I agree with you that posting the pictures can show your point better than words can. The thing is that a few times it was in response to a question about what the generals thought about torture, or whether anyone in the interigation field thought it worked. There's a difference in showing torture in a newsworthy fashion and spamming pictures of torture and death.Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I don't doubt that some of those involved did enjoy the torture, just as there was a porn ring sceme to trade pictures of the Iraqi war dead for porn. But that doesn't mean everyone enjoyed doing those things. Just that there are some sickos who do.
I understand that torture pictures are going to be nasty. But I also understand that some people read EOFF while eating their Cheerios, and I don't think they should be made to puke.all pictures of torture are going to be nasty and i choose the ones that i though suitable. there are some truly horrific ones out there that i didn't show. what i posted could have been seen on any 6 o'clock news.
the most horrific thing is not the pictures but the things that were not shown. the rape. the events in the salt pit and baghram. the burning and sodomy with chemical lights. that is the shocking stuff.
but having it visual makes it clearer.
And I could find horrible pictures of maimed soldiers if I'd wanted to. I saw a picture of a suicide bomber literally blown in half by his own bomb. I've seen pictures of Iraqis with their heads blown open and their brains leaking out. And there are hundreds of those out there.
like these:
Definitely far, far to graphic. --foa