NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple!

You tackle the root of the problem.... and ban soldiers from carrying cameras! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=19&u=/afp/20040523/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_britain_us_rumsfeld_040523110749)

"Digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds in Iraq," it said, adding that a "total ban throughout the US military" is in the works.

Yep.... go for the root of the problem....

Weapons of Media Dissemination!

-Z-

WhiteHouse.org -SECRETARY RUMSFELD BRIEFS AMERICA'S FREEDOM®-CRUSADERS ON KINDER, GENTLER NEW GUIDELINES FOR INTERROGATING MAYBE-TERRORIST ISLAMIAC TRASH (http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/051504.asp)

Simple!

You tackle the root of the problem.... and ban soldiers from carrying cameras! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=19&u=/afp/20040523/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_britain_us_rumsfeld_040523110749)

"Digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds in Iraq," it said, adding that a "total ban throughout the US military" is in the works.

Yep.... go for the root of the problem....

Weapons of Media Dissemination!

-Z-
W(dubya's) Monkey Dilemna

http://www.turnonthenews.com/monkeytrio.jpg

Maybe because we can't handle the truth?

I'm sure this is all being done for our own good.

:wink:

Simple!

You tackle the root of the problem.... and ban soldiers from carrying cameras! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=19&u=/afp/20040523/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_britain_us_rumsfeld_040523110749)

"Digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds in Iraq," it said, adding that a "total ban throughout the US military" is in the works.

Yep.... go for the root of the problem....

Weapons of Media Dissemination!

-Z-

IF YOO CANT SEE IT, IT ISNT THERE

I'm sure this is all being done for our own good.

:wink:

Oh I'm sure.

Donald was just thinking about the poor children that might be exposed to these pictures on the news....

Anything for the children....

:roll:

:wink:

Nice chimps.

Nice chimps.
I think George is on the right. It is hard for him to say anything?

http://www.turnonthenews.com/monkeytrio.jpg

I'm sure this is all being done for our own good.

:wink:
That attitude is rather dependent on the assumption that the State is in all respects a benevolent entity.

Going slightly off-topic, it has always struck me as odd, how Americans manage to show such fanatical support for their government, firmly believing in its benevolence, while stockpiling assault weapons for the day it becomes a tyranny.

the best way to stop abuse is to attack it at its roots--DUMP BUSH '04!!!!

Nice chimps.
I think George is on the right. It is hard for him to say anything?

http://www.turnonthenews.com/monkeytrio.jpg

That would make Donald the one on the left... he never hears anything aparently.....

Wow. Everytime I think I've reached an anger threshold, something like this happens.

How are people able to continue to make excuses for these jackasses? What is it going to take? They flipped when a guy lied about a blowjob, gone apeshit for a bare breast...making a big show about gays and marriage..........making prisoners strip nude and..............all of a sudden it's starting to make sense........ooooohhhhhhh........please, someone get these guys the tender caress of some gentle and understanding man-love for the safety of us all...

(oddly enough this really did just occur to me while I was typing. All I was really going to say was the first line.)

Simple!

You tackle the root of the problem.... and ban soldiers from carrying cameras! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=19&u=/afp/20040523/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_britain_us_rumsfeld_040523110749)

"Digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds in Iraq," it said, adding that a "total ban throughout the US military" is in the works.

Yep.... go for the root of the problem....

Weapons of Media Dissemination!

-Z-

Nice to see a bit of logical thinking from ol' Rummie. Tackle the problem at the source. The Republican't way!

You guys are really surprised at this?

I'm surprised those guys didn't do it sooner.

You guys are really surprised at this?

I'm surprised those guys didn't do it sooner.

Suprised?

Nope. Not at all.

this administration would prefer that the people not know anything. If it had it's way, the only news you would ever see is White House press releases.

What suprises me is that so few people raise a stink about that. Perhaps it is just easier to accept ignorance than have to listen to bad news.


