Is the Al Qaeda torture manual a fake - with sadistic art

      Home » World Terrorism » Is the Al Qaeda torture manual a fake - with sadistic art

Is the Al Qaeda torture manual a fake - with sadistic art

The pictures in the AQ torture manual are so graphic and so well illustrated as to make you wonder if they were drawn by a professional illustrator.

If you are drawing a manual would you draw this to show how to drag someone behind a car? Or would your illustrator for a manual use such advanced perspectives and angles?

Or the car in the picture at the bottom, thats not a car normally found in the middle east, its American. According to other commentators the people look Latin Americans. (There are old American cars in Iran however).

In the bottom left of the picture is part of a small rectangle, infact its on ALL the pictures, are these pictures part of a greater document?

Or why illustrate chopping of a persons hand? It hardly needs graphics to explain it more. Don't these pictues resemble images from cartoons in their graphic intensity? What is the purpose of showing spurting blood in a manual?

Each image is a piece of sadistic art. Look at the work involved in the shading, coloring, the layout.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture1.jpg

Also some are hardly drawn in an "arabic" manner, with beards on, and I think human figures are not allowed in Islam as well.

So who made such a graphic and gory manual, and for what purpose?

See all the images on Smoking Gun

They look like they have been drawn by a Marvel cartoon illustrator.

Good commentary on this issue is found on newsromp.com

Someone commented here that
... Quote:
What puzzles me is that all the folks in the victim photos were clearly intended to live, and look like the sort of torture one uses to extract information, while a lot of the drawings represent the sorts of drawn-out execution techniques you use on someone you're trying to make an example of, someone like an informer, whose corpse you intend to leave lying in the street the next day.

What does this mean? I'm not sure. Could be that the drawings and the photos aren't from the same source, or that the Pentagon decided to spice up some drawings they found with photos of their own 'detainees', or that they found some people who'd been leaned on kinda hard, and decided to whip up some drawings of something more horrific, to increase the shock value.

In short, this has the smell of something prettied up by psyops. Which in itself is puzzling. It's not like there's not a plentiful supply of mutilated corpses in the streets of Bagdhad come morning.

Surely they could come up with something nastier. Which is why I suspect that it's the drawings, and not the photos, that are the part psyops added. If they were cherry-picking the photos from other sources, or inventing the whole thing, photos and drawings alike, they could do better.


torture-car.jpg - 33.79kb
By netchicken: posted on 28-5-2007

One isn't allowed to draw images of Muhammed or Allah, but we know that drawing offensive pictures of "infidels" is quite acceptable. That being the case, drawing pictures of how to inflict pain and death onto infidel captives is probably acceptable as well, wouldn't you think?

They are not a shoddy group, either. Money, front businesses for more money, all sorts of people with all sorts of skills; there's no reason to believe they would draw mere stick men, huh? :)
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 28-5-2007

TC they can't create ANY images of human form. Thats why they destroyed the Banyan buddhas.

Therefore how can a strictly islamic manual have images of people in it? Most of the Afghan art and film archive was destroyed under the Taliban because of this.

from here
... Quote:
Chapter 21, verses 52-54 of the Koran read: "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"

From this arises the Muslim belief that images can give rise to idolatry - that is to say an image, rather than the divine being it symbolises, can become the object of worship and veneration.

Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his Companions, explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions.

More widely, Islamic tradition has discouraged the figurative depiction of living creatures, especially human beings. Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative.


so to paraphrase another.. An Al Qaeda member, willing to kill and torture and die on the strength of his religious convictions, is somehow going to relax those convictions so that he can carry around a superfluous training manual that could be found and blow his cover? and needs a training manual with graphics to know how to drill someone though the hand, or drag them behind a car?

This just raises the BS meter too much ...
By netchicken: posted on 28-5-2007

Look at this graphic, the Islamic terrorist doesn't even have a beard! He looks like a jolly Italian.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0524072torture6.jpg
By netchicken: posted on 29-5-2007

Interesting as I read around this topic that the issue of 'fake or not' has already been polarized along political grounds.

Yet another case where the actual situation being discussed is lost, or obfuscated, under political labelling and dogma.

So if you believe they are true then you are 'right' and pro Bush, and if you believe they are fakes then you are 'left' and anti Bush.

Pity you can't have neither stand, and just look at the pictures objectively. But then that might actually force some people to open their minds.
By netchicken: posted on 29-5-2007

In the bottom of 3 of the pictures you will see the remains of small rectangles, with some symbols in.

