Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Old May 10th, 2004, 10:36 PM        IRAQI'S NOT SO UPSET OVER PRISONER ABUSE
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595061679,00.html

To Iraqis, prisoner abuse story is largely a non-issue
By Robert C. Gross


It is Friday, May 7, 2004, the Muslim "weekend."
And the news here is apparently much different than there. From my early morning looks at the news channels, it looks like the "prisoner story" is dominating the national news. It appears to us to be taking on all the signs of an overreaction to a very negative and unfortunate incident.
It's amazing to us that people are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation or firing. Interestingly, it's mostly a non-event for most of the Iraqis with whom we work or meet. A typical reaction came from one of our key staff I'll call Abdul. He has a degree in English literature, is in his mid-30s, served in the Iraqi Army during the Iraq-Iran War, has a side business in women's cosmetics, and works with us in the coordination of several of our social institutions. He is somewhat typical of the many more educated Iraqis.
When I questioned him about how most Iraqis view the prisoner abuse story, his first reaction was a startled stare. He didn't really even connect with my question. When I explained more fully, he said, "Well, actually, sir, to be quite honest with you, we think that it represents a small dot on a large piece of paper. We know that the hearts of almost all Americans are good and they do so much good for our people. And remember, sir, we lived under Saddam for nearly 30 years. To be quite honest with you, sir, we believe that the media is not fair and has not been fair for this entire war. After all, we Iraqis watch every despicable act committed by terrorists as they are glorified by Al Jazeera."
Nearly all our translators and Iraqi staff indicate basically the same thing. Many Iraqis, even those who have televisions and watch Al Jazeera, are mostly nonplussed by the prisoner story.
I do not mean to excuse or justify these acts in any way. It is an obvious black eye and tarnishes all that we're attempting to do here. The overwhelming consensus among the military working here in the Palace is abhorrence and an attitude that the enlisted personnel and their commanders ought to be dealt with appropriately and severely after a full investigation. Most are concerned that this is further tarnishing unfairly the military image back in the states, painting broad strokes across the entire canvas. I can tell you from my own experience that, for the most part, this is the best trained and dedicated group of people who could ever possibly serve the United States.
But Abdul is right. We just wish this could be kept in proper perspective. What we are thinking about often doesn't make the news. Many of you, I know, are interested in what we're doing in Fallujah and Najaf, Sadr's current headquarters. In Fallujah, it's not a matter of if, but when we eventually go in. We currently are working with an Iraqi general who is standing up an all Iraqi force to patrol the city. We hope to neutralize the opposition as much as possible, thereby preventing collateral damage. Eventually, however, it will be necessary for the Marines to regain control over the city.
The same can be said for Najaf but for slightly different reasons. The Ayatollah Sistani has made it clear that he does not want to see Coalition Forces enter the city, one of Shi'as holiest sites. As each day passes, however, Sadr appears palpably to lose followers and influence. He is still a danger, however, and poses a threat. Yesterday, some of his militia attacked one of our coalition convoys close to Najaf: the score was 40 to 0 in favor of the coalition. He's probably gradually and painfully "getting it." Leadership sometimes requires great patience.
This is one of those times.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert C. Gross, a Utahn, is a senior adviser of Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

********************

Why would they be? It's not so much a political issue for them now is it?
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Old May 10th, 2004, 10:39 PM       
Oh thank goodness that makes everything alright then.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
Old May 10th, 2004, 10:53 PM       
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Old May 10th, 2004, 11:26 PM       
When I first saw the name of this thread I already knew what my reply to it would be. But after posting I decided to actually read the thing ronnie copy/pasted. It's impossible for somebody to say this:

Quote:
A typical reaction came from one of our key staff I'll call Abdul. He has a degree in English literature, is in his mid-30s, served in the Iraqi Army during the Iraq-Iran War, has a side business in women's cosmetics,
And keep a straight face. Or how about this gem:

Quote:
Well, actually, sir, to be quite honest with you, we think that it represents a small dot on a large piece of paper. We know that the hearts of almost all Americans are good and they do so much good for our people.
This is comedy gold. Somewhat understated but nonetheless. I love the subserviant tone most of all. I seriously cannot find a single joke to make that would somehow make this seem more rediculous than it already is.

