Is there a woman alive more willfully obtuse than Lynndie England?

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=mhendo]
Now that Weirddave has, is his depressingly finite wisdom, informed us that there was no torture after all, i guess this thread is moot. :rolleyes:

Of course, if he had actually read some reporting on the issue, and some of the statements (pdf) made by some soldiers, he would know that the treatment at Abu Ghraib included routine beatings, sleep deprivation, having cigarettes put out on their ears, and other techniques designed to inflict physical pain and psychological terror on the prisoners.

This information is readily available to anyone who actually cares enough to look. The fact that he chooses to focus on the most lenient possible interpretation of a few particular images, and to discount all subsequent and supplementary information about Abu Ghraib, suggests that he might not be the most reliable person to ask when looking for the distinction between abuse and torture.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say any such thing at all you lying sack of shit. As usual, you’re attributing a position to me that I did not make and attacking it. If you can find anywhere in that post where I said that torture did not occur at Abu Ghraib, quote it. Otherwise, shut your fat fucking lying mouth.

But hey, WRT the rest of your post, thank you for proving my point. Idiot.

62

Don’t worry about it, Weirddave - within twenty posts, the Usual Suspects will be saying that you claimed that there was no torture at Abu Gharib, but that there should have been.

Followed by “why do you hate America”, and “Clinton was impeached for a blowjob”. We won’t get to “Bush is going to cancel the elections” for a couple more months.

Regards,
Shodan

63

Weirddave is correct- if one of your friends said some cop made her and some friends strip nude and get in a pyramid, or that he led her around by a leash, no one would call it torture- abuse absolutely 100%.

64

[QUOTE=mhendo]
This information is readily available to anyone who actually cares enough to look. The fact that he chooses to focus on the most lenient possible interpretation of a few particular images, and to discount all subsequent and supplementary information about Abu Ghraib, suggests that he might not be the most reliable person to ask when looking for the distinction between abuse and torture.
[/QUOTE]

The most terrible images from Abu Ghraib have never been made available to the public, although they were made available to members of Congress. Why? Because some of them violated US obscenity laws, especially video of an Iraqi boy being anally raped.

From a speech by Seymour Hirsch:

Inevitably, some wing-nut will repeat ad homin attacks against Hirsch about My Lai. But have they got anything more recent? Any examples of his reporting being inaccurate within, say, the last decade?

65

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
What occurred at Abu Ghraib was about 90% abuse and maybe 10% torture.
[/QUOTE]
How are you so certain? All I know is I saw some pictures of abuse and I know that the government is holding back a lot more information. For all I know it was 90% torture and 10% abuse. The abuse was a nice light hearted break for the poor saps. We do know from photographic evidence that one guy was on ice, but we don’t know how he ended up that way.

66

[QUOTE=gaffa]
The most terrible images from Abu Ghraib have never been made available to the public, although they were made available to members of Congress. Why? Because some of them violated US obscenity laws, especially video of an Iraqi boy being anally raped.
[/QUOTE]

This is something I wondered about, because I distinctly (or at least murkily) remembered some grave-faced comments by elected officials that I’m pretty sure included phrases like “tip of the iceberg,” and “when this all gets out,” and the like, and then… and then… nothing. A mysterious dissipation, after strong insinuations that what was to come would indeed make the pyramid-stacking and mock electrocution seem like the harmless buffoonery that fecocephalics like Rush Limbaugh all along portrayed it to be.

I think of that when even now, I hear some wink and shrug and suggest it’s nonsense, a storm in a teacup, partisan hooey, typical liberal hate-America stuff at its base—shenanigans, sure, but not torture, something we’d never condone.

67

Leave Lyndie Alone ! You’re lucky she performed for you bastards ! Leave her alone!

68

[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
Why is Maya Angelou more willfully obtuse than Lynndie Englund?
[/QUOTE]

I’m still waiting to hear an answer to this one.

69

[QUOTE=NurseCarmen]
How are you so certain? All I know is I saw some pictures of abuse and I know that the government is holding back a lot more information. For all I know it was 90% torture and 10% abuse. The abuse was a nice light hearted break for the poor saps. We do know from photographic evidence that one guy was on ice, but we don’t know how he ended up that way.
[/QUOTE]

Good for you, NurseCarmen, unfortunately, mhendo erred by saying ‘no abuse’ vs. the actual quote, which allowed dave to go into one of his little feet stamping things we all cherish so deeply, while ignoring the real issue.

What I recall from the time was folks like Lindsey Graham, (R) who had seen all of the photos being very disturbed. THe inference at the time was that the photos showed the tip of the iceberg.

So, what we have are a bunch of photos showing bad stuff. Abuse certainly. Some of the photos allude to torture (the stress positions for example). And we also know that we only saw some of the pictures, folks at the time said the others were much much worse. Then, of course, I assume that the photographic evidence is less than the actual number of events, unless you believe that absolutely every time that the prisoners were mistreated some one was handy w/a camera for posterity (I find that impossible to believe).

So, where does dave come up w/his percentage? Hmm??

70

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Followed by “why do you hate America”, and “Clinton was impeached for a blowjob”. We won’t get to “Bush is going to cancel the elections” for a couple more months.
[/QUOTE]
Can somebody take a look and see if the Shobot needs to be recalibrated? It’s starting to repeat itself more than usual.

71

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Ask ten friends what they know of her background, and if all ten don’t say pretty much the same thing I did, I recommend smarter friends.

[/quote]

I finally got tired of waiting, and looked her up on Wiki, didn’t find a damned thing to prove your claims. And the only google results for “Lynndie England iq” tend to be smartass remarks. Gee, I can’t IMAGINE why you weren’t too eager to provide cites!

Which friends?

BTW, if people from Tennesee are such hicks, what about
Kathy Bates?
Johnny Cash?
Aretha Franklin?
Morgan Freeman?
Al Gore?
Alex Haley?
Samuel L. Jackson?
Dolly Parton?
Annie Potts?
Patricia Neal?
Cybill Shepherd?
Quentin Tarantino?
Tina Turner?
Oprah Winfrey?
Reese Witherspoon?
Alvin York?
Bessie Smith?
Dinah Shore?

If you’re going to make claims about people based on their homes, perhaps you might want to check out the above.

72

[QUOTE=wring]
Good for you, NurseCarmen, unfortunately, mhendo erred by saying ‘no abuse’ vs. the actual quote, which allowed dave to go into one of his little feet stamping things we all cherish so deeply, while ignoring the real issue.

What I recall from the time was folks like Lindsey Graham, (R) who had seen all of the photos being very disturbed. THe inference at the time was that the photos showed the tip of the iceberg.

So, what we have are a bunch of photos showing bad stuff. Abuse certainly. Some of the photos allude to torture (the stress positions for example). And we also know that we only saw some of the pictures, folks at the time said the others were much much worse. Then, of course, I assume that the photographic evidence is less than the actual number of events, unless you believe that absolutely every time that the prisoners were mistreated some one was handy w/a camera for posterity (I find that impossible to believe).

So, where does dave come up w/his percentage? Hmm??
[/QUOTE]

I see. So, instead of discussing the point I raised, you’re going to discount my post because (IYO)I got the percentages(that I just came up with off the top of my head after thinking for a minute about the evidence that I’ve seen WRT Abu Gharib) wrong. If it turns out that the ratio of abuse to torture was 80/20 or 75/25 or 50/49 with one percent of the people getting blowjobs, then of course it justifies you completely dismissing my post so you don’t have to discuss the substance of it. Typical.

73

Oprah is from Mississippi IIRC and yeah, pretty much all the rest of those on your list would be considered yokels, some (Parton and Cash among others) proudly. Most went to the big city and got civilized though. And your argument is pointless as I never said anything anywhere close to ‘all people born in the South are mildly retarded inbred hicks’, I said this girl is- jesus have you looked at picture of her? And I was born in the armpit of the South as well.

74

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I see. So, instead of discussing the point I raised, you’re going to discount my post because (IYO)I got the percentages(that I just came up with off the top of my head after thinking for a minute about the evidence that I’ve seen WRT Abu Gharib) wrong. If it turns out that the ratio of abuse to torture was 80/20 or 75/25 or 50/49 with one percent of the people getting blowjobs, then of course it justifies you completely dismissing my post so you don’t have to discuss the substance of it. Typical.
[/QUOTE]

REally what is typical is that you took a number out of your ass and won’t fess up when called on it, twice.

And, the fact that there was torture at all is significant and real and shouldn’t be dismissed with your hand waving about percentages that you pulled out of your ass. The fact that many of the photos that were released allowed assholes like Rush to focus on the abuse vs. the torture is another real tragedy.

Your ‘point’ seemed to be that the press overplayed the photos, and talked of torture. You make the same error that Rush et al did (not surprising) that is, that it was claimed that each of the photos represented torture, and that the released pictures somehow are representative of the sort of thing that went on. I doubt that either point is true.

Folks who saw all photos remarked at the time, that the rest were **much much ** worse (the aforementioned Sen. Graham in particular IIRC). And, of course, my contention that it’s pretty fucking unlikley that all abuse/torture was photographed. So, what you have is a small assortment of photos, which showed some abuse, and some torture. I contend that we also have reason to believe that much more went on than was photographed, and that the released photos are skewed towards the much less significant abuses vs. the more significant abuses and /or torture.
So, any chance at all that you’ll come up with some rationale for your percentage?

75

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
In GD, asking for cites of well-known facts, statistics, etc., is a tactic for derailing an argument. In the Pit, who knows?
[/QUOTE]

Or ascertaining facts not in evidence? Or, if cites be available, strengthening an argument.

76

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
then of course it justifies you completely dismissing my post so you don’t have to discuss the substance of it. Typical.
[/QUOTE]
It would seem to me that

was a pretty substantive part of your post. Why do you take offense that you have been called on it?

77

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Oprah is from Mississippi IIRC and yeah, pretty much all the rest of those on your list would be considered yokels, some (Parton and Cash among others) proudly. Most went to the big city and got civilized though. And your argument is pointless as I never said anything anywhere close to ‘all people born in the South are mildly retarded inbred hicks’, I said this girl is- jesus have you looked at picture of her? And I was born in the armpit of the South as well.
[/QUOTE]

Again, prove that she is truly retarded, besides “look at her.”

78

[QUOTE=NurseCarmen]
It would seem to me that was a pretty substantive part of your post. Why do you take offense that you have been called on it?
[/QUOTE]

Twice.

79

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Again, prove that she is truly retarded, besides “look at her.”
[/QUOTE]

Ok, from Odog69 posting on the fuckdubya.com website on November 27. 2005- quote:

“Lynndie England, just look at the fucking bitch, goddamn she’s gotta be retarded or something, right?”

But seriously, Ok since you appear to be internet challenged-

Poor- from indyorg.com-
England grew up in a trailer down a dirt road behind a saloon and a sheep farm in Fort Ashby, W.Va., a one-stoplight town about 13 miles south of Cumberland.

Mildly retarded- from her child psychologist-

“It is my opinion that Lynndie England carries with her an immense amount of baggage,” said Thomas Dene, a school psychologist who knew her from when she was 4 years old. “Lynndie England has a very complex language-processing dysfunction.”
Surely you got the born in Kentucky, raised in W Va. from the Wikipedia article you read. That leaves hick which is not something that can be proven per se, but I’d say someone who grew shooting turkey, wearing camoflauge to school, lived in a trailer on a dirt road in W. Va., would meet most people’s definitions of hick, no offense to anyone here.

As for the inbred part- well I wasn’t at her conception, so I can’t say for certain, but it would explain a lot.

ETA: from talk left.com-

*A military jury has begun hearing evidence in the sentencing phase of FPC Lynndie England’s abuse trial. The prosecution called no witnesses. The defense case began with a doctor who testified England was cognitively impaired due to oxygen deprivation at birth. Her problems, which include speech impairment and reading disability, were diagnosed in kindergarten.

“I knew I was going to know Lynndie England for the rest of my life,” West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas Denne said.*

80

Thank you-now was that REALLY so hard to provide?