that the 'insurgents' (kiwis) would be saying, "Hey, if they're wanting to do what's in NZ's best interests, then get the hell outta the country and leave it to us - just like it used to be!" How likely do you think it'd be for the kiwis to roll over and say, "Oh, ok... they're here in our best interests? Ok. They want to give us the Indonesian way of doing things because it's better than our way of doing things? Ok. They don't understand why we're fighting them because everyone knows that the Indonesians do things the best way? Ok. Sure. Let's stop fighting."

Personally, I don't think that's very likely. The kiwis would look at themselves as 'freedom fighters', while the Indonesians would look at them as 'insurgents'. The only way the fighting would end is if the kiwis are outright slaughtered and the survivors are subdued, or they succeed in getting their country back from the oppressors by kicking them the hell out.

The choices available to America now are to slaughter so many Iraqis that the remainder recognise they're beaten, or the Americans leave and let the Iraqis sort out the mess for themselves. That's what the Iraqis want, and that's what any country would want. Isn't it?

9/30/2005 02:35:00 PM  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

Oh, and apologies to any Indonesians who may have been offended, as no offence was intended by the analogy.

9/30/2005 02:41:00 PM  
Blogger tincanman said...

That rather 'brilliant' argument is based on the assumption that all Iraqis are opposed to the US liberation. Which is not really the case, now is it? If it were so the US would not be able to maintain their reconstruction efforts there. Have you considered that insurgents might be members of a minority opposed to the democratic process now happening there? Such as a group of religious fundamentalists that see any foreign influence as undesirable. Or members of the disposed regime who will be thoroughly ousted by an elected, democractic government. Of course not.

Have you even bothered to read what Iraqi people are actually writing about the changes they now see in their country? This is thanks to the United States.

As it stands now the US are handing over to the appropriate, Iraqi officials as it becomes possible to do so. (See SH post on hand over of Karbala) Having had a repressive regime lifted, giving people the opportunity to have the same lifestyle that we all enjoy. That's what any sane person would want. Isn't it?

9/30/2005 02:49:00 PM  
Blogger Rob O'Neill said...

"Yet another spineless anonymous" says a man calling himself Antactic Lemur!

9/30/2005 02:51:00 PM  
Blogger tincanman said...

Using a pseudonymn (A fictitious name, especially a pen name.) is not the same as being anonymous (Having an unknown or unacknowledged name). You can have a conversation/discussion with a handle.

9/30/2005 03:03:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

I am not an 'anonymous' - I use the same identity wherever I comment, even on Slashdot and other non-political sites. That way people know where I'm coming from and if they've discussed something previously with me.

However I have no intention of receiving phonecalls (etc) from some of the freaks online. Therefore AL is how it will stay for the meantime.

9/30/2005 03:14:00 PM  
Blogger Rob O'Neill said...

There are lots of other images you guys can look at. US soldiers have been trading them for free porno.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0509/S00389.htm

9/30/2005 03:15:00 PM  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

tincanman, your ignorance is astounding. You probably take notice only of the rightwing media that tells you everything is ok, that good things are happening, etc. You are the brainwashed listening to the brainwashers, and then telling the non-brainwashed how good everything is, when the non-brainwashed are seeing something completely different to you. Who is right?

Here's a blog by an Iraqi, living in Baghdad, that you probably won't bother reading or accepting, because it doesn't say what you want to hear: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

I read it occasionally, and others. I read your site, I read other sites. I read as much as I can. I choose not to limit myself to one ideology, and instead try to read a lot of people's points of view. I find that right-wingers see this illusionary version of reality where there's lots of flowers and budding capitalism, and think that anyone that sees differently to them is delusional themselves.

Here's an excerpt from a post she wrote on Sept 11 a few weeks ago.

"It has been four years today. How does it feel four years later?

For the 3,000 victims in America, more than 100,000 have died in Iraq. Tens of thousands of others are being detained for interrogation and torture. Our homes have been raided, our cities are constantly being bombed and Iraq has fallen back decades, and for several years to come we will suffer under the influence of the extremism we didn't know prior to the war.

As I write this, Tel Afar, a small place north of Mosul, is being bombed. Dozens of people are going to be buried under their homes in the dead of the night. Their water and electricity have been cut off for days. It doesn’t seem to matter much though because they don’t live in a wonderful skyscraper in a glamorous city. They are, quite simply, farmers and herders not worth a second thought.

Four years later and the War on Terror (or is it the War of Terror?) has been won:

Score:
Al-Qaeda – 3,000
America – 100,000+

Congratulations."


US govt-sponsored construction, financially favouring US companies, does not make a positive change for the people living in a war-torn country, where civil war or US bombings are all they can look forward to for the time being, where the only constructions that are going on are either being bombed again by the US or is favouring Americans or American interests.

You said: "Having had a repressive regime lifted, giving people the opportunity to have the same lifestyle that we all enjoy. That's what any sane person would want. Isn't it?" You're saying any sane person would want the same society that America wants to create within Iraq. Anyone who's not a lover of American society is obviously insane. I love being insane, in that case, but who gave you - or the Americans - the right to dictate what's best for the Iraqis? For anyone? What happened to the rights of sovereignty, and the rights of cultural expression? They're all meaningless in the eyes of Americans, and American-wannabes.

9/30/2005 03:19:00 PM  
Blogger tincanman said...

Actually, Allan, three years ago I would've argued from the same position that you are arguing now. I was firmly ensconced in the 'lefty' camp. Vehemently so. Then my eyes were opened.

9/30/2005 03:27:00 PM  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

Opened by what, may I ask?

9/30/2005 03:33:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Alan, where does your Iraqi blogger get her figures from?

9/30/2005 03:38:00 PM  
Blogger tincanman said...

Alan: a lot of reading, a lot of discussion, a lot of thinking.

9/30/2005 03:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"who gave you - or the Americans - the right to dictate what's best for the Iraqis? For anyone?"

Who gave you - or Al Qaeda - the right to dictate what's best for the Iraqis? For anyone?

Ever been to the Iraqthemodel blog? Ah but you prbably just ignored them because you didnt like what they were saying. They were obviously brainwashed, or see this illusionary version of reality.

Go on, say Haliburton, you were busting to do it in the previous comment. Go on, say American hegemony as well. Repeat the 100,000+ fatalities LIE! Tell us all how even though Saddam was a bad man, that Iraq was better under his rule and that intervening was immoral. Tell us all how the war was all about oil. Compare Bush to Hitler, youve been gagging to do it for a while.

"what happened to the rights of sovereignty, and the rights of cultural expression?" What a complete fucktard. Now the jihad is a cultural expression? Along with honour killings and gang rape now doubt.

You are a fucking dirty little racist, Alan. Tell us all how we cant expect Arabs to behave like us in the west. We cant expect them to want freedom from a repressive regime, we cant expect them to desire freedom of non-violent-expression. We cant expect them to want to live in a country that gives them the right to vote. Oh no, its their culture you see. They dont want the Americans there, because they dont want the freedom and affluence of western society, because they're arabs.

For Christs sake! You even have a fucking problem with American rebuilding of the infrastructure, schools and hospitals SIMPLY BECAUSE OTHER AMERICANS ARE BEING PAID FOR IT! You dont give a fuck about Iraq, you dont give a fuck about the Iraqis. If you did you would be on our side of the argument.

Go on, say Haliburton, get it over and done with.

Kimble

9/30/2005 03:50:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

The problem is Kimble the Iraqis aren't on your side of the argument. I'd worry about that if I was you rather than spraying your inane insults around. Your side lost the argument some time ago unfortunately.

9/30/2005 03:59:00 PM  
Blogger Alan Howard said...

you're a lonely, bitter person, kimble. I feel sorry for people such as yourself. I do hope you have a nice day though, as your writhe around in your bed of anger and loathing for anyone unlike yourself.

9/30/2005 03:59:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Lucyna: "Riverbends" (I use speech quotes because her supposed identity as just a girl living in Baghdad remains unconfirmed) figures are the old discredited Lancet examples, fondly preferred by Michael Moore-style leftists everywhere.

As to the "3000" killed by Al Qaeda - who knows. Riverbend isn't the sort of blogger to actually post links to her sources.

Many of her posts amount to nothing more than unverifiable snarky comments about instances in her private life, though of late shes focussed on the Iraqi Constitution. From memory she was very negative of the first Iraqi elections. All the candidates were US lackeys you see, because the Ba'athists were banned.

Get the drift now about Riverbend?

I think it was the Iraq The Model guys (identified, openly participate in several Iraqi poltical groups, and have travelled to the west) who suggested she was a Ba'athist or close relative of a Ba'athist who did rather well out of the previous regime. Who knows?

Clearly Alan "Google Hits Tell Me The Truth" Howard considers her wise and knowledgeable.

9/30/2005 04:05:00 PM  
Blogger Bernard Woolley said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/30/2005 04:23:00 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

So now SirHumphs is a gore site? Cool.

9/30/2005 04:33:00 PM  
Blogger Bernard Woolley said...

