community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Report: Iraq torture chamber found
by CNN
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 9:52 PM
A torture chamber equipped with hooks hanging from ceilings and an on-site electrocution room has been found in the basement of an Iraqi police station, an embedded reporter with the BBC reports.
Here's a torture chamber for you peaceniks... and what were all you prepared to do to help the iraqi people as an alternative to war?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/02/sprj.irq.iraq.torture/index.html
www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/02/sprj.irq.iraq.torture/index.html
No surprise
by -
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 10:16 PM
You don't have to go to Iraq to find a police station with a torture chamber.
Once again, if I wanted CNN bullshit, I'd turn on the TV.
please show me
by Conservative Guy
Thursday, Apr. 03, 2003 at 4:21 PM
please show me a police station with a torture chamber where they hang people and beat them and have rooms where they fill them with water and electrocute people because they express opinions that go against the government in place... please o please show me where we have this in the US...
that's the point, peacenik goon
Okay, I will show you
by Not a conservative guy
Thursday, Apr. 03, 2003 at 9:05 PM
So, conservative guy, you are interested in torture chambers. Well, first, let's start with what is happening at Guatanamo Bay. No media allowed and no red-cross visits allowed.
Then let's move to the U.S. Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where at least one prisoner was beaten to death.
If the U.S. thinks that it can justify the use of torture for individuals that are identified as "terrorists", then the U.S. should not complain when other countries also torture people.
And I will also show you
by Realistic Guy
Thursday, Apr. 03, 2003 at 9:16 PM
If you want to see a police station that holds people for their political beliefs, all you have to do is look at the Allegheny County Jail. On March 20, 122 citizens were arrested on a sidewalk. Some were held for 36 hours. Others were beaten by the police.
And what was there crime? Was it really disrupting traffic? How many people leaving Steelers games have ever been arrested for disrupting traffic? How many Pro-Life demonstrators who picket on sidewalks have been arrested by the Police?
And what did the magistrate do? He called himself : "red, white, and blue" and did everything he could to keep the demonstrators in jail. And why?
Because of their political beliefs!
Yeah right!
by Tarah
Wednesday, Apr. 09, 2003 at 12:34 PM
You all are fools! How dare you say you you think any method of handling extremely violent individuals who would rather stab you in the throat with any tool than understand that we need a 'world full of peace' is wrong. You can stand on a corner in any major city and protest this war and the attrocities that occur in Guantanamo Bay and say that our current president is wrong, but the fact remains that YOU are not in that seat and YOU don't have any better way of bringing about peace. Lest we forget our forefathers who believed SO strongly in freedom that they sacrificied their lives to attain it. War IS horrible, death IS horrible, but the freedom by which you sit and sip your venti latte in your high rise penthouse, walking your dog on a city street is brought by war. Are ou forgetting the hundreds of thousands of people who were being tortured in Iraq? Do they have a right to peaceful living? Did you forget the thousands of our fellow americans who died September 11th? Did you think that us sitting back watching terrorist attacks was going to solve the problem? Why dont't you prance on over to Iraq right now and have a discussion with any of Saddam's henchmen and flash your little peace sign in their faces and see how they react. They don't care about peace. The peace that you want would come at a horrible price, IF EVER. A message must be sent to let those know who would destroy thousands or even millions of people at random, that they will not be allowed to roam the world to do this.
Unless you have a better idea?
I didn't think so.
Globalisation
by Alan
Wednesday, Apr. 09, 2003 at 1:08 PM
Tarah's point is right on the money. We are also forced to have to consider things with a global view (whether I like it or not) now that worldwide travel and communication is commonplace. Those regimes that present a danger to their own people present an immediate danger to us as well. I can't believe so many are so STUPID as to defend a true SOB like Hussein or anyone like him. I begin to realize now how idiots like Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein get into power in the first place. By waving a peace flag and NOT defending civil rights WORLDWIDE, we help these dictators gain power in the first place. Blair and Bush are HEROS for doing the right thing in the face of a majority of pantywaists.