And the funniest thing is that, Ronnie for one, is convinced that because someone's imaginary lover named Abdul says that,to be quite honest he thinks that the issue at hand was mishandled, this must mean that IRAQI'S RE NOT SO UPSET OVER PRISONER ABUSE

Quote:
But Abdul is right.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Guderian Guderian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Razof
Old May 11th, 2004, 01:58 AM       
HEY RONNIE!! I CAN COPY-PASTE STUPID BULLSHIT TOO!!


Ever since the official signing of the Flat Earth Society's charter, one of our most difficult goals was to understand the mindset of those we were trying to save. The complexities of Efimovich's theory, that theory's convoluted nature and dependence on flawed logic and the omission of obstructions make it nearly impossible to understand at all, let alone understand why anyone would believe such dribble.

Although we have, through the years, made significant progress towards understanding the viewpoint of Efimovich's followers, we still recognize the holes in the intricate web Efimovich wove. Ours is the truth, the truth of the world's flatness, and ours is also the burden of proof. We are the minority, the followers of lies being the majority, and we gladly accept our burden, if in the end that acceptance means ridding the world of the foul half-truths spread by Grigori Efimovich and his brood of vipers. We present the following five arguments, each completely logical and to some degree building off of the arguments before it. We hope that, after carefully considering what we say here, you will look a with a little less ridicule on the Flat Earth Society and its members.

Argument One - Experimental confirmation of the Earth's rigidity in space

1) The ether factor

In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.

In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.

Yes, scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.

But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.

Argument Two - Difficulties with the model: incorporating an Efimovich-type model with the known Universe

1) Maintaining speed

In the Efimovich model, the planet Earth is supposed to be a large, spherical shaped ball of rock flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. But how could the Earth continue to move at the same speed for as long a time as the "round Earthers" say that it has existed for; namely, several billion years. If outer space were a vacuum, then there would be no problem. But space is not a vacuum, it is instead filled with ether. The earth would have to have been pushing its way through the ether for all those billions of years. Shouldn't it have slowed somewhere along the line? What would keep the Earth from grinding down to a stop at some point on the Efimovichian timeline?

2) An accelerating world

A second critical piece to the Efimovich model is that the Earth is not the center of the solar system either. It is, according to "round Earth" theory, orbiting the sun at a radius of around five-hundred million kilometers. Were this the case, the Earth would be an accelerated object in circular motion around its sun. And thereby are the problems introduced. The Earth accelerating in circular motion would behave no differently than would a car taking a corner: loose objects (humans and animals would act like loose change or a cup of coffee on the dashboard) would slide around, or be thrown off completely. There would be an apparent centrifugal force on everything. During the day, when things would be facing the sun and therefore on the inside of the "orbit", buildings would be crushed and humans beings squashed like grasshoppers in a centrifuge. And at night, when everything would be at the outside, trees and buildings would be ripped from the ground and flung into outer space, and humans wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, there is a flaw in Efimovich's "orbit" theory.

Argument Three - The impossibilities of holding unsecured objects in place on a curved surface

1) Staying on top

Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?

2) Falling off

As we begin to make this argument, we acknowledge beforehand that we are aware of the property of matter known as friction. Yes, we realize that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet.

Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.

In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case. And so we go to argument four, which deals with difficulties in having different "downs" for different people.

Argument Four - Paradoxes associated with an inconsistent down direction

1) Negotiating long-distance travel

Now imagine, if only for the sake of argument, that the person on top and the person on bottom can both manage to remain attracted to the ground "below" them. What would happen if the person on one side decided to visit the other? Since the man at the North Pole has a different idea of what is down and up (and in fact experiences an opposite pull from the Earth's gravity) than the person at the South Pole does, when the denizen of the frozen Arctic visits his Antarctic counterpart, they will experience gravitational pulls exactly opposite of each other! The human from the North Pole will "fall up", never returning to the ground, and will continue falling forever into the deep void of outer space!

Looking at the feasibility of Efimovich's teachings cannot remain limited to examining small, solid objects such as human beings. A true analysis of his work must incorporate natural phenomena and how their existence is either explained or made difficult by each of the theories. In the next argument against the "round-Earth" theory, we will be analyzing the existence of two extremely commonplace (yet altogether unfeasible under the ramifications of having a round planet) non-solids: the atmosphere and the oceans.