I was just trying to make a point about US soldiers sharing and spreading their own photos about their times in Iraq (whether its gore or soldier-sex). There is an investigation underway into the website mentioned above and the behaviour of some of the US armed forces by posting such material on the Internet. I personally feel that it is irresponsible of US personnel to be posting such images on the Internet, and hope that by spreading knowledge of the site will prompt further action by the DoD to stop this. This sort of material will only add fuel to the fire of the opposition, and more graphic and visual evidence to support recruiting when they see these. Really, a foolish move from those soldiers concerned.

9/30/2005 04:40:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

No, this isn't a gore site. Every photo posted has been edited to remove dodgy areas.

Bernard - you'll have to delete that post and repost it with the links to "nowthatsfuckedup" removed or we'll be banned by even more corporate and Government IT departments than we already are.

9/30/2005 04:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check out the racist calling me a xenophobe! Nowthatsfuckedup.

Kimble

9/30/2005 04:49:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Sorry Bernard. The Ogrish site was borderline as you have to click through a disclaimer first.

9/30/2005 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger Bernard Woolley said...

Deleted as requested, remainder reposted here. Changed link so only points at Google, with no bad language. Now you're two-to-three clicks away, look for the open forums with the high number of views... I'm not doing this for the fun of it, but I object to Americans posting this sort of stuff on the web because it makes them look worse than they are. The soldiers that did this are retards.

http://www.google.com/search?q=now+thats+up

Warning both the above links take you no more than one click away from some disgusting photos - if you have the stomach for it, find the headshot to the guy in the car. This is the website referenced in the Scoop link above. I found out about it a few days ago from these links.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/26/baghdad_smut_and_pain/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/army_gore_investigation/

9/30/2005 04:59:00 PM  
Blogger Bernard Woolley said...

Not a prob AL! Hope the new way is good enough for MailMarshall ;)

9/30/2005 05:01:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

AL, I wonder if Alan knows where that 100,000 figure comes from? Probably not. Ironic really that an Iraqi blogger who knows what is going on there has to use the very suspect Lancet figure. Which, Alan, if you are still reading is approxiamately the midpoint of their guesstimate.

9/30/2005 05:23:00 PM  
Blogger JamesP said...

Would that be the same Lancet figure that is so absurdly high that not even OBL uses it and was, by some happy chance, released in the week prior to the US election?

9/30/2005 05:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought the confidence interval was 5,000 and 100,000. But only the 100,000 figure got publicity.

Kimble

9/30/2005 06:18:00 PM  
Blogger Ashley Clarkson said...

"I thought the confidence interval was 5,000 and 100,000. But only the 100,000 figure got publicity."

That's one heck of a confidence interval!

9/30/2005 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger JamesP said...

No it was worse than that because 100k was only the mid-point:
"We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period."
It should also be noted that the paper was not peer reviewed when it was published.

9/30/2005 06:29:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Yeah, it was the Lancet, and I remember it going as high as 198,000. I thought it was as low as 8,000. Of course I can't point to a link, I just remember those figures, mainly because the explanation for the 100,000 was that because it was in-between the two extremes that it was most likely correct.

9/30/2005 06:31:00 PM  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

I don't understand this assumption that the Left doesn't object to crazies like Saddam and Al Qaeda, just the USA and its allies (no, really, I'm serious - it's a true statement, not a rhetorical flourish). Pointing to the crimes of a fascist regime like Saddam's is beyond stating the obvious - it's the political equivalent of "Look - that dog's got four legs!" It doesn't need mentioning, we all know what they were like, and nobody misses them. By contrast, finding out that your friends and allies with democratic govts and the rule of law have been up to dodgy activities is very much worth pointing out, precisely because it is unusual and shouldn't happen. Democratic govts can be influenced for the better by protest marches - Al Qaeda can only be influenced for the better by well-aimed ordinance. So there's no point in asking where the protest marches against the Iraqi insurgents are, you might as well ask why there are no protest marches against the Caribbean hurricane season.

And yes, this lefty is glad those Abu Ghraib photos will come out, because it might cause future dumbasses in the military to pause for thought before doing something stupid.

9/30/2005 08:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Christiaan said...

Haha, I love it when right-wing loonies feel the need to compare the crimes of their heros with the crimes of their villains.

9/30/2005 08:32:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

If you support the status quo then you are supporting the crazies like Saddam and Al Qaeda who profited for over a decade from a lack of Western will. Clinton did the right thing in sending the troops into Yugoslavia (a pity it didn't happen earlier), something I supported at the time. Bush did the right thing sending the troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope he sticks with it (and his successor, if necessary).

As for the Abu Ghraib photos - read the latest post.

9/30/2005 08:38:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home