It would appear that these images are part of a greater image. The small pieces are an indication of text, or something else there.

Now we are TOLD that these are Al Qaeda torture manuals, but seeing that they come from something else, a book, or part of a bigger image, then maybe that is not what they represented originally.

If it is a "torture manual" then WHERE IS THE TEXT? Do these images make the entirity of the manual?

Just what are these 3 small peices part of that is missing? What sort of document - poster, book, etc were these images on or in originally?

I feel we are not given all the story, just the bits that make for the most impact.

torture-bits.jpg - 4.69kb
By netchicken: posted on 29-5-2007

Netty, the Muslims have created images, mocking us and demonizing the Jews, remember?
Not having beards and attempting to look as nondescript westerners is also standard for them.

So far I have read about thirty books on this topic, Netty. Whether or not these are fake is not what I am looking at, I am looking at ther reasons given that they must be fake, and these reasons do not hold water when looking at recent Islamic past in general and what al Qaeda manuals allow for and even direct operatives to do.

I haven't researched this at all as this is a non-issue to me; it should be totally assumed that this information is dissiminated, but I am curious about something; how much of this doubt is from those who simply despise Bush, the Republican party or America in general?
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 30-5-2007

Anti American sentiments might well be an underlying reason except that the precedent was set long ago for doctored images and fake evidence by the military. Only six months earlier we had the "Iranian bomb fragments" presented as evidence for Iranian manufacture of IEDs.

Now although its pretty obvious that Iran DOES manufacture IEDS, the images themselves were classed as fakes by LGF website itself, a bastion of pro Americanism. In fact some of the biggest critics and dissenters over evidence such as this are Americans themselves. Plainly something greater is the motivator rather than simple negativeness. I think in todays world the cynic might be right, everyone lies sometimes.

To despise Bush or the republican party can also hardly be called "unamerican" either, nor should it be to maintain a healthy skecpticism over anything said by the military or polticial administration. Isn't that the basic right upon which which the country stands?

Therefore evidence is evidence and should be examined outside of political ideologies or personal opinions. All these only serve to distort the truth.


... Quote:
Originally posted by Thomas_Crowne
I haven't researched this at all as this is a non-issue to me; it should be totally assumed that this information is dissiminated, but I am curious about something; how much of this doubt is from those who simply despise Bush, the Republican party or America in general?
By netchicken: posted on 30-5-2007

Well reading into it I have come to the same conclusion, that this is a fake. Not because they arent supposed to draw these "diagrams" but because it looks too shoddy to be the work of Al-Qaeda.

They would never use such pictures to illustrate torture. They would have put real photographs inside. Also these techniques through brutal and properly medieval arent very effective methods of torture. The head in the vice things is absolutely useless as if you crack your victims skull most likely he would die within a few minutes due to internal bleeding inside his head.

No, Al-Qaeda wouldnt use such wasteful techniques to in fact torture someone for information. Their methods would be more sophisticated and effective than purely sadistic torture. Also they would surely use real pictures because that would inform the trainee of what to really expect, blood-screaming and all, so that they dont mess up when they have to actually do this. Photographs would also concentrate on the technique rather than merely artistic composition. The drawing of the man dragged by a car is an example of this.
Another important thing to point out is the fact that most of the victims that are being tortured are middle-easter decent with beards etc. If this were really an Al-Qaeda manual, they would generally have Caucasians who are being tortured or American soldiers etc, not an Arab in a ragged shirt.
Also there are no specific mention of methods that are to be used for women. Al-Qaeda has known to capture women too on quite a few occasions.

This entire thing is thoroughly un-professional and the work of some-one who wanted to impersonate Al-Qaeda. I think there is a high probability that this is by some teenage kid or the like who either wanted to create his own manual for 'Al-Qaeda' (with appreciation for them) or someone who who wanted to discredit al-Qaeda.
By IAF: posted on 30-5-2007

I certainly am not saying that to not trust the Republican party is a bad thing, what I am saying is the reasons we are assuming they are fake.

A couple more reasons in this forum, even, one is because one of the characters looks like Chef Boyardee and the other is that the pics look to "shoddy". The first reason can be ignored, and as far as the second reason, I'd have to say that since Al Qaeda is as resourceful as pragmatic, it'd be useless to assume that it must be a fake because it is not of total quality.
Al Qaeda has thousands of pages of manuals, much of it is even from the U.S. Army's manuals. This being said, the U.S. Army also has all the resources available to them that only the leading country could provide, yet every motorpool will receive copies of the PM magazine, which is basically a comic book for equipment maintenance This is because not every soldier graduated at the top of the class, some of us graduated "Thanky Lawdy". I see no reason to believe Al Qaeda can't do the same to assist those who might not speak Arabic.

I'm not going to say that it is real, what I am saying is that there is no obvious reason for the average observer to say it is not.
I agree, the quality is shoddy. Not nearly as god as Sgt. Rock was!
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 30-5-2007

Netty, can you direct me to the ied fragment stuff? I was asleep during that.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 30-5-2007

Here we go :)

 http://www.correntewire.com...

Here as well

 http://cernigsnewshog.blogs...

LGF had a big thing on it but I can't find it. There were lots of pics comparing them to other countries weapons as well.

Actually I suspect they found the pics with the rest of the torture tools when they released the 40 odd iraqis recently and just used them as evidence of AQ torture.

However you would think the evidence would be in the bodies and the testimonies of the released prisoners.
By netchicken: posted on 30-5-2007

The happy torturer looks like Saddam to me

 http://www.indepthinfo.com/...

just a thought:worm


C'mon TC....aren't you used to this by now? Everything has to be a set up or a fake planted by the nasty Americans. Psyops my butt!!!
By Venus: posted on 31-5-2007

You just said nothing and wasted readers' time in doing so. You are assuming that the manual is fake and then you are blaming the corporations for this. Then, you claim that the other nations are smarter because they immediately assume that any news that comes out that could be anti-American is true and that any news that can possibly be twisted to make America look like the bad guy is true. Then you even attempt to pander to Netchicken by specifically mentioning New Zealand as being an enlightened nation in this regard.

Thank you for the waste of time!

Oh, and here is a machine gun right back atcha. :sh
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 31-5-2007

Yay someone is pandering to me! :)

The problem with these pictures is the description of them as being a "manual".

Manuals are used for instruction, to teach something. There has been NOTHING shown about these pictures as a teaching resource. They are just a series of sadistic pictures. That all.

Now when you want a definition of "manual" as a comparison, THIS is an interrorgation manual

The problem is that I am showing some pictures and giving my slant on their authentictiy as a "torture manual". My position is that they are not. Sure it might be from iraq, (in my most conciliatory stance) sure it shows torture, but its a huge step to describe them as a manual.

They are just a series of sadistic pitcutres. The label "manual" has been added to them later. Its spin.

Now if I was an American saying this, I would get howls of "left leaning moonbat" but I am not and reject that label. So instead I get antiamerican, or america hater, or similar. But again I show this not to be true.

TC its not anti american not to accept as true everything that comes from the military complex. Its a typical piece of Psyops. I am not the only person who is saying that it might be a fake Others have said the same thing - here
By netchicken: posted on 31-5-2007

The official explanation of the "manual" is basically that it was drawn so that no matter how illiterate you are you can understand the pictures.

I change my stance of "psyops"...after reading this I do believe thats what it was but it certainly wasnt US psyops.

read this....and open your mind ;)

 http://www.inform.kz/showar...
By Venus: posted on 31-5-2007

Netty, I am not saying that you are being unAmerican for saying that, nor am I saying that about IAF. As far as Mike, considering he didn't say much about the manual except to say that one drawing looked like the guy on a can of Speghetti-O's (doesn't even resemble him at all, to be honest) and then launched on corporate America, I'll let everyone come to their own conclusions.

What I am saying is that there is no evidence that the manual is a fake.

Take this thread as an example of armchair quarterbacking and ameteur second-guessing. While one poster says the pictures are obviously fake because the drawings are too good a quality, another poster says they must be fake because of the shoddy quality! So, are they fake because they are shoddily good or is it because they are of high quality shoddiness?

I'll try this one more time. The U.S. Army (the same organization that al Qaeda used as inspiration when writing its own manuals) use a monthly comic-type publication to teach preventive maintenance to the troops. All the soldiers speak and write English to some level, yet they have been doing this for decades. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, has fighters coming in from all over the world. The don't all speak Arabic. The reasoning for such a manual is not hard to understand, I think. To put it another way, the internationally-recognized traffic signs that are used in Topeka, Kansas to Bonn, Germany; are these signs a fake simply because they have no words?

I have no doubt there are others who say that the manual is a fake. They know no more than I, and I have no reason to believe them over me.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 31-5-2007








Is the Al Qaeda torture manual a fake - with sadistic art | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy