READER COMMENTS ON
"VIDEO - Electrocuted Abu Ghraib Prisoner Speaks Out"
(20 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 3/15/2006 @ 8:18 am PT...
We're no better than they are. It's sad.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Ricky
said on 3/15/2006 @ 8:21 am PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 3/15/2006 @ 8:22 am PT...
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 3/15/2006 @ 8:25 am PT...
Ricky, WE are in THEIR country, killing innocent civilians. We've killed 100,000 innocent civilians.
And Ricky, what's the difference if someone gets beheaded, or if we bomb a school or a wedding party in Iraq? One way is civilized, is that it? I guess it's civilized to kill innocent civilians with bombs from airplanes, like we did today. No wonder they hate us!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 3/15/2006 @ 8:33 am PT...
Ricky says, let's go over to someone else's country, kill 100,000 innocent civilians, and then if they behead someone, let's kill 100,000 more! The story you point to, Ricky, doesn't even say beyond a doubt who exactly beheaded Paul Johnson. Maybe it was Iraqi Death Squads trained by the U.S., or maybe it was British intelligence dressed like Iraqi's, like they were caught red-handed doing...when the British government had to smash down the prison walls to get them out so they wouldn't tell all.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 3/15/2006 @ 9:24 am PT...
Don't even bother responding to pRicky or his hate-mongering morons. They don't have any valid arguments to offer, and only can attempt to distract from the main point.
The POINT is, our MSM is doing a "heckofa job" minimizing the DAMAGE we're doing over there, the ABUSES we're doing over there, the WAR CRIMES we're doing over there.. and trying to shit on the people suffering by insinuating that "they are only trying to get money because they were tortured".. WTF!?
These people (like pRicky and Shrubby and Rummy and the MSM whores, et. al.) are literally nuts. They figure they have some kind of right to punch you in the face for entertainment, but you don't have a right to be pissed about it (or retaliate).
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
avh
said on 3/15/2006 @ 9:36 am PT...
um i think you want to change the headline there - electrocuted means he's dead already.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
Peg C
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:03 am PT...
Absolutely vile. CNN needs to do a major house cleaning: Kyra, Soledad, etc., etc., etc.
That bombing today killed four young children, women, etc., but CNN reports that US soldiers "MAY" have captured a "foreign agent facilitator" or some such. Good God! The country is INSANE!!!
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:07 am PT...
Hmm.. seems AVH is correct.. according to the dictionary (and not common culture's use of the word), he was "severely electricly shocked", not "electrocuted"..
Perhaps we can descend into another debate about "misleading headlines" instead of staying on topic about how the MSM and Shrubby Admin is trying to minimize the tortures/abuses/war crimes going on in Military custody?
Electrocuted is one of those words that in a few years will show up in the dictionary modified to fit "common usage".
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:22 am PT...
I can't believe we don't have enough grown-up human beings in our government to have prevented this from happening in the first place, and it's even more mind-blowing that we don't even have enough to make it stop. We have a bunch of puerile sub-humans POSING as government officials instead. Might as well vote Crip or Blood... might actually get better representation that way.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:27 am PT...
electrocute i?lektr??kyo?t verb [ trans. ] (often be electrocuted) injure or kill someone by electric shock : a man was electrocuted when he switched on the Christmas tree lights.
My dictionary works fine.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:29 am PT...
The American soldiers do not have the American public's approval for this. They have dishonored the people they claim to represent.
Matter of fact the public is disgusted about it.
That is why there is double digit numbers favoring dems to replace republicans in the upcoming election.
Americans will vote out the torture mongers, war mongers, and put more peaceful and sane folk in the House and hopefully in the Senate.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:45 am PT...
Bolton the republican in the UN who has not been confirmed, but Bush appointed him anyway, voted against the U.N. Human Rights Council formation (link here).
Only 4 nations voted against this civil rights oriented council.
Guess some of the hearings in the new council could be against the US ... and could finger some Americans who are now running for congress who were there. Perhaps avoiding embarassment was the reason republicans opposed the civil rights body.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 3/15/2006 @ 10:48 am PT...