-Z-

What an innovative solution to the problem!! In fact I've come to expect nothing less from the Land of the 'Free' but an innovative solution like this...

Yep. We are free of the burdens of knowledge, intelligence, and responsibilty. It's great to be an American.

Iam sorry if this may insult some Americans but itmust be said.

What Idiots those yank soldiers are. If you are going to torture someone or Commit war crimes dont take photographs. Iam sure they said to themselves "Lets take pictures so we can boast about our tortures endevours." however little did the dumb shits realise that they would simply be caught. WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH THEIR MINDS.

This comment was made while in NS personality it does not represent the true beliefs of the author. OOC Well maybe a little.

But come on what was going through their heads.

Don't mean to throw a wrench into your hype here..but what is a business paper quoting the Secretary of Defense??....What newspaper is this?..the article is coming out of London?

Also cell phones signals might also be able to trigger Improvised Explosive Devices....so where is the corroboration from the Dept of Defense that the reason why thy don't want cell phones/digital cameras is becuse of damning photos?

It quotes a Pentagon source?...who..how high up the Chain of Command? Again..what business newspaper?...Seems to me you jumped on this conspiracy wagon all too soon. I've just given only one reason why I'd ban cell phones in a combat theatre of operations, there are others just as legitimate.

how compassionate we are for people who would string us up from a bridge, cut off our head and light us afire. After all, they are people too, right? I mean heck, just because they would rather cut us up in little pieces or kill masses in airplane strikes on heavily populated buildings doesn't mean we have the right for a little humiliation. What kind of animals are we anyway?

Iam sorry if this may insult some Americans but itmust be said.

What Idiots those yank soldiers are. If you are going to torture someone or Commit war crimes dont take photographs. Iam sure they said to themselves "Lets take pictures so we can boast about our tortures endevours." however little did the dumb shits realise that they would simply be caught. WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH THEIR MINDS.

This comment was made while in NS personality it does not represent the true beliefs of the author. OOC Well maybe a little.

But come on what was going through their heads.

To be fair though, the incidence of people taping themselves doing illegal things and thus providing evidence against themselves is hardly an event restricted to the US Military.

It's just too bad none of them thought to tape the times when they were receiving direction on what to be doing with the prisoners.....

Don't mean to throw a wrench into your hype here..but what is a business paper quoting the Secretary of Defense??....What newspaper is this?..the article is coming out of London?

Also cell phones signals might also be able to trigger Improvised Explosive Devices....so where is the corroboration from the Dept of Defense that the reason why thy don't want cell phones/digital cameras is becuse of damning photos?

It quotes a Pentagon source?...who..how high up the Chain of Command? Again..what business newspaper?...Seems to me you jumped on this conspiracy wagon all too soon. I've just given only one reason why I'd ban cell phones in a combat theatre of operations, there are others just as legitimate.

And the apologist has spoken once more.. :roll:

Don't mean to throw a wrench into your hype here..but what is a business paper quoting the Secretary of Defense??....What newspaper is this?..the article is coming out of London?

Also cell phones signals might also be able to trigger Improvised Explosive Devices....so where is the corroboration from the Dept of Defense that the reason why thy don't want cell phones/digital cameras is becuse of damning photos?

It quotes a Pentagon source?...who..how high up the Chain of Command? Again..what business newspaper?...Seems to me you jumped on this conspiracy wagon all too soon. I've just given only one reason why I'd ban cell phones in a combat theatre of operations, there are others just as legitimate.

And the apologist has spoken once more.. :roll:

Apologist?..No..I merely gave an alternate theory...cell phone signals will be able to explode an IED..this much is proved and a known fact in EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) circles..can you offer proof of your theory?

Salishe, save it.

Salishe, save it.

Ah..so..in answer to my request you ignore it...that's a rational discussion methodology..when penned in..you resort to blind ignorance....as much as you say I'm in willful blindness so are you in your surety that the reasons must be nefarious....I offered a valid theory..you respond with "Save it"...

how compassionate we are for people who would string us up from a bridge, cut off our head and light us afire. After all, they are people too, right? I mean heck, just because they would rather cut us up in little pieces or kill masses in airplane strikes on heavily populated buildings doesn't mean we have the right for a little humiliation. What kind of animals are we anyway?

