NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: Compare the following with what happens to those held in Guantanamo.


Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/international/middleeast/19torture.html?th&emc=th)


By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: June 19, 2005

KARABILA, Iraq, Sunday, June 19 - Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual - and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.

The remains of a car lay in front of a house used as bomb factory, next to a house where insurgents tortured hostages in Karabila, in western Iraq. The American military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents - like Falluja, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who have lived to tell the tale.

The men said they told the marines, from Company K, Third Marines, Second Division, that they had been tortured with shocks and flogged with a strip of rubber for more than two weeks, unseen behind the windows of black glass. One of them, Ahmed Isa Fathil, 19, a former member of the new Iraqi Army, said he had been held and tortured there for 22 days. All the while, he said, his face was almost entirely taped over and his hands were cuffed.

In an interview with an embedded reporter just hours after he was freed, he said he had never seen the faces of his captors, who occasionally whispered at him, "We will kill you." He said they did not question him, and he did not know what they wanted. Nor did he ever expect to be released.

"They kill somebody every day," said Mr. Fathil, whose hands were so swollen he could not open a can of Coke offered to him by a marine. "They've killed a lot of people."

From the house on Saturday, there could be heard sounds of fighting from the large-scale offensive to eliminate strongholds of insurgents, many of whom stream across Iraq's porous border with Syria.

As the marines walked through the house - a squat one-story building of sand-colored brick - the broken black window glass crunched under their boots. Light poured in, revealing walls and ceiling shredded by shrapnel from the blast they had set off to break in through a wall. Latex gloves were strewn on the floor. A kerosene lantern lay on its side, shattered.

The manual recovered - a fat, well-thumbed Arabic paperback - listed itself as the 2005 First Edition of "The Principles of Jihadist Philosophy," by Abdel Rahman al-Ali. Its chapters included "How to Select the Best Hostage," and "The Legitimacy of Cutting the Infidels' Heads."

Also recovered were several fake passports, a black hood, the painkiller Percoset, handcuffs and an explosives how-to-guide. Three cars loaded with explosives were parked in a garage outside the house. The marines blew them up.

This is Mr. Fathil's account of his ordeal.

He was having a lunch of lettuce and cucumbers in the kitchen of his home in the small desert village of Rabot with his mother and brother. An Opel sedan pulled up. Two men in masks carrying machine guns got out, seized him, and, leaving his mother sobbing, put him in the trunk of their car.

The drove to the house here. They taped his face, put cotton in his ears, and began to beat him.

The only possible explanation for the seizure he could think of was his time in the new Iraqi Army. Unemployed and illiterate, Mr. Fathil signed up after the American occupation began.

But nine months ago, when continuing working meant risking the wrath of the Jihadists, he quit. In all, 10 friends from his unit have been killed, he said. So have his uncle and his uncle's son, though neither ever worked as soldiers.

The men tended to talk in whispers, he said, telling him five times a day, in low voices in his ear, to pray, and offering him sand, instead of water, to wash himself. Just once, he asked if he could see his mother, and one of them said to him, "You won't leave until you are dead."

Mr. Fathil did not know there were other hostages. He found out only after the captors left and he was able to remove the tape from his eyes.

The routine in the house was regular. Because of the windows, it was always dark inside. Mr. Fathil said he was fed once a day, and allowed to use a bathroom as necessary in the back of the house.

When marines burst in, one of the captives was lying under a stairwell, badly beaten. At first, they thought he was dead.

The others were emaciated and battered. Mr. Fathil had fared the best. The other three were taken by medical helicopter to Balad, a base near Baghdad with a hospital.

But he still had been hurt badly. Marks from beatings criss-crossed his back, and deep pocks, apparently from electric shock burns, were gouged in his skin.

The shocks, he said, felt "like my soul is being ripped out of my body." But when he would start to scream, and his body would pull up from the shock, they would begin to beat him, he said.

Mr. Fathil has been at the Marine base south of Qaim since his release, on Saturday around noon. His mother still does not know he is alive.

When she was mentioned, he bowed and lowered his head, and began to cry softly, wiping his face with the jumpsuit given him by the marines.

He asked a reporter for help to move to another town, because it was too dangerous for his family to remain in their house. He begged not to have a photograph taken, even of the scars on his back. The captors took pictures of that, he said.

His town has always been a good place, he said, but the militants have made it hell.

"These few are destroying it," he said, his face streaked with tears. "Everybody they take, they kill. It's on a daily basis pretty much."

Sorry, but maybe I missed the point.
Because they're beating people and torturing people that makes it ok for it to happen in Guantanamo? Sorry, but you can't defeat an enemy by stooping to their position. How can you say what you're doing is any better than what they're doing?

I find it sad that things being done by terrorists can have parallels in America.

If the Devil is working for the enemy, does that make us Angels? No. Unless you're pro-war, in which case you'd at least imply that claim...

So, because they are insane torturing religious zealots, the US somehow can torture people too.

Well, so, if Hitler killed 6 million jews, if I kill 20 million, am i excused, innocent, or more righteous?

It's kinda like a serial wife beater claiming he's a good guy because he's not quite Ted Bundy.....

Sorry, but maybe I missed the point.
Because they're beating people and torturing people that makes it ok for it to happen in Guantanamo? Sorry, but you can't defeat an enemy by stooping to their position. How can you say what you're doing is any better than what they're doing?
Missed the whole point, didn't ya? Just kinda ... zooom, right over your head. :(

I find it sad that things being done by terrorists can have parallels in America.
Draw them for us. What are they? Where do they take place? PROVE this!

I'd like to see this 574 page "Jihad manual." Any chance of that happening? ;)

Another point:
Proponents of the war argue that we've freed Iraqi civilians from Baathist torture and murder. But now civilians are simply being tortured and murdered by insurgents instead. So that justification is out the window...

Sorry, but maybe I missed the point.
Because they're beating people and torturing people that makes it ok for it to happen in Guantanamo? Sorry, but you can't defeat an enemy by stooping to their position. How can you say what you're doing is any better than what they're doing?

So, let's just ignore everything that was written and scream "The U.S. tortures people!" The fact is, you're basing your idiotic ideas about what happens at Guantanamo off of claims made by admitted terrorists and self-proclaimed enemies of the United States. But I'm sure they'd have no reason to try to sabotage the image of the nation that they're trying to destroy, right?

Here's the deal: liberals and retards in general love to plug their ears and ignore all the facts in this case, because obviously anything that helps us in the war on terror is evil. Obviously. The simple truth is that any time any investigation has been conducted, by any organization, the harshest forms of "torture" that have been documented at Guantanamo Bay are sleep deprevation and guards pouring water on the head of a detainee. You're right. That shit's just not kosher, let's burn the mother down!

You're brainwashed. Well, at least some of you are, and at least I can feel sorry for those people. The ones who are actively working against the U.S., however, in the fact that they know that there is nothing, NOTHING constituting torture going on at Guantanamo and kick and scream that there is anyway (and you can trace the source of that behavior back to them still being pissed that their party lost to W. again), well, it takes every amount of self-restraint I have when I hear them to keep blood from shooting out of my ears.

Missed the whole point, didn't ya? Just kinda ... zooom, right over your head. :(
Well ok then, so what was the point? Just telling me I missed it is supposed to help me...how?

But now civilians are simply being tortured and murdered by insurgents instead.

And by U.S. troops.

The entire point of posting this was to illustrate that most of those on here who are so critical of everything the US does have some hidden agenda. For anyone with any cognitive ability whatsoever, there is definitely, absolutely no comparison possible between the incidents described in the posted article and anything that has occured at Gunatanamo Bay. Yet here they are, folks, the America-haters, trying their best to "draw parallels" between what these insane terrorists do with those they hold ... most of whom are killed after having been tortured ... and the benign, almost benificient treatment of those incarcerated at Guantanamo.

I for one am sick to death of listening to these specious, dissimulating, contorted efforts to compare the two.

And by U.S. troops.
Bullshit. Just pure and simply bullshit.

The fact is, you're basing your idiotic ideas about what happens at Guantanamo off of claims made by admitted terrorists and self-proclaimed enemies of the United States.That's not a very nice way of talking about US soldiers.

That is basically your answe to any argument we make. Etrusca. Go fuck yourself. Then bend over and let Bush do it to you too. You'll be happy then, I'm sure.