"Perhaps avoiding embarassment was the reason republicans opposed the civil rights body"
No.. they oppose it because it would mean they can't get lucrative contracts with countries that abuse their masses. It means they couldn't get rich off of killing human beings, like they like doing today.
You're right though, that at least part of the "concern" is that the U.S. would likely be slammed over some of this. But I think the Pugs are less worried about "the civilized world being pissed" and more worried about losing money.
For the slow kids in the class, here's the "general rule" :
Republican = money at all costs
Democrat = helping people is primary (for the non-comprimised Dems, not the ones in office in D.C. today)
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
avh
said on 3/15/2006 @ 11:00 am PT...
#9 - i thought i kept it brief. precision in language makes a difference. way to argue that when your ignorance is widespread enough, they'll retrofit the dictionary.
#11 - your dictionary doesn't even use complete sentences. it doesn't seem authoritative to me.
you all sicken me. you just jump on anyone who appears to criticize the article, even if it's constructive criticism. you're as bad as the people who vote for bush. good luck.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 3/15/2006 @ 11:10 am PT...
Savantster #14
Oh yeah, I forgot, republicans who have the majority in the congress, have the white house, have each and every cabinet position, and who cast the vote against the civil rights council in the UN, cannot be embarrassed.
Embarrassment is something that happens to people who are honest and have a conscience.
I am embarrassed at what the republicans are doing and I am not going to blame the dems for what the republicans are doing.
That would be a bit unjust.
It is easier and less embarrassing to blame the one who did it ... not the one who could not stop it but 'only' wanted to stop it.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 3/15/2006 @ 11:16 am PT...
Retard at #15, regarding my #9
Perhaps you are just a prick (like pRicky and the rest of the trolls that come here), or perhaps you are just trying to distract from the thread.. I don't know. But, for you to insinuate "way to argue that when your ignorance is widespread enough, they'll retrofit the dictionary." as something "pertinent to me only" is to show how much of an ass you are, and how well you ignore fact and history.
"common usage" is something that happens. For you to imply I'm "ignorant" because for the past 36 years I've heard "electrocuted" used in an non-leathal sense is to admit you don't give a shit about reality. As a bit of information for you, "fuck" was newly added to the dictionary despite it's being used for a very very long time (many decades). Does that mean the populace is "ignorant" for using a word not in the dictionary? or that the dictionary is SLOW to catch up to common language?
Your assertion that you were offering "constructive criticism" is crap given your assault on other posts/posters. You're here to incite, not offer constructive anything.
Quite amusing to me as well that you can't be bothered to capitalize any of your writing, but criticize others use of commonly accepted definitions. "you're as bad as the people who vote for bush" means we're as bad as you? not quite..
and.. the POINT is, assholes like you help Shrubby keep the focus off his war crimes, and the crimes of the soldiers abusing prisoners. I hope you're content knowing you're part of the problem over your being too anal to accept the "common definition" and feeling the need to point that out instead of showing contempt for people commiting crimes against humanity. Sleep well, troll.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 3/15/2006 @ 11:48 am PT...
But Dredd...they're fighting for our freedom!
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 3/15/2006 @ 3:04 pm PT...
AVH... Much as you might like things to hold still and adhere to some prime authority, it doesn't happen. Even if "electrocute" had not already, and long-since, come to also mean non-lethal encounters with electricity, whaddya gots ta pick at it for? Just want to come off as Erudition Incarnate? Okay. Wow! SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE ORIGINAL AND ULTIMATE DEFINITION OF "ELECTROCUTE" READS BRADBLOG! I feel so special to post here near AVH! Feel better?
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 3/15/2006 @ 7:19 pm PT...
I laugh when I see pictures of CNN bimbo-airheads. I stopped watching CNN going on about 2 months now. I'm never going to watch it again. I watch Democracy NOW!, INN Report, and Liberty News on LINK-TV & FSTV. If you do that for a while, then take a little peek back at CNN, it's absolutely ludicrous to call them a news channel. It puts it all in perspective. CNN is embarrassing, and drones don't know it. First off, there's commercials on it! Commercials during news now looks alien to me.