Blah, Blah, Nationalistic Rhetoric, blah, blah, blah
by Phoenix
Wednesday, Apr. 09, 2003 at 3:12 PM
Hello Tarah,
I would like to say that I do not sit about and sip lattes, not do I live in a high rise penthouse, and in fact I do not own a dog. Anyways these things are not really cognizant to my point: you mentioned 9/11, and how we protesters are forgetting what happened. Well, I would like to give you two pieces of information about 9/11. First, did you know that we "Idiots and Fools" are protesting this war not just to advocate for peace, but because this "Liberating" of Iraq will ostensibly bring about a destabilization of the middle eastern political system. Therefore enabling further terrorist activities. I suppose in the fury of your pro-war tantrum you did not realize that supporting war means supporting 9/11 style tragidies. Secondly, did you know that the U.S. goverment spent around $80,000,000 on investigating Monica and Bill, but only $1,000,000 on investigating 9/11. If you really care then maybe you should protest such things.
Lastly, when you start talking about how we forget so much and how we "Idiots" are only a danger, and how people died for our free speech and therefore we should not protest wars you are basicly saying this: You people are fools because you exercise the rights of free speech that people have died for you to have. That dosen't make sense, please tell me why we should not protest if people went to such extents as to die for those rights. In fact to merely sit back and say that I disagree but will not make that public because somebody died is a highly un-american thing to do.
It also seems to me that you support torture of our enemies: yet another un-american thing. In fact from everything you said I infer that you are un-american. If you would like to clarify any of this, or just continue to make yourself look foolish by calling me senseless names and spouting illogical babble then please go ahead. I would really like to hear your opinion.
Peace
Love
Harmony
my dog's offended
by Dobie Gillis
Wednesday, Apr. 09, 2003 at 5:05 PM
While I do not use the term, 'owning' a dog (dog more likely 'owns' me) I urge you to please leave innocent animals out of it. Dogs may seem a 'luxury' in the way of feeding/vet care but its no different than people having children. My dog and cats are 'rescues' from bad situations. My heart just opened up for them.Not all ppl with dogs are taking them to doggy spas, buying them diamond studded collars & going out to doggy restaurants w/them. I feel bad for the innocent people and children in Iraq who have suffered AND the animals who we 'conveniently' never see on pictures. SPAY AND NEUTER. THANK YOU.
looking for the logic on other side of the fence........
by Alan
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003 at 10:00 AM
Help me out here. I really would like to know what goes through the mind of the thinking individual who actively protests this war. I promise to be respectful of your answer, no matter how much I disagree with you. I know there are those out there who will protest ANY war and support peace at ANY price, but I am not talking about peace fanatics this time. I am referring to those who claim to have a VALID reason for not supporting THIS war. I wrote of globalization earlier and should not have been so rough on everyone who protests a war....I intended to target those who are anti-war in ALL situations.
The reasons for this war are pretty simple in spite of all of the reasons that have been thrown out there by various parties. The war is NOT about Israel and the destruction of the Muslim faith as many Arabs claim, although extremist "Muslims" who resort to terrorism (much like extremist "Christians" (note the quotations) have bombed abortion clinics) ARE being targeted in the war on terror. The war is NOT about oil, although the Iraqi people will benefit GREATLY from the freedom to sell oil to the United States and our future WILL be more secure for a few more decades (I concede that if oil were not an issue, our involvement in the reconstruction and new government in Iraq would probably not be as forthcoming). The war IS about civil rights of people worldwide, and those leaders who present a danger to the United States and allow terrorists to actively train and prepare for acts of aggression against other nations.
With absolutely no sarcasm here, my question is twofold:
1. How can the thinking person say, "I support Saddam's right to govern Iraq", when the evidence of his crimes against others and his own people is so overwhelming, and the United Nations is so reluctant to act?
