Urine Gate: Abu Grahib II

It's that typical Democratic double-speak. Peace prizes for starting wars and earning world respect by pissing on people.

Our savior has shown us the one true way. It's called lie through your teeth and grab whatever you can hold.

Your retarded spin aside, this is utterly outrageous. Of course, it's in the same spirit as the threats against Jessica Ahlquist as posted in my other thread. Regardless, those soldiers need to be locked up and anyone who knew about it and covered it up as well. If it goes all the way to the top, so be it. I doubt it does, however.

Where's your fucking shock and outrage, though? The first think you think of is to figure out a way to pin this on Obama? You guys are fucking sick.

The going to war under false pretenses and lying to the American public about the threat Iraq posed was the premise for much of the war-crime talk. You're reaching and failing. I'm intellectually and morally bankrupt because I said lock Obama up if he knew about this and covered it up? Are you fucking INSANE?

What are you hypocritically ranting about? Organizations reflect their leaders. Obama is the sort of man that keeps torture camps open. He's the type of man that asks to permanently detain American citizens and orders them murdered with drones.

His leadership of an organization is what makes those within it believe they can act and behave in a certain manner. They merely reflect his leadership. He is accountable for all that happens.

Plus it couldn't happen if we didn't stick our nose in there in the first place right?

I've looked over everything BR has said and I see no hypocrisy here. I'll repeat what he said. If Obama is involved then he needs to be held accountable.

Why are you two so quick to create conflict where there is none? That shows clear antagonistic motives.

It is hypocritical because if it were a something he disagrees with, then it would automatically go to the top. Hell the guy is indicting an entire religion due to whatever creeper du jour is posting about Jessica Ahlquist and her court case.

So the point remains, and is profoundly hypocritical. If the cause, party or organization is one with which he disagrees, the actions of the few, the actions of those that may or may not even be involved, automatically implicate, condemn and become the rule for the entire group. There's no "if" in that. Look at these threats. This proves Christians and religion is bad. That is the rule.

For the causes, party, or organization he cares about, there's due process, there's reasonable doubt, there's even human nature, the law of averages, the law of large numbers, etc. These soldiers did something bad. Do not judge the organization or leaders. Instead investigate, see who knows what and punish the exception rather than the rule.

Now the last bit, and this is just doubling down on the crazy, nutty goodness, is that he declares the soldier actions are in the "same spirit" as the people talking about Jessica Ahlquist.

It is about the biggest logical leap one could make. Thus.... because some people, could be Christians, could be something else, might be involved with the school, might just be some wackos on Twitter, make mean comments, now the entire religion of Christianity is a bunch of shit. In otherwords again, the exception proves the rule.

However if asked about that in reverse, not only does the exception not prove the rule, aka does the actions of a few soldiers implicate the entire armed forces and their civilian leadership aka Obama, in this case, the exception jumps to a completely different rule (the soldier actions are in the same spirit as those nasty Christians) and somehow proves it while leaving the first rule (Obama is the leader and it should reflect on him) completely clean and absolved. So BR has said that the very act of attempting to say soldiers actions reflect Obama's leadership or that what he knew should investigated is the same as making a threat against this girl.

So in otherwords, his call for outrage, condemnation and investigation of threats Jessica Ahlquist is a good and proper thing. Calling for outrage, condemnation and investgation of what Obama knew related to the cover up what these soldiers did, well that is in the same spirit or is the same in speech and actions as the threats against Jessica Ahlquist. It means the calls for investigation of Obama are the same as threats.

It is pure hypocrisy.

Seriously. They are looking for double standards when there are none here. I truly believe that they are projecting. The cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming. Just in the past 3 years we've had Republicans fighting against tax cuts, military intervention, and the largest handout in history to the insurance companies through Bob Dole's 1994 healthcare plan finally come to fruition. That following 8 years of making excuses for GWB trying to somehow connect Iraq to 9/11--it's no wonder they can't come to grips with the idea that I find pissing on dead Talibani deplorable and demand anyone who knew be fully held accountable.

I think they know just how awful GWB was. I think they know he lied to the public to go to war, skyrocketing our debt while keeping it off the books to make it seem like the deficits that were already being run up weren't nearly as bad as they were. I think they know he didn't represent their ideals but can't bear to show weakness or a lack of solidarity. I think they've channeled all of that rage and unfairly directed it toward Obama, desperately wanting to rewrite history and get a do-over in 2012--except all of their candidates suck huge donkey balls...and they know that, too. That makes them froth even harder.

Let me repeat. If Obama knew about this and covered it up, he should be tried as a war criminal. Period. No equivocations.

Clean up on aisle 7. Someone barfed listening to the guy who voted for the party that promised us balanced budgets, PAYGO, a peace dividend, ending of wars, along with ending Gitmo, torture, global warming, while also promising us green jobs, clean energy, better employment rates, and of course cheaper health care talk about hypocrisy and support for it.