Actually you don't have the right to a little humiliation. Not according to your own rules anyway. "Due process"? "Innocent until proven guilty"? "Geneva convention"? "Name and number only"? "Cruel and unusual punishment"?

You don't convince a skeptical people that you're the good guys by treating your prisoners like dirt.

Salishe, save it.

Ah..so..in answer to my request you ignore it...that's a rational discussion methodology..when penned in..you resort to blind ignorance....as much as you say I'm in willful blindness so are you in your surety that the reasons must be nefarious....I offered a valid theory..you respond with "Save it"...

Since you asked for it...


Also cell phones signals might also be able to trigger Improvised Explosive Devices....so where is the corroboration from the Dept of Defense that the reason why thy don't want cell phones/digital cameras is becuse of damning photos?

So basically you are saying you don't trust the US army. After all, the ban is for military personal only.

Basically you are saying that US soldiers are suspect in your eyes of beng potential or actual terrorists who might one day blow up the nearest military HQ with the help of their cell phone or digital camera.

Basically you are saying that you really believe that thats why the measure was implemented, because so far you have not been able to come up with another, more convincing apology.

What was that you were saying about blind ignorance?...

Again, you have 'apologist' all over you.

Salishe, save it.

Ah..so..in answer to my request you ignore it...that's a rational discussion methodology..when penned in..you resort to blind ignorance....as much as you say I'm in willful blindness so are you in your surety that the reasons must be nefarious....I offered a valid theory..you respond with "Save it"...

Since you asked for it...


Also cell phones signals might also be able to trigger Improvised Explosive Devices....so where is the corroboration from the Dept of Defense that the reason why thy don't want cell phones/digital cameras is becuse of damning photos?

So basically you are saying you don't trust the US army. After all, the ban is for military personal only.

Basically you are saying that US soldiers are suspect in your eyes of beng potential or actual terrorists who might one day blow up the nearest military HQ with the help of their cell phone or digital camera.

Basically you are saying that you really believe that thats why the measure was implemented, because so far you have not been able to come up with another, more convincing apology.

What was that you were saying about blind ignorance?...

Again, you have 'apologist' all over you.

Despite your grandiose attempt to belittle the theory...it's a sound one..I said nothing whatsover bout US military personnel..I said a cell phone signal could be used to detonate an IED..

You however have not provided one shred, other then this article from an unnamed media source with an uncorroborated Pentagon source, also unnamed....and it's first shown in an London daily?..now tell me why should I trust it?

Salishe, save it.

Ah..so..in answer to my request you ignore it...that's a rational discussion methodology..when penned in..you resort to blind ignorance....as much as you say I'm in willful blindness so are you in your surety that the reasons must be nefarious....I offered a valid theory..you respond with "Save it"...

Since you asked for it...


Also cell phones signals might also be able to trigger Improvised Explosive Devices....so where is the corroboration from the Dept of Defense that the reason why thy don't want cell phones/digital cameras is becuse of damning photos?

So basically you are saying you don't trust the US army. After all, the ban is for military personal only.

Basically you are saying that US soldiers are suspect in your eyes of beng potential or actual terrorists who might one day blow up the nearest military HQ with the help of their cell phone or digital camera.

Basically you are saying that you really believe that thats why the measure was implemented, because so far you have not been able to come up with another, more convincing apology.

What was that you were saying about blind ignorance?...

Again, you have 'apologist' all over you.

Despite your grandiose attempt to belittle the theory...it's a sound one..I said nothing whatsover bout US military personnel..I said a cell phone signal could be used to detonate an IED..

You however have not provided one shred, other then this article from an unnamed media source with an uncorroborated Pentagon source, also unnamed....and it's first shown in an London daily?..now tell me why should I trust it?

Lets for arguments sake say your little theory on cell phones is correct.. How do you explain the camera ban? Or do you think having a camera might set off those elusive WMD that don't exist... :roll:

Salishe, save it.

Ah..so..in answer to my request you ignore it...that's a rational discussion methodology..when penned in..you resort to blind ignorance....as much as you say I'm in willful blindness so are you in your surety that the reasons must be nefarious....I offered a valid theory..you respond with "Save it"...

Since you asked for it...


Also cell phones signals might also be able to trigger Improvised Explosive Devices....so where is the corroboration from the Dept of Defense that the reason why thy don't want cell phones/digital cameras is becuse of damning photos?

So basically you are saying you don't trust the US army. After all, the ban is for military personal only.

Basically you are saying that US soldiers are suspect in your eyes of beng potential or actual terrorists who might one day blow up the nearest military HQ with the help of their cell phone or digital camera.

Basically you are saying that you really believe that thats why the measure was implemented, because so far you have not been able to come up with another, more convincing apology.

What was that you were saying about blind ignorance?...

Again, you have 'apologist' all over you.

Despite your grandiose attempt to belittle the theory...it's a sound one..I said nothing whatsover bout US military personnel..I said a cell phone signal could be used to detonate an IED..

You however have not provided one shred, other then this article from an unnamed media source with an uncorroborated Pentagon source, also unnamed....and it's first shown in an London daily?..now tell me why should I trust it?

Lets for arguments sake say your little theory on cell phones is correct.. How do you explain the camera ban? Or do you think having a camera might set off those elusive WMD that don't exist... :roll:

Steph..I don't have the answers to everything..the article began primarily regarding cell phones with cameras..my response was valid on it's face, you're not military.but I know you're intelligent enough to look it up if you cared...but a cell phone's signal can and has detonated an IED..not WoMD as you sarcasm dictated..but I've seen Palestinian devices shoved into a loaf of bread...a Raggedy Ann Doll...and a basket of fruit...it would be no problem for a local vender to sell such an item to a hungry American soldier, walk off, he makes a call on his cell phone to his parents..boom, he does his murderer a favor by detonating the device that his murderer was just about too...or perhaps a terrorist cell doesn't want a member talking..and they decide to take him out..or they let one of their own get picked up in a sweep just so they can detonate one..

Like I said Steph..it's just a theory..but the article I read from the London Daily was two paragraphs...and gave an uncorroborated statement taken from an unnamed source...London tabloids are notorious for making up stuff..as the recent fake british troops torturing Iraqis is testimony too.

If there is further corroboration I'll take a look at it..not saying what you say isn't true..but based purely on the article I must treat it with suspect.

Brilliant thinking!

If it weren’t for cameras, Rodney King would never have been beaten up. To our knowledge, anyway…

Salishe, save it.

Ah..so..in answer to my request you ignore it...that's a rational discussion methodology..when penned in..you resort to blind ignorance....as much as you say I'm in willful blindness so are you in your surety that the reasons must be nefarious....I offered a valid theory..you respond with "Save it"...

Since you asked for it...


Also cell phones signals might also be able to trigger Improvised Explosive Devices....so where is the corroboration from the Dept of Defense that the reason why thy don't want cell phones/digital cameras is becuse of damning photos?

So basically you are saying you don't trust the US army. After all, the ban is for military personal only.

Basically you are saying that US soldiers are suspect in your eyes of beng potential or actual terrorists who might one day blow up the nearest military HQ with the help of their cell phone or digital camera.

Basically you are saying that you really believe that thats why the measure was implemented, because so far you have not been able to come up with another, more convincing apology.

What was that you were saying about blind ignorance?...

Again, you have 'apologist' all over you.

Despite your grandiose attempt to belittle the theory...it's a sound one..I said nothing whatsover bout US military personnel..I said a cell phone signal could be used to detonate an IED..

You however have not provided one shred, other then this article from an unnamed media source with an uncorroborated Pentagon source, also unnamed....and it's first shown in an London daily?..now tell me why should I trust it?

Lets for arguments sake say your little theory on cell phones is correct.. How do you explain the camera ban? Or do you think having a camera might set off those elusive WMD that don't exist... :roll:

Steph..I don't have the answers to everything..the article began primarily regarding cell phones with cameras..my response was valid on it's face, you're not military.but I know you're intelligent enough to look it up if you cared...but a cell phone's signal can and has detonated an IED..not WoMD as you sarcasm dictated..but I've seen Palestinian devices shoved into a loaf of bread...a Raggedy Ann Doll...and a basket of fruit...it would be no problem for a local vender to sell such an item to a hungry American soldier, walk off, he makes a call on his cell phone to his parents..boom, he does his murderer a favor by detonating the device that his murderer was just about too...or perhaps a terrorist cell doesn't want a member talking..and they decide to take him out..or they let one of their own get picked up in a sweep just so they can detonate one..

Like I said Steph..it's just a theory..but the article I read from the London Daily was two paragraphs...and gave an uncorroborated statement taken from an unnamed source...London tabloids are notorious for making up stuff..as the recent fake british troops torturing Iraqis is testimony too.

If there is further corroboration I'll take a look at it..not saying what you say isn't true..but based purely on the article I must treat it with suspect.

True enough,

But whats the likelyhood that those types of explosive or incendinary devices are going to be in a secured area where prisoners are kept, or interrogated?
Very little, I would imagine, since Im sure any such prisoner undergoes at least semi regular body searches.

So what would the military want to hide, since photography equipment is banned from those areas?

Salishe, save it.

Ah..so..in answer to my request you ignore it...that's a rational discussion methodology..when penned in..you resort to blind ignorance....as much as you say I'm in willful blindness so are you in your surety that the reasons must be nefarious....I offered a valid theory..you respond with "Save it"...

Since you asked for it...


Also cell phones signals might also be able to trigger Improvised Explosive Devices....so where is the corroboration from the Dept of Defense that the reason why thy don't want cell phones/digital cameras is becuse of damning photos?

So basically you are saying you don't trust the US army. After all, the ban is for military personal only.

Basically you are saying that US soldiers are suspect in your eyes of beng potential or actual terrorists who might one day blow up the nearest military HQ with the help of their cell phone or digital camera.

Basically you are saying that you really believe that thats why the measure was implemented, because so far you have not been able to come up with another, more convincing apology.

What was that you were saying about blind ignorance?...

Again, you have 'apologist' all over you.

Despite your grandiose attempt to belittle the theory...it's a sound one..I said nothing whatsover bout US military personnel..I said a cell phone signal could be used to detonate an IED..

You however have not provided one shred, other then this article from an unnamed media source with an uncorroborated Pentagon source, also unnamed....and it's first shown in an London daily?..now tell me why should I trust it?

Lets for arguments sake say your little theory on cell phones is correct.. How do you explain the camera ban? Or do you think having a camera might set off those elusive WMD that don't exist... :roll:

Steph..I don't have the answers to everything..the article began primarily regarding cell phones with cameras..my response was valid on it's face, you're not military.but I know you're intelligent enough to look it up if you cared...but a cell phone's signal can and has detonated an IED...

Sure the tag line is "Rumsfeld bans camera phones" but it's not just phones...

Quoting a Pentagon source, the paper said the US Defence Department believes that some of the damning photos of US soldiers abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad were taken with camera phones.

"Digital cameras, camcorders and mobile phones with cameras have been prohibited in military compounds in Iraq," it said.

A "total ban throughout the US military" is in the works, it added.

Could it be maybe because they don't want the pictures to get out again? Wouldn't that be the more probable theory?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1114150.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040523/tc_afp/iraq_britain_us_rumsfeld_040523111731

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9647241%255E15306,00.html

You seeing a theme here? I sure am. If your theory was correct, they would of been banned from the get go.. so what are the odds that it's not about the pictures?

Then of course begs the question, why are they only banning cell phones with cameras?