2. How can the thinking person say, "We have no business interfering in Iraq", when we know what Saddam's regime is capable of? Should'nt the big guy (the U.S.) step in and beat the living crap out of the bully (Saddam's regime) who has been terrorizing the little guy (the Iraqi people and others) and stealing his lunch money for years in a school system (the U.N.) that gives him only a slap on the wrist? Or should the little guy not be considered of any importance here?
Please help me understand your way of thinking here, because I am confused. Again, I promise to respect your response.
answers
by andy
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003 at 10:36 AM
andy at indypgh.org
i'll try to answer your questions from my perspective, to the best of my ability:
1. How can the thinking person say, "I support Saddam's right to govern Iraq", when the evidence of his crimes against others and his own people is so overwhelming, and the United Nations is so reluctant to act?
I do not support Saddam's right to govern Iraq. Saddam is a ruthless dictator. That is not and has never been the basis of my argument against this war, and I suspect most people in the movement would agree.
2. How can the thinking person say, "We have no business interfering in Iraq", when we know what Saddam's regime is capable of? Should'nt the big guy (the U.S.) step in and beat the living crap out of the bully (Saddam's regime) who has been terrorizing the little guy (the Iraqi people and others) and stealing his lunch money for years in a school system (the U.N.) that gives him only a slap on the wrist? Or should the little guy not be considered of any importance here?
While I am in favor of Saddam falling from power, the way in which this has been gone about is in my opinion 100% wrong. My reasoning:
- Democracy does not come from outside, it comes from within. This is historically true, and has been repeated over and over by people from the Arab world discussing this war. We can topple Saddam with force, but we can't force a just society. Democracy, I believe, will come to the Middle East. I believe in the tendency toward particpation and away from concentration of power. I don't think that it's going to happen as a result of this war. The people who we place in power will still be rulers and the rest of the citizens will still be ruled.
- The "threat" you speak of is largely contrived. There has never been evidence linking Saddam to al-Qaeda, regardless of what your president tells you. The US intelligence community- not left wing commentators, not foreign interests, but the US intelligence community- has told us Saddam was not a threat to our safety before we attacked. He was not in a situation in the international community that would make him comfortable using weapons of mass destruction against anyone, or supplying them to terrorists to use against us.
- The use of violence by one nation to force change in another nation will only cause harm. Images of US bombs exploding in Baghdad will infuriate Arabs much the way images of US-built bulldozers running over the houses of Palestinians do. Force does not bring an end to terrorism. Only a radical change in the US's interventionist policy in the middle east will.
Hope that helps, and thanks for being civil on this website- this is the sort of dialogue that is necessary in the world today.
Andy
Thanks for the insight
by Alan
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003 at 11:06 AM
Very valid points about where democracy comes from. I also did not mean to imply a relation between Iraq and Bin Laden--just that someone like him could probably use Iraq for those purposes. I guess the problem I have with HOW the war is protested is the shameful way it is sometimes carried out. Breaking the law, halting commerce, and blocking a military vessel (Austrailia) should never accompany a protest. I am of the Christian faith, but deplor the acts of certain "Christians" that have been employed in the past. A protest should never be accompanied by acts which defame the character of those protesting.
Andy, you are obviously an intelligent, civil person with logical reasons for your beliefs and opinions, but do you think protesters using extreme means of protest share your reasoning? I hope so, but it appears to the public that many are just anti-war, period, and would allow anyone to rule anywhere as long as war could be avoided. That scares me, because history has proven that sometimes a millitary solution is the only way our of a situation. Also, do you think that Iraq would have eventually found its way to representative government (not democracy or majority rule) on its own, or would the regime have prevailed for another? True democracy (mob rule) would probably be dangerous over there.
Thanks for the insight
by Alan
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003 at 11:06 AM
Very valid points about where democracy comes from. I also did not mean to imply a relation between Iraq and Bin Laden--just that someone like him could probably use Iraq for those purposes. I guess the problem I have with HOW the war is protested is the shameful way it is sometimes carried out. Breaking the law, halting commerce, and blocking a military vessel (Austrailia) should never accompany a protest. I am of the Christian faith, but deplor the acts of certain "Christians" that have been employed in the past. A protest should never be accompanied by acts which defame the character of those protesting.
Andy, you are obviously an intelligent, civil person with logical reasons for your beliefs and opinions, but do you think protesters using extreme means of protest share your reasoning? I hope so, but it appears to the public that many are just anti-war, period, and would allow anyone to rule anywhere as long as war could be avoided. That scares me, because history has proven that sometimes a millitary solution is the only way out of a situation. Also, do you think that Iraq would have eventually found its way to representative government (not democracy or majority rule) on its own, or would the regime have prevailed for another? True democracy (mob rule) would probably be dangerous over there.
Regime still a threat
by Geffen
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003 at 1:04 PM
Whether or not Saddam's regime was linked to al- Qaeda is not pertinent to the threat that it represented. The US Intelligence community has been wrong or out-of-the-loop many times before, and should not necessarily be given the final word in the matter. Saddam proved he was a threat by using illegal weapons on the Kurds before and other agents during the first war. His lack of cooperation with inspectors were a strong indication of dishonesty on his part. The fact that Iraqi state television and the Information Minister blatently lied through the entire initial conflict should be an indication of the level of threat he represented.
War from within
by Jackel
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003 at 2:07 PM
Nice concept for a theoritical piece, but let me respectfully disagree in this situation. (with the understanding that each and every conflict must be viewed in its context)
When a ruthless dictator such as Saddam is in power, the people are frozen with fear and lack the financial ability to fight from within. He makes sure that both of those elements continue for his own sake. That's not to say that I buy 100% into US foreign intervention policy (past or present) but I do believe strongly that war never would have come from within. It's not as if they could just storm the gates of the castle with homemade axes. And, if they did try to upset Saddam's regime, there would have been much, much more bloodshed -- including the torture and killing of many children and women. Wasn't the loss of blood one of the main points for opposing war? Although I also believe that US involvement is not entirely altruistic, the choice was to let the people continue to suffer or sit back and watch unbelievable bloodshed if they rose up. Those are not good choices so the US assistance in their liberation, in this particular case, was a good one.
this is true
by andy
Thursday, Apr. 10, 2003 at 3:03 PM
andy at indypgh.org
It's true that if there was an uprising under Saddam's regime it would likely be crushed by the military (unless it were huge, but a huge uprising would probably never get off the ground.) That makes this a tough situation to approach, and I understand your argumnents, but I still think our forceful deposition won't make for the outcome we wish for it to, which is why I'm still against the war.
Alan, to address your questions: a lot of protestors I think agree with my main points, with their own variations- even those who use direct action as a tactic. The point of direct action, by halting commerce or attempting to stop the military from operating or other means, is that the democracy we have doesn't always work, and the people who engage in those tactics feel so strongly about the issue that they don't feel content to simply hold a sign on the sidewalk. It's sort of in the vein of Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People"- if the majority is clamoring for something that is so obviously wrong in your eyes, you are forced to take a stand against the majority, regardless. In order to make your point, you must take action that's more direct than simply speaking up.
I'd point out that this is a view that many, but not all, in the movement take, but most people in the movement are willing to allow those who want to perform direct action to do so without their interference. It's very much up to the individual whether she thinks this is an appropriate and effective tactic. (And those two adjectives cannot necessarily always be attached to the same thing).
As far as democracy in Iraq goes, I very much doubt it would have happened under Saddam, but I also doubt it will be the result of the US intervention. We'll see. Eventually, though, I'm confident the will of the people will prevail.
While we may not agree on this, thanks for voicing your opinion, and for listening to mine.
Andy
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)