Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal widens; Pentagon investigating

[John Fields]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:49:52 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <vcdq90d47q8g207e40hlt4cf9qm4ads6b0@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
On Sat, 8 May 2004 18:43:21 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <gt5q90hg1qcmntov32dsv7cubvpp407l15@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

C'mon, Dyson, is that the best you can do?

Nope -- you are just silly and profane... Leftists tend to be
like that... (Hint, Rummy needs protection from people like YOU
and Usama, for example.)

---
The "discredit by association" gambit, huh, loser? You're an amateur
with delusions of adequacy.
---

Nope, your idiocy is shown by your threading debacle. (Hint this
isn't a new thread.)

---
Yawnnn...

Sidestep, make some noise and pretend the issue doesn't exist, and
maybe it'll go away.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:51:13 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <c7levp0226f@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> writes:
John Fields wrote...

Bill Sloman wrote:

John Fields is a *leftist*! This is taking being ill-informed
to ridiculous lengths.

G

I think it's not so much Dyson being mis-informed, although he
is, but his amazing definition of leftist, which encompasses
most of the western world and most of the U.S. for that matter.

Actually, lets define the 'center' as being John F. Kennedy. Given
that, I am quite centrist.

---
Fuck your "actually", which is a construct designed to give
credibility to what follows it, and fuck your attempt to force an
alignment with Kennedy's politics to yours. He was a great man and
you're shit, and the only thing which remotely ties centrism to your
beliefs is that a turd usually emanates between buttocks.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:58:14 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

There are some new 'tidbits' that it is POSSIBLE that Libya's 'nuclear'
program was actually a part of Saddams'. The structure of the program
might have been different than our weakened intelligence programs
might have surmised: it might have been an Islamist WMD program,
and not just Saddams (who was partially funding it.) (Part of
Quadaffi coming clean might have been related to that.)

---
Backpedalling, pussy?
---

It is true that there is still a high probability of an Iraq based
nuke/WMD program, but the current operating assumption for the public
would be that there wasn't on.

---
Largely due to naysayers like you who are soooo eager to come to
instant conclusions about that which they're clueless about.

--
John Fields

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> schreef in bericht
news:c7lnkb$ooq$10@news.iquest.net...

I am ONLY responding to earlier comments in the thread. Most of the
comments against the US needed to be responded.

It seems that you alone are the one that feels the greatest urge
to respond. There is no need to respond when someone posts facts,
and many of us don't respond in such cases. You OTH are so fucked
up that you need to turn over that bucket of shit of yours everytime
you feel it's either appropriate or simply because your bucket of
shit is overflowing and it's simply time to empty it. Please continue
to empty your buckets of shit here, as nobody wants to see you drown
in your own shit, which must be up to the ceiling now, no doubt.

I am waiting for your next bucket of shit, which I expect to pop
up real soon now.


--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> schreef in bericht
news:c7lo63$ooq$12@news.iquest.net...

In article <c7jks3$46e$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> writes:
What's wrong with being a draft dodger if you don't like torturing
prisoners?

Not all military need to torture -- in fact, so far the pictures
DO NOT show torture (even though there might have been torture in
other pictures.) Those pictures were disgusting and 'wrong', but
not quite torture.

A Rape would certainly be a torture (I haven't heard of that being
public yet), or eviscerating would certainly be torture, or burning
alive would also be toture. However, those horrors are definitely
in store against Americans in Iraq.

When Islamists torture Americans then the lefties do applaud and
accept it. If Americans 'haze' Islamists, then the lefties are
disgusted.

Not at all. When *extreme* Islamists do such things, the only thing
I would like to know is *why* and other than that I would like to
see such extremists to be shot in the neck, cut into litte pieces
and fed to the dogs.

This helps put the left and Islamists on the same side, and are
of similar values.

You're a nutcase, John. Please drop dead for the sake of humanity,
if you know what that means.


--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Georg Acher]

In article <c7lo63$ooq$12@news.iquest.net>,
toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) writes:
|> In article <c7jks3$46e$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
|> "Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> writes:
|> > What's wrong with being a draft dodger if you don't like torturing
|> > prisoners?
|> >
|> Not all military need to torture -- in fact, so far the pictures
|> DO NOT show torture (even though there might have been torture in
|> other pictures.) Those pictures were disgusting and 'wrong', but
|> not quite torture.

John, you would have been a loved member in the NSDAP.

You show THE exemplary Nazi-method to make opinions and deeds look sane and
harmless (also often used by the communists): Simply re-define the meaning of
words. We've had it with "Endlösung", now there's "not quite torture".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

"Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as a means of
cruelty, intimidation, punishment or for the extraction of a confession or
information. ..."

Note the "psychological": Being naked in front of other/alien women is for a
male muslim a hard (and painful) sin.

|> A Rape would certainly be a torture (I haven't heard of that being
|> public yet), or eviscerating would certainly be torture, or burning
|> alive would also be toture. However, those horrors are definitely
|> in store against Americans in Iraq.
|>
|> When Islamists torture Americans then the lefties do applaud and

Really? For Bush&Co I would, but not for the ordinary people (including
soldiers).

|> accept it. If Americans 'haze' Islamists, then the lefties are
|> disgusted.

You have any knowledge that the tortured people were actually mostly Islamists?

Ah, btw, next word example: "haze". If you call that "haze", then the Gestapo
also only "hazed" and had a few very unlucky fatalities...

|> This helps put the left and Islamists on the same side, and are
|> of similar values.

--
Georg Acher, acher@in.tum.de
http://wwwbode.in.tum.de/~acher
"Oh no, not again !" The bowl of petunias

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 9 May 2004 17:01:55 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <c7jks3$46e$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> writes:
What's wrong with being a draft dodger if you don't like torturing
prisoners?

Not all military need to torture -- in fact, so far the pictures
DO NOT show torture (even though there might have been torture in
other pictures.) Those pictures were disgusting and 'wrong', but
not quite torture.

A Rape would certainly be a torture (I haven't heard of that being
public yet), or eviscerating would certainly be torture, or burning
alive would also be toture. However, those horrors are definitely
in store against Americans in Iraq.

When Islamists torture Americans then the lefties do applaud and
accept it. If Americans 'haze' Islamists, then the lefties are
disgusted.

This helps put the left and Islamists on the same side, and are
of similar values.

---
Since you claim to "embrace" several religions, (while, admittedly,
practicing none) you should have become exposed to the belief that,
for some, being forced to appear nude in public is torturous. Your
attempts to excuse the torturers by likening their actions to hazing
is typical of the double standard cowards like you maintain in order
to distance yourselves from the responsibility you should bear for
your irresponsible words and deeds.

--
John Fields

 

[Openslather]

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<c7lo63$ooq$12@news.iquest.net>...

In article <c7jks3$46e$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> writes:
What's wrong with being a draft dodger if you don't like torturing
prisoners?

Not all military need to torture -- in fact, so far the pictures
DO NOT show torture (even though there might have been torture in
other pictures.) Those pictures were disgusting and 'wrong', but
not quite torture.

A Rape would certainly be a torture (I haven't heard of that being
public yet), or eviscerating would certainly be torture, or burning
alive would also be toture. However, those horrors are definitely
in store against Americans in Iraq.

When Islamists torture Americans then the lefties do applaud and
accept it. If Americans 'haze' Islamists, then the lefties are
disgusted.

This helps put the left and Islamists on the same side, and are
of similar values.

John

Um, John-

"CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment


Part I
Article 1


For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a
third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he
or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed,
or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is
inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only
from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Oh, and Part I Article 2-

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a
threat or war, internal political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

I think there is a pretty good argument that the acts depicted in the
photographs released so far constituted torture within the definition
in Part I Article 1. Call it subjective and emotive if you will.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message news:<kcls90l2fvb4iflvkuevovb2gk3b2t7njt@4ax.com>...

On 8 May 2004 19:48:49 -0700, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

John Fields is a *leftist*! This is taking being ill-informed to
ridiculous lengths.

FFS, Bill; *everybody's* a *rightist* from your PoV. I'll wager you're
a huge admirer of Joe Stalin if the truth be known. Come on! Let's
have it! I've met your type before...

You just lost your wager. Read Martin Amis's "Korba the Dread" ISBN
0-099-43802 for a fair and balanced appreciation of the creep. Lenin
was a pretty nasty piece of work, like most of the old Bolsheviks, but
Stalin was truly appalling.

For a close-up on Lenin and his colleagues, read "Memoirs of a
Revolutionary" by Victor Serge, ISBN: 0877458278. This is the edition
of offer from Amazon, not the one I read back in 1980. I wasn't
exactly pro-Bolshevik before I read it, either.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Rich Grise]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:1dus90d596ck7551fds4uoru9rpd0jt9ev@4ax.com...

Since you claim to "embrace" several religions, (while, admittedly,
practicing none) you should have become exposed to the belief that,
for some, being forced to appear nude in public is torturous. Your
attempts to excuse the torturers by likening their actions to hazing
is typical of the double standard cowards like you maintain in order
to distance yourselves from the responsibility you should bear for
your irresponsible words and deeds.

Freakin' Weird! Fields is actually _RIGHT_!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Dbowey]

bemelman posted, in part:

<< "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> schreef in bericht
news:c7lnkb$ooq$10@news.iquest.net...

I am ONLY responding to earlier comments in the thread. Most of the
comments against the US needed to be responded.

It seems that you alone are the one that feels the greatest urge to respond.
There is no need to respond when someone posts facts, and many of us don't
respond in such cases. .... >>

---

There is no need for one to respond, either, when someone posts bullshit. You
should make no assumption of agreement when someone does not respond to a post.
Some of us do not suffer fools easily, and choose to let it wander off into
the internet wasteland.

 

[Bill Sloman]

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<c7lnkb$ooq$10@news.iquest.net>...

In article <7e9q90h9rbcnn0p3i2pligg7plehqja9o0@4ax.com>,
Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> writes:
On Sat, 8 May 2004 16:42:01 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

Rest of your off CONTINUED topic nonsense elided...
I kept the nonsense below for reference .

John, John, John... None of the stuff you're posting here appears to
have any relevance to electronics at all. Give it a rest, eh? Thanks.

I am ONLY responding to earlier comments in the thread. Most of the
comments against the US needed to be responded.

(Note that I am NOT creating new threads -- per the idiots claims,
but only changing the subject line. The threading mechanism in proper
netnews readers is orthogonal.)

So the Google Groups newsreader is not a proper news reader, by your
definition, and the Internet Explorer 6.00.2800.1123 newsreader is. I
can't say that I trust you or Bill Gates, and I can't be bothered
firing up my Linux partition to see what Mozarilla does.

Independent of the definition of a thread which has been implemented
in your favourite newsreader, your habit of veering off the original
subject of thread to pursue your own interests strikes me as
effectively creating a new thread, an impression which you reinforce
by changing the subject line as well as the content.

Only a bureaucratic idiot would claim that the threading mechanism was
more significant than the human-readable content.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 09 May 2004 22:31:11 GMT, "Rich Grise" <null@example.net>
wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:1dus90d596ck7551fds4uoru9rpd0jt9ev@4ax.com...

Since you claim to "embrace" several religions, (while, admittedly,
practicing none) you should have become exposed to the belief that,
for some, being forced to appear nude in public is torturous. Your
attempts to excuse the torturers by likening their actions to hazing
is typical of the double standard cowards like you maintain in order
to distance yourselves from the responsibility you should bear for
your irresponsible words and deeds.

Freakin' Weird! Fields is actually _RIGHT_!

---
Well, I can't argue with _that_!

--
John Fields

 

[Winfield Hill]

John S. Dyson wrote...

Actually, lets define the 'center' as being John F. Kennedy. Given
that, I am quite centrist. This would be far right for you.

As usual, Dyson's lies and utter crap. He doesn't have a clue.

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

 

[Bill Sloman]

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<c7m929$ufh$1@news.iquest.net>...

In article <bbss90h2eiji6kr3hc01i60ooqjg9mfm6v@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:49:52 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <vcdq90d47q8g207e40hlt4cf9qm4ads6b0@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
On Sat, 8 May 2004 18:43:21 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <gt5q90hg1qcmntov32dsv7cubvpp407l15@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

<snip>

Nope, just answering your claim... Unlike you, I watched all of the
hearings a few days ago, and saw the vehemence had hatred of the
leftist anti-Rumsfeld idiots. They don't seem very stable. Again,
not watching/reading/seeing the facts, I understand your lack of
perspective.

Interesting that you saw "vehemence and hatred" in the attitude of the
people questioning Rumsfeld. This says more about your partisan point
of view (and lack of perspective) than it does about their attitude.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht
news:u5ht905th60q9mqmqlv4iuvruqma39k2sm@4ax.com...

On Sun, 09 May 2004 22:31:11 GMT, "Rich Grise" <null@example.net
wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:1dus90d596ck7551fds4uoru9rpd0jt9ev@4ax.com...

Since you claim to "embrace" several religions, (while, admittedly,
practicing none) you should have become exposed to the belief that,
for some, being forced to appear nude in public is torturous. Your
attempts to excuse the torturers by likening their actions to hazing
is typical of the double standard cowards like you maintain in order
to distance yourselves from the responsibility you should bear for
your irresponsible words and deeds.

Freakin' Weird! Fields is actually _RIGHT_!

---
Well, I can't argue with _that_!

--

You're not left-handed I hope

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Richard Henry wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:409E3EF8.30306@nospam.com...


I call this dodging and especially so when it pertains to any individual
who aspires to the Presidency. The illegal activities are called
evasion- things like fleeing to Canada, falsifying medical records, and
so forth.


Sometimes all you have to do is put an envelope with your name on it at the
bottom of a big pile of trash.

Well- I never got that Selective Service number- could not wait to get
into combat and enlisted at age 17- but then I screwed up and got some
ridiculous top percentile on the intelligence test and was never
assigned a combat occupational specialty- sometimes you just can't get
killed no matter how hard you try...

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <c7mhl80246j@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote...

Actually, lets define the 'center' as being John F. Kennedy. Given
that, I am quite centrist. This would be far right for you.

As usual, Dyson's lies and utter crap. He doesn't have a clue.

As usual, you have to editorialize about someone who is quite

centrist -- but centrism offends you. Remember: John F Kennedy did
tend to be interventionist. John F. Kennedy was indeed a
good warrior (unlike Kerry, who didn't even appear to deserve
one of his purple hearts -- self inflicted wound, and also his
commanders don't like him for president.) John F. Kennedy was
worried about Communism (like Bush is worried about Islamists).
Kennedy was idealistic and seemed to be driven by something other
than personal ego. Kerry is apparently a gigalo, and is apparently
100% ego driven (have you ever seen Kerry appear to lose a little
control, but not quite that of some other Demons...)

Instead, Kerry acts like he'd prefer to cede alot of sovereignty
to the UN, and seems to embrace the worst in humanity. His own
ongoing prevarication make him inelegible to be president
(remember his commanding officers don't like Kerry as president,
even though some had supported him for Senator!!!)

Alas, the truth really does bother you. If reading your book
(which is mostly redundant for me), I would think about draft
dodging, Saddam supporting anti-US hatred, leftist idiot. That
truth doesn't make me hate you, but causes me to pity you. For
being able to obviously otherwise think, you seem to have an
empty spot in politics (either Democrat/leftist/wierdo bias
out of control, or just incompetency.)

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <1dus90d596ck7551fds4uoru9rpd0jt9ev@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

On Sun, 9 May 2004 17:01:55 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <c7jks3$46e$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> writes:
What's wrong with being a draft dodger if you don't like torturing
prisoners?

Not all military need to torture -- in fact, so far the pictures
DO NOT show torture (even though there might have been torture in
other pictures.) Those pictures were disgusting and 'wrong', but
not quite torture.

A Rape would certainly be a torture (I haven't heard of that being
public yet), or eviscerating would certainly be torture, or burning
alive would also be toture. However, those horrors are definitely
in store against Americans in Iraq.

When Islamists torture Americans then the lefties do applaud and
accept it. If Americans 'haze' Islamists, then the lefties are
disgusted.

This helps put the left and Islamists on the same side, and are
of similar values.

---
Since you claim to "embrace" several religions, (while, admittedly,
practicing none) you should have become exposed to the belief that,
for some, being forced to appear nude in public is torturous.

(Your comment about 'religion' isn't quite correct -- it is more

of a cultural thing in this context -- read further.)

Where is your outrage for the recent, horrible head removal? Hint:
you don't care, he was a young 24yr old American, right? Why
not publically remove his clothes and embarass him sexually? Geesh,
maybe because it isn't really heinous torture?

Chopping off heads is much more torturous. It is worse when people
on YOUR (John Fields) side applaud (certainly don't publically
complain or condemn) the public murders and burnings,
but are relatively more offended by essentially an embarassing
nude hazing. Even if the discomfort was extreme, it was made
more extreme by exposing the pictures. (Thank you CBS for the
delay that gave the recent head removal victim an extra 2wks of
life.) Embarassing pictures are much worse when they are
released. It is really bad when there are current potential
victims who will MORE LIKELY be killed, instead of waiting until
the situation settles down. The CBS (leftist) scoop was well
worth the several lifes that it will cost.

Note that fear of nudity is actually more cultural than
religious (e.g. the use of the head/body covers for women
isn't really necessary to the extent often done.)
You are confusing 'embarassment' and 'loss of face' with
torture. Perhaps your idea of torture is quite adjustable,
whether or not you embrace the Islamists or Saddam Fedayeen
and hate the US or not? Remove your own emotional biases, and
think about the relative amounts of torture...

Hey, the kids (including perhaps up to 1star who let it happen,
incompetenly, and the MI Colonel) who perpetrated the wrongful
deeds, will be punished. On the other hand, there are individuals
(like John Fields) who doesn't protest the murder of very
innocent Americans (the recent 24yr old whose head was removed,
slowly and painfully.) (For more specifics wrt my references of
the individuals, most info is in the public now -- just look it up.)

Where is European outrage about the killing of Americans? Nowhere,
because of the historical lack of respect for American life,
and lack of Eurotrash respect for American life is one reason why Americans
shouldn't be sovereign...

Please provide any significant information in the European (even
British) press (not the general centrist or right wing, but the
big time complainers instead) where it is on the front page, and
great outrage being professed...

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <bbss90h2eiji6kr3hc01i60ooqjg9mfm6v@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:49:52 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <vcdq90d47q8g207e40hlt4cf9qm4ads6b0@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
On Sat, 8 May 2004 18:43:21 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <gt5q90hg1qcmntov32dsv7cubvpp407l15@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:

C'mon, Dyson, is that the best you can do?

Nope -- you are just silly and profane... Leftists tend to be
like that... (Hint, Rummy needs protection from people like YOU
and Usama, for example.)

---
The "discredit by association" gambit, huh, loser? You're an amateur
with delusions of adequacy.
---

Nope, your idiocy is shown by your threading debacle. (Hint this
isn't a new thread.)

---
Yawnnn...

Sidestep, make some noise and pretend the issue doesn't exist, and
maybe it'll go away.

Nope, just answering your claim... Unlike you, I watched all of the

hearings a few days ago, and saw the vehemence had hatred of the
leftist anti-Rumsfeld idiots. They don't seem very stable. Again,
not watching/reading/seeing the facts, I understand your lack of
perspective.

John