The entire point of posting this was to illustrate that most of those on here who are so critical of everything the US does have some hidden agenda. For anyone with any cognitive ability whatsoever, there is definitely, absolutely no comparison possible between the incidents described in the posted article and anything that has occured at Gunatanamo Bay. Yet here they are, folks, the America-haters, trying their best to "draw parallels" between what these insane terrorists do with those they hold ... most of whom are killed after having been tortured ... and the benign, almost benificient treatment of those incarcerated at Guantanamo.

I for one am sick to death of listening to these specious, dissimulating, contorted efforts to compare the two.

You're correct if your attempt was to illustrate personal agendas. However the major one I am seeing here is yours. This is a clear attempt to stave off the accusations by showing something worse. Instead of dealing with the Guantanamo issue by itself, you have to bring in other evidence and go "but they are MORE evil!" because you are implying that it somehow erases any evil done by anyone except those you are comfortable thinking of as 'evil' - namely, non-Americans. There's no doubt that murder is worse than sleep deprivation, but as someone said it's a little like justifying theft crime by saying "at least I'm not murdering anyone." Your agenda, as a military man yourself, is primarily to cast the military and, in a greater sense, the pro-war movement in a kinder light. You are doing this by showing opposites in a darker light. Anyone can do that. I can say, hey, these terrorists aren't even that bad - sure they murder some Iraqis, but they didn't kill 6 million Jews like Hitler did. THAT is the specious comparison you should be concerned with - demonizing the enemy to make your view appear more angelic.

Did the terrorists give their prisoners rice pilaf, lemon chicken and allow them more freedoms for good behavior? I'm guessing... no.

:rolleyes:

hmmmm. i was just wondering if any one thinks that this kinda stuff happened in WWI, WWII? Also, i was wondering if some one was torturing a loved one and you found one of this persons cohorts, and they wouldnt talk, would you torture them to find out where they are? i am not liberal or conservitive, just trying to find some answers.

Did the terrorists give their prisoners rice pilaf, lemon chicken and allow them more freedoms for good behavior? I'm guessing... no.

:rolleyes:

Did the terrorists commit the mass and systematic slaughter of 6 or 7 million people? I'm guessing... no.

I guess terrorists aren't that bad. ;)

Thanks Eutrusca for posting this.

However, I think you wasted your time because people are not going to be persuaded by this.

Your right that the terrorists do far worse than what the US has done, even though the majority of what we did DOES NOT constitute torture.

Again thanks for posting it Eutrusca.

The entire point of posting this was to illustrate that most of those on here who are so critical of everything the US does have some hidden agenda. For anyone with any cognitive ability whatsoever, there is definitely, absolutely no comparison possible between the incidents described in the posted article and anything that has occured at Gunatanamo Bay. Yet here they are, folks, the America-haters, trying their best to "draw parallels" between what these insane terrorists do with those they hold ... most of whom are killed after having been tortured ... and the benign, almost benificient treatment of those incarcerated at Guantanamo.

I for one am sick to death of listening to these specious, dissimulating, contorted efforts to compare the two.
This is a simple problem to solve. In internatinal law there are two DIFFERENT crimes applicable to Gitmo and this case.

The iraqi case would clearly be classified as torture
Gitmo is clearly 'cruel and inhumane treatment'.

So there's no real hypocrisy here, just a confusion of terms. What the insurgence are doing is much more abhorrent, and it IS silly to say that Gitmo is the same crime. It's not. But it IS a similar crime.

You're correct if your attempt was to illustrate personal agendas. However the major one I am seeing here is yours. This is a clear attempt to stave off the accusations by showing something worse. Instead of dealing with the Guantanamo issue by itself, you have to bring in other evidence and go "but they are MORE evil!" because you are implying that it somehow erases any evil done by anyone except those you are comfortable thinking of as 'evil' - namely, non-Americans. There's no doubt that murder is worse than sleep deprivation, but as someone said it's a little like justifying theft crime by saying "at least I'm not murdering anyone." Your agenda, as a military man yourself, is primarily to cast the military and, in a greater sense, the pro-war movement in a kinder light. You are doing this by showing opposites in a darker light. Anyone can do that. I can say, hey, these terrorists aren't even that bad - sure they murder some Iraqis, but they didn't kill 6 million Jews like Hitler did. THAT is the specious comparison you should be concerned with - demonizing the enemy to make your view appear more angelic.
Nice try at obfuscation, but it won't wash.

