Page 1 of 1
New Abu Ghraib Photos Released
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:32 am
by Foo
Warning: Graphic Content. Nudity censored but violence left untamed. God bless America.
Tonight the SBS Dateline program plans to broadcast about 60 previously unpublished photographs that the US Government has been fighting to keep secret in a court case with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Although a US judge last year granted the union access to the photographs following a freedom-of-information request, the US Administration has appealed against the decision on the grounds their release would fuel anti-American sentiment.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/14/183059/640
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:39 am
by andyman
what happens now?
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:41 am
by Foo
I go to bed.
Then probably some drama and shit
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:51 am
by Guest
bhadhakalah-drah
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:55 am
by eepberries
`,｜ /
,. -‐‐‐‐-- ､ ／＼～～* ―
／ ○ ＼／ / | '
/ ／ ＼ ０ }
l <BOMB> l
{. ＼ ／ |
{ MOHAMMED .}
＼ ／￣￣ ＼ ,;■
/┗┓| |┏┛＼▲■■
▲≪・≫ ≪・≫ ▼■
■ / | ■■
■ ■■■ ■■
■■+++++■■■■
■■■■■■■
■■■■■▼
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:05 am
by Giraffe }{unter
durka durka durka durk
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:48 am
by Freakaloin
doombrain or whatever that kooks name is is getting off to this shit...
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:51 am
by JulesWinnfield
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:31 pm
by Freakaloin
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:39 pm
by Doombrain
fake
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:42 pm
by Freakaloin
yeah...ur dad doesn't really have 3 balls...
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:11 pm
by R00k
Funny Reuters is running this now. According to the Australian news, American media outlets have had these pictures for quite a while - they don't know why we haven't published them before.
It's strange how they are billing these as worse than the original Abu Ghraib photos too. They are a little worse than the original ones, but not quite as bad as some are making them out to be. Remember when Seymour Hersh said there were pictures and videos of young boys being sodomized and such? Those are the ones the Pentagon didn't want to release.
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:34 pm
by saibot
eepberries wrote: `,｜ /
,. -‐‐‐‐-- ､ ／＼～～* ―
／ ○ ＼／ / | '
/ ／ ＼ ０ }
l <BOMB> l
{. ＼ ／ |
{ MOHAMMED .}
＼ ／￣￣ ＼ ,;■
/┗┓| |┏┛＼▲■■
▲≪・≫ ≪・≫ ▼■
■ / | ■■
■ ■■■ ■■
■■+++++■■■■
■■■■■■■
■■■■■▼
could someone tell me what the hell this shit means?
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:40 pm
by Foo
R00k wrote:It's strange how they are billing these as worse than the original Abu Ghraib photos too. They are a little worse than the original ones, but not quite as bad as some are making them out to be. Remember when Seymour Hersh said there were pictures and videos of young boys being sodomized and such? Those are the ones the Pentagon didn't want to release.
These aren't exhaustive, the papers are still afraid to release the truly graphic images. Apparently they have them, though.
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:52 pm
by R00k
Oh. In that case, releasing these as the 'bad' ones only makes it look like these were the worst things that happened at Abu Ghraib. Which is the exact opposite of what they are claiming to do.
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:54 pm
by eepberries
saibot wrote:eepberries wrote: `,｜ /
,. -‐‐‐‐-- ､ ／＼～～* ―
／ ○ ＼／ / | '
/ ／ ＼ ０ }
l <BOMB> l
{. ＼ ／ |
{ MOHAMMED .}
＼ ／￣￣ ＼ ,;■
/┗┓| |┏┛＼▲■■
▲≪・≫ ≪・≫ ▼■
■ / | ■■
■ ■■■ ■■
■■+++++■■■■
■■■■■■■
■■■■■▼
could someone tell me what the hell this shit means?
lurk moar noob
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:20 pm
by Freakaloin
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:14 pm
by Doombrain
Freakaloin wrote:yeah...ur dad doesn't really have 3 balls...
NO, YOUR MOM.