My hats off to these soldiers who did this on the Taliban soldiers. Screw all of them over there in this throwback country.

If someone had shot at you, and you killed him first..... with the adrenalin raging, such is hardly surprising.

Urinating on a corpse is amongst the most trivial, or harmless events in the pursuit of war. It's not even news. "Disrespect" doesn't even enter the equation.

But how come the corporate weasel getting all uppity about it, as if its an atrocity comparable with the other horrors i.e. - norms - of warfare, regardless of who is conducting it?

Utterly despicable and deplorable actions, for sure.

But you know what's worse than someone urinating on your corpse?

Being killed.

Your children being killed in their beds by drone attacks.

Your home and property being obliterated.

Being forced to wander from place to place as a refugee.

Your children starving to death from lack of food due to economic sanctions.

Your life being utterly destroyed by forces outside your control and for no good reason.

But perhaps worst of all is the utter callousness and indifference with which some Americans view such things.

+1 Like

Agreed.

Unfortunately there's no known way to conduct war without blowing up houses, killing children, and creating refugees. So in practice, jazzguru's position is we should never defend ourselves.

That's little consolation for those who have lost their homes, property, livelihood, loved ones, and lives.

If the tables were turned, and it was your home that was being bombed, would you be so dismissive?


You are incorrect. I believe in the non-aggression principle.

Non-aggression is not the same as pacifism.

Non-intervention is not the same as isolationism.

We should defend ourselves in response to aggression. Iraq, continuing action in Afghanistan, Libya, pre-emptively attacking Iran based on unfounded suspicion of motives FFS... that's not defense... that's warmongering. It costs billions and it costs lives and only serves to piss people off and make them WANT to attack us when they didn't want to before. It doesn't make us safer in any way shape or form.

IIRC, no one here thought that Bush had personally ordered or personally approved the actions at Abu Ghraib.
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

The argument was that it occurred on his (and Rumsfeld's) watch, and as such it was necessary that he, as CIC, accept responsibility.

Can someone on the left please explain why the goalposts have shifted for the Obama administration?

Citation needed. You don't get to make the accusation and then push the burden of proof onto someone else. I know it works for you with religion, but I'm not buying it.

Well searching 'Abu Ghraib' on AI only brings up posts as early as 2007, so posts about a 2004 event are difficult to cite.

But stick with the condescending posts about religious posters here.
It does wonders for your credibility when you complain that religious people aren't being nice.

Absolutely so. And, so many of those who express such indifference, callousness and blind hatred have the gall to describe themselves as pro-American, or "patriotic".

The depths to which some people stoop is beyond all bounds of belief... Or, perhaps these are characters who are unable to understand, because they suffer from a sociopathic (or even psychopathic) condition... ie lacking the connection to a moral center that is present in the huge majority of humanity.

Just stating a simple truth that religious people make assertions without evidence.

Our president as a prime example of this point.

Another simple truth, utopians with an agenda make assertions without evidence. See claims about HPV virus and ending cervical cancer as an example.

I commend you for your honesty in this situation that happened.War is hell!

Well said. People talk about how deadly viruses are, but ideas can be deadly too. 94m people died of Communism. Where is my do-gooder vaccination please?

Okay, let me clarify... if this doesn't stop now, then Obama needs to take serious action to stop it, or he should be held accountable. That was exactly my opinion with regard to Bush.

I don't think this situation has a parallel with Abu Ghraib. The urination episode was a spontaneous act by pumped-up soldiers who had just been in a firefight.

Abu Ghraib was a result of official policy ie the orders originated somewhere within the chain of command far above those who committed the abuses. Those at the bottom end of the chain, of course, were held responsible. (Legal precedent has shown time after time that "following orders is no defense", if the orders are illegal in the first place).

Even Donald Rumsfeld while he was Defense Secretary asked the following question:


No answers to this question was forthcoming, perhaps because private contractors are not legally obliged to provide them?

Never put SDW in a management position above an accounting department. When it is found out that the previous accountant who left the firm was cooking the books, the new accountant gets blamed 100%.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...dgets-for-war/
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

Obama has failed. But we are at polar opposites as to why. I happen to agree with the opinion of most major global economists. You agree with the neocons.

Is Obama responsible for his actions - or inaction?

Sure. He shouldn't receive the Democratic nomination. But he's still way better than any other alternative at this time.

Where is the Democratic opposition to what Obama is doing? Bad energy loans, lost jobs, unaccountable spending that damages the brand, etc. Why protect Obama?

Looks like conservative journalist Andrew Sullivan disagrees with you underestimating what President Obama has achieved.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...s-critics.html

So, if GWB had mentioned Bolivia and 9/11 in the same paragraph, would that have caused some brow-furrowing ? There was no more connection between Iraq and 9/11 as there was between Bolivia and 9/11.