Faked

Here is the evidence I was talking about the other week in the mistreatment thread.

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,3884-3346615,00.html

Fuck the Mirror. They have sullied the name of a good regiment. Fuck them.

All they wanted was good press :disappoin

The Mirror says it published the pictures in good faith, and has apologised for the damage it has caused to the Queen's Lancashire regiment and the British Army in Iraq. <<<--- now how the hell are pics of the british armed forces tormenting someone in good faith damn fuckwits. Thats really sad but i'm gald to hear that the tourture was fake

Fuck the Mirror. They have sullied the name of a good regiment. Fuck them.
...AND CBS!!!...AND CNN!!!

the Mirror is no better than the National Enquirer though.

Yes, but the pictures on CBS weren't fake Jeff.

The daily mirror is little use for anything.Too simplistic and biased to be a newpaper,too coarse and inky to be used as bathroom tissue.

The editor has since been fired,but how someone of his dubious moral values ever made oit into a position of authority speaks volumes about the motives of the newspaper's owners.

I'm glad the word has spread that those photos weren't what they had claimed them to be.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

You can always tell a daily mirror reader by their blackened fingers......

Yes, but the pictures on CBS weren't fake Jeff.
I still like to know what moron TOOK them and for what purpose. The weren't fake....just released innapproriately via CBS and that anti-american bastard Dan Rather.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of "60 Minutes II," said yesterday he held off as long as he believed possible. But with the New Yorker magazine preparing to run a detailed report on the abuses, CBS finally broadcast its report last Wednesday, including images taken last year allegedly showing Iraqis stripped naked, hooded and being tormented by U.S. captors at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
They could have waited longer....or not show them at all. It was NOT in anybody's best interest but theirs to show them.

Sorry,but you are wrong.Suppressing the truth should be seen as contrary to American values.

Can you justify your description of Dan Rather a little better?He held back on the story until it became apparent that if he didn't air it someone else would.None of what he published was untrue,so how can it possibly be described as anti-American?