Argument Five - Difficulties in maintaining a functional Earth-bound atmosphere and ocean

1) The fluid problem

Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.

Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.

But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere. And windblown rainclouds carry vast quantities of evaporated seawater across miles of ground, releasing their load far from its starting point. Water or air that (according to "round-Earth" theory) starts on one side of the planet could end up completely on the other side in a matter of only a few days. With all this turbulence and motion, if the world were round, the oceans should all fall "down" into the sky, leaving the planet dry and barren, and the atmosphere would simply float away. Why, just look at the moon. It is round, like a ball, and yet it has no atmosphere at all.

2) Thermodynamic complications

Taking into account the "gravitational charge" analogy once more, and assuming that for some reason the atmosphere was able to align itself with the new direction of the theoretical "gravitational field", we are faced with a new problem involving another branch of physics known as thermodynamics.

Obviously, the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it (although not necessarily in circular paths), in a plane level with the flat Earth.


WOW, DID I JUST PROVE THE EARTH IS FLAT?? HOW COULD WE ALL HAVE BEEN SO WRONG??
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Old May 11th, 2004, 09:04 AM       
Kill yourself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Drew Katsikas Drew Katsikas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Old May 11th, 2004, 09:08 AM       
That was really the biggest load of crap I've ever read.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Old May 11th, 2004, 09:09 AM       
That it was posted by a character should have been enough to tip you off.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Zebra 3 Zebra 3 is offline
Striped Tomato
Zebra 3's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay City
Old May 11th, 2004, 09:10 AM       
- More humane rapes and killings of freedom please.
__________________
'Huuutch!' - Starsky
Reply With Quote
  #10  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old May 11th, 2004, 09:13 AM       
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=11904
Reply With Quote
  #11  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old May 11th, 2004, 10:33 AM       
Well, I'll say this.

If you can't trust the senior adviser of Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, who cn you trust?

What possible reason could he have to spin this story?

In addition, the quote, which is without doubt verbatim and true, could not have been influenced by the position of power Abdul currently holds or a desire to curry favor with a man in power over him. Plus, everyone knows, one mans uninfluenced, freely given political assesment always means the vast mjority of his countrymen feel the same way. I have no doubt that the families of the murdered and raped prisoners, and those still held without charge, not to mention those missing and unnacounted for, feel much the same. I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel, and I for one wish we'd all stop talking about the unimportant actions of a few bad apples, especially since it hasn't affected Iraqis love of us and all we are doing for them.

In closing, thanks, Nalds. If later today someone presses a gun to my head and demands I tell them the stupidest thing I've read in years, I'll refer to your post right away.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
Old May 11th, 2004, 01:44 PM       
prisoner abuse started as soon as abughriab prison changed management about a year ago.. to Iraqi's i suspect this is old news..
a country the size of texas, i'm relatively sure they have a good idea of how the americans are treating people WAY BEFORE THE NEWS BREAKS HERE!.. MAYBE that's why thier fucking shooting at us. um, reaction to our treatment of them.. thousands rally in the street almost every week. fundamentalists who were on the fringe gain new respect such as sadr, i believe wasn't so popular before he apposed the occupation.. again we're still creating NEW enemies in Iraq and elsewhere.
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #13  
mesobe mesobe is offline
Senior Member
mesobe's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: your mom
Old May 11th, 2004, 02:03 PM       
hah. if the Iraq's really dont mind being tortured and abused, why are they so happy to get rid of Saddam too? Do they just want white people to do the deed?
__________________
The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old May 11th, 2004, 08:57 PM       
Quote:
A typical reaction came from one of our key staff I'll call Abdul. He has a degree in English literature, is in his mid-30s, served in the Iraqi Army during the Iraq-Iran War, has a side business in women's cosmetics, and works with us in the coordination of several of our social institutions. He is somewhat typical of the many more educated Iraqis.
Unfortunately for America, he is not very typical of the people The Terrorists will be trying to recruit.
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Drew Katsikas Drew Katsikas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Old May 11th, 2004, 10:15 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helm
That it was posted by a character should have been enough to tip you off.
Ronnie isn't a character, dink head.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
Old May 12th, 2004, 08:11 AM       
Hey, give him a break. It's prettty hard to tell.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:01 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.