This is topic American Soldiers Trade "Hajji" Corpse Photos for Porn in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/7336.html

Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
In related news, there has been a growing "Iraqi Corpses for Porn" scandal brewing within the military as American soldiers have been trading grisly photos of Iraqi and Afghani dead corpses in exchange for access to online porn. Needless to say, that's a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2005/09/the_next_abu_gh.html

quote:
In a couple of places, the Geneva Conventions forbid the ill-treatment of enemy dead and require respect for their remains. (Specifically, Articles 15 and 17 of the First Geneva Convention and Article 34 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.)

Respect for remains means, among other things, preventing the remains from being despoiled and from being exposed to public curiosity.

At this website, which in the last hour seems to have (temporarily?) gone belly-up,** U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are encouraged to send in gory pictures of dead enemy soldiers.

And they do. Lots and lots of them.

Why? So that they can get free access to pornography.

Here's the invitation the site issues to American soldiers: http://www.nowthats****edup.com/bbs/ftopic4805.html:

quote:
"If you are a U.S. Soldier stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other combat area and would like free SUPPORTER access for the site, you can post real pictures you or your buddies have taken while you have been deployed.

This section is for the gory ones so that people who do not wish to see that kind of stuff can just not go in here. I also do not want already published pictures that were taken by news people. This is supposed to be an area where we can see pictures posted by the solders themselves.

Just post your pics like you normally would and when I see them I will approve you for free access to the wife and g/f area. There have only been a few people cheat from this but I do now know what kind of pics to expect from the guys over there. So please do not waste my time if you are not a military person by just posting iraq pics you found on CNN or something."

Note that the site only wants photos of enemy dead.

http://www.nowthats****edup.com/bbs/sutra523545.html#523545)

You don't get your free porn if you post a photo of a dead American, and they take the pictures down as quickly as they can.

quote:
"This site will not let pics of our dead or wounded be posted here. That is watched very close, and if someone did sneak one in, just PM a mod and they will get it taken off right away."
I did not have the stomach to check out more than two of the photos, and even those two I looked away from almost immediately. (It seems, though, that there's a lot of this sort of thing going around: U.S. soldiers are making a regular practice of filming and photographing enemy corpses and sharing the images with each other, their friends, and their families.)

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-roug150305.htm

If publishing photos of dead enemy soldiers on the web in order to get free porn is not disrespecting their remains and "exposing them to public curiosity," I do not know what is.

Is this the next Abu Ghraib?

**UPDATE: At 9:15 p.m. Eastern, the site is now up again, but in case it goes back down, I've got a cache of the picture forum index page here.

http://www.isthatlegal.org/images/forum23.html


Meanwhile, the Rumsfeld Pentagon has already finished its whitewash investigation and determined that the sale of Iraqi and Afghani dead corpses by American soldiers to porn websites in order to get free access to online porn is obviously not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

"U.S. Army ends probe on porn site photos of Iraq corpses"

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28310515.htm

quote:
The numerous graphic pictures posted on the Web site showed men, with their faces visible and wearing what looked like U.S. military uniforms, standing over a charred corpse, mutilated dead bodies and severed body parts.

The porn Web site states the photos were provided by troops in Iraq as well as Afghanistan in order to get free access to its sexual images. Many of the photos, still posted on the site, are accompanied by captions making light of the corpses; for example one photo of a charred body was dubbed "Cooked Iraqi."

[...]

The Army Criminal Investigation Command in Iraq conducted the preliminary inquiry within the past week but closed it after concluding no felony crime had been committed and failing to determine whether U.S. soldiers were responsible for the photos and whether they showed actual war dead, Army officials said.
Col. Joe Curtin, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said there currently was no formal investigation into the matter.

Huh? Come again? Is there some standard for human decency and respect within the Pentagon? Or has the dignity and honor of the U.S. military just become the most recent casualty of the incompetent neoconservatives at the Pentagon?

[ September 29, 2005, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
As the old saying goes, necrophilia means never having to say you're sorry. [Smile]

Apparently the Pentagon agrees. [Eek!]
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
I'm creeped out by the conflation of sex and violence that seems fairly unique to the current Iraq conflict.

Naked dog-piles, sodomy, "simulated sex" -- all tastefully photographed. The 82nd Airborne refered to beating prisoners as "f*cking" them. Not, notice, the normal idiom "f*cking up" -- just "f*cking".

Some creepy sh*t is going to go down when these guys come back home.

[ September 29, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
failing to determine whether U.S. soldiers were responsible for the photos
[slaps David for being oblivious to what he's posting]

quote:
failing to determine whether U.S. soldiers were responsible for the photos
Clue: if the Pentagon's investigation says: we see no evidence that US soldiers are responsible for these photos, that's not a statement of approval. If you have evidence that actual US soldiers took or shared these photos, then you might make a coherent argument that the Pentagon is being lax.

You irresponsible wolf-cryers make the world safe for the real wolves. Part of the reason that some Americans think they can get away with torture and inhumane treatment is that certain fools have muddied the field with unsubstantiated hysterical public accusations.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Part of the reason that some Americans think they can get away with torture and inhumane treatment is that certain fools have muddied the field with unsubstantiated hysterical public accusations.
Pete, are you really saying this is the causative relationship? Really?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Part of the reason" is *a* causative relationship, but not *the* causative relationship.

Do you disagree that one of the main reasons that people commit these atrocities is because THEY THINK THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH THEM?

All I'm saying is that a flurry of wolf-crying (unsupported, careless, and blatantly politically motivated accusations of atrocities), helps to create an environment where people think they can get away with committing real atrocities. Consider the flurry of British and French propaganda about German atrocities in WWI. False propaganda, but many of the stories became true in WWII, when Germans began to do many of the things that their predecessors had been falsely accused of.

The commandment "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" has a really secular application. False allegations not only create an atmosphere of falsehood, and stain the reputations and threaten the freedom of the innocent; they create an environment where the crime alleged is more conceivable, and thus easier to get away with.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Do you disagree that one of the main reasons that people commit these atrocities is because THEY THINK THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH THEM?

No, I disagree that the reason "THEY THINK THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH THEM" has much to do with U.S. coverage.

I'd bet money that cooks standing in line to "f*ck a PUC" on liberty didn't run through some sort of cost/benefits analysis of their behavior that hinged on "Operation Tailwind distracted people for a week; I'll get away with sodomozing this guy!".

quote:
All I'm saying is that a flurry of wolf-crying (unsupported, careless, and blatantly politically motivated accusations of atrocities), helps to create an environment where people think they can get away with committing real atrocities.
Who is "crying wolf"? What false accusations have been made?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

Do you disagree that one of the main reasons that people commit these atrocities is because THEY THINK THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH THEM?

So the real culprit here is the ability to submit pictures to a website anonymously?
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1