If you had bothered to read any of the posts I've made about Guantanamo, you would know that my position is that any American, military or otherwise, who violates the law should be prosecuted ... period. What's so "angelic" about that?

Your right that the terrorists do far worse than what the US has done, even though the majority of what we did DOES NOT constitute torture.
.

Well, not ever. You guys pretty much run the school of the Americas, how much blood is on your hands for that? But in general, the majority of what you did DOES NOT, as you say, constitute torture. It constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment, a lesser, though of course serious, crime.

So, let's just ignore everything that was written and scream "The U.S. tortures people!" The fact is, you're basing your idiotic ideas about what happens at Guantanamo off of claims made by admitted terrorists and self-proclaimed enemies of the United States. But I'm sure they'd have no reason to try to sabotage the image of the nation that they're trying to destroy, right?

Here's the deal: liberals and retards in general love to plug their ears and ignore all the facts in this case, because obviously anything that helps us in the war on terror is evil. Obviously. The simple truth is that any time any investigation has been conducted, by any organization, the harshest forms of "torture" that have been documented at Guantanamo Bay are sleep deprevation and guards pouring water on the head of a detainee. You're right. That shit's just not kosher, let's burn the mother down!

You're brainwashed. Well, at least some of you are, and at least I can feel sorry for those people. The ones who are actively working against the U.S., however, in the fact that they know that there is nothing, NOTHING constituting torture going on at Guantanamo and kick and scream that there is anyway (and you can trace the source of that behavior back to them still being pissed that their party lost to W. again), well, it takes every amount of self-restraint I have when I hear them to keep blood from shooting out of my ears.
Make your point without flamebaiting liberals and calling posters in General who disagree with you 'retards'.

Well, not ever. You guys pretty much run the school of the Americas, how much blood is on your hands for that? But in general, the majority of what you did DOES NOT, as you say, constitute torture. It constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment, a lesser, though of course serious, crime.

And I did hear about the School of Americas in my Global Politics Class. They don't teach torture there.

That is basically your answe to any argument we make. Etrusca. Go fuck yourself. Then bend over and let Bush do it to you too. You'll be happy then, I'm sure.

KNOCK IT OFF NOW.

American soldiers aren't exactly squeaky clean. In Afghanistan, which has more or less dropped off the radar since the invasion of Iraq, torture and the suspicious deaths of prisoners in detention are becoming more and more common place.

A prisoner is beaten to death by US forces, and you claim there's no comparison?

http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/afghan/news-tortureafghan.html

So, let's just ignore everything that was written and scream "The U.S. tortures people!" The fact is, you're basing your idiotic ideas about what happens at Guantanamo off of claims made by admitted terrorists and self-proclaimed enemies of the United States. But I'm sure they'd have no reason to try to sabotage the image of the nation that they're trying to destroy, right?

Here's the deal: liberals and retards in general love to plug their ears and ignore all the facts in this case, because obviously anything that helps us in the war on terror is evil. Obviously. The simple truth is that any time any investigation has been conducted, by any organization, the harshest forms of "torture" that have been documented at Guantanamo Bay are sleep deprevation and guards pouring water on the head of a detainee. You're right. That shit's just not kosher, let's burn the mother down!

You're brainwashed. Well, at least some of you are, and at least I can feel sorry for those people. The ones who are actively working against the U.S., however, in the fact that they know that there is nothing, NOTHING constituting torture going on at Guantanamo and kick and scream that there is anyway (and you can trace the source of that behavior back to them still being pissed that their party lost to W. again), well, it takes every amount of self-restraint I have when I hear them to keep blood from shooting out of my ears.
Yes, and thankyou for not reading what I wrote. And many of those "admitted terrorist and self proclaimed enemies of the United States" have been released, why? Because they were no such thing (think the Brits who were released).
Now, I at no point said what the insurgents were doing was right. Please, if I did point it out to me. What I said was, just because they are torturing people does not make it right for it to happen, in any way, in Guantanamo. That statement is my position, not some idiotic idea, sorry. Just because they are doing something nastier, does not make it right.
I also don't care who won or lost in your election, it makes very little odds to me except your Countries foreign or economic policies.

trying their best to "draw parallels" between what these insane terrorists do with those they hold ... most of whom are killed after having been tortured ... and the benign, almost benificient treatment of those incarcerated at Guantanamo.

You were the one who drew parallels with Guantanamo. Is this thread not called "Iraqi prisoners tortured. US military involved! Compared with Guantanamo." So that is what I did.
They may have been treated harsher, and yes, there were executions but, what will happen to those in Guantanamo if they ever get put on trial? Execution maybe? And before that, are they not being tortured in some way? And where is the benificient treatment? I have yet to hear 1 person released from Guantanamo say "you know what, it wasn't that bad. I mean, come on, they did think we were evil. And the pillow fights were great fun!"
I merely answered your question pertained within the name of the thread. I'm sorry that my reading of the article was not the same as yours, but I repeat, how can those fighting against terrorism take the moral high ground if we are doing to those we capture, if to a lesser extent, the same basic principles as those we fight?

hmmmm. i was just wondering if any one thinks that this kinda stuff happened in WWI, WWII? Also, i was wondering if some one was torturing a loved one and you found one of this persons cohorts, and they wouldnt talk, would you torture them to find out where they are? i am not liberal or conservitive, just trying to find some answers.
This sort of thing has happened throughout human history.

As I have said on here before, if a member of my family were kidnapped or tortured or killed, I would do my best to find those responsible and get results by whatever means I could devise. But that's just me.

Did the terrorists commit the mass and systematic slaughter of 6 or 7 million people? I'm guessing... no.



Yep. And more besides.

American soldiers aren't exactly squeaky clean. In Afghanistan, which has more or less dropped off the radar since the invasion of Iraq, torture and the suspicious deaths of prisoners in detention are becoming more and more common place.

A prisoner is beaten to death by US forces, and you claim there's no comparison?

Yep because he's being charged with murder and he should too.

Did the terrorists commit the mass and systematic slaughter of 6 or 7 million people? I'm guessing... no.

I guess terrorists aren't that bad. ;)
No, but the only reason they didn't was that all the weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria. :D

And I did hear about the School of Americas in my Global Politics Class. They don't teach torture there.
That's pretty much a lie. The SOA trained the vast majority of Latin American counterissurgents. There is a vast record of SOA graduates torturing, massacring, and assassinating innocent people. There have been many, many allegations by SOA graduates claiming they learned their techniques in the school, which have never been properly addressed.

BTW, what school do you go to?

Nice try at obfuscation, but it won't wash.

If you had bothered to read any of the posts I've made about Guantanamo, you would know that my position is that any American, military or otherwise, who violates the law should be prosecuted ... period. What's so "angelic" about that?

The fact that you are comparing with this with Guantanamo - as described in the threads very title - shows you are emphasizing the difference between the level of 'evil' or unlawful violence displayed allegedly by the US and allegedly by the terrorists. Primarily because you want the US and Guantanamo to be seen in a kinder light as a result, because you are for the war and the occupation, and want to support that effort by a show of apparent moral superiority on behalf of the US occupation.

If you don't want that, then why make the comparison in the first place?

It's hardly obfuscation, either, so that dismissal won't wash.

torture is only justified in the context of a lemon chicken and rice pilaf dinner.

but really, how can anyone expect *not* to be tortured in prison, much less a military prison? since when has due process prevented inmates from being ass-raped in domestic prison? it seems obvious that jailers, no matter what country you're in, have pretty much the same contempt and a large level of unaccountability when it comes to dealing with prisoners. it is the inherent nature of the prison environment.

on a side note, why are guantanamo detainees being served better food than kids in our schools' free lunch programs? why isn't anyone outraged about this?

That's pretty much a lie.

Care to prove it?

The SOA trained the vast majority of Latin American counterissurgents.

I know. My Professor told the class about the School!

There is a vast record of SOA graduates torturing, massacring, and assassinating innocent people.

Can't actually blame the US if they did this since we dont teach them to torture or to violate human rights.

There have been many, many allegations by SOA graduates claiming they learned their techniques in the school, which have never been properly addressed.

Because we don't teach them that down there.

BTW, what school do you go to?

Not going to tell you.

As I have said on here before, if a member of my family were kidnapped or tortured or killed, I would do my best to find those responsible and get results by whatever means I could devise. But that's just me.

This is EXACTLY what terrorists think too. They are getting their revenge the only way they think they can. So I think you just lost your moral high-ground. That or you love terroists.

torture is only justified in the context of a lemon chicken and rice pilaf dinner.

but really, how can anyone expect *not* to be tortured in prison, much less a military prison? since when has due process prevented inmates from being ass-raped in domestic prison? it seems obvious that jailers, no matter what country you're in, have pretty much the same contempt and a large level of unaccountability when it comes to dealing with prisoners. it is the inherent nature of the prison environment.

on a side note, why are guantanamo detainees being served better food than kids in our school's free lunch programs? why isn't anyone outraged about this?

I'm more amazed that out of 10,000 arrested, that the US is only holding 520.

Further, what do people think, that these people (whom were caught in action fighting for the terrorists!) deserve Martha Stewart/Michael Jackson treatment?!?

Thanks Eutrusca for posting this.

However, I think you wasted your time because people are not going to be persuaded by this.

Your right that the terrorists do far worse than what the US has done, even though the majority of what we did DOES NOT constitute torture.

Again thanks for posting it Eutrusca.
I've given up trying to pound some logic into minds already closed by propaganda, regardless of the political stripe of those minds. There are those at every point on the political spectrum apparently terrified at the prospect of thinking for themselves, and no amount of logic, facts, reason, or anything else will dissuade them from their fanatical grip on whatever lies they have chosen to believe. :(

I've given up trying to pound some logic into minds already closed by propaganda, regardless of the political stripe of those minds. There are those at every point on the political spectrum apparently terrified at the prospect of thinking for themselves, and no amount of logic, facts, reason, or anything else will dissuade them from their fanatical grip on whatever lies they have chosen to believe. :(

Took the words right out of my mouth there...

This is EXACTLY what terrorists think too. They are getting their revenge the only way they think they can. So I think you just lost your moral high-ground. That or you love terroists.

I doubt oneone can lose the moral high ground simply by being human.

I've given up trying to pound some logic into minds already closed by propaganda, regardless of the political stripe of those minds. There are those at every point on the political spectrum apparently terrified at the prospect of thinking for themselves, and no amount of logic, facts, reason, or anything else will dissuade them from their fanatical grip on whatever lies they have chosen to believe. :(

One could say the same about you, going by your posts in this thread.

What I don't get is that you're trying to make the acts of torture committed by our soldiers seem alright. You say you aren't, but that's exactly what you're doing, even if you "don't realise it".

I've given up trying to pound some logic into minds already closed by propaganda, regardless of the political stripe of those minds. There are those at every point on the political spectrum apparently terrified at the prospect of thinking for themselves, and no amount of logic, facts, reason, or anything else will dissuade them from their fanatical grip on whatever lies they have chosen to believe. :(

I know what your feeling Eutrusca. I go through that every day of my life. Not nearly so much at the University even though most of my professors are liberal. They do like the fact that I question them and that I can carry on a debate in a civilized manner.

Try having a civilize debate here. Its rare. Keep up the good work dude.

This is EXACTLY what terrorists think too. They are getting their revenge the only way they think they can. So I think you just lost your moral high-ground. That or you love terroists.
And you know how terrorists think ... how? Everything I have read ( and that's quite a lot ) leads me to believe that most terrorists have some sort of cosmic rationale to justify in their own minds why it's ok for them to kill, maim and torture. If someone were to threaten my family in some way, that's personal, not "cosmic." Get a grip.

Sorry, but maybe I missed the point.
Because they're beating people and torturing people that makes it ok for it to happen in Guantanamo? Sorry, but you can't defeat an enemy by stooping to their position. How can you say what you're doing is any better than what they're doing?

The point is Gitmo is not torturing people. So will those who are screaming for it to be closed scream about what the insurgents are doing? Will the moderate Muslims who condemn Gitmo and Abu speak loudly and condemn the radical Muslims for doing this to their brothers? Unfortunately, I think not.

The point is Gitmo is not torturing people. So will those who are screaming for it to be closed scream about what the insurgents are doing? Will the moderate Muslims who condemn Gitmo and Abu speak loudly and condemn the radical Muslims for doing this to their brothers? Unfortunately, I think not.

I should add that I don't mean to pry into anyone's agenda - certainly not Eutrusca's, who is by and large impeccable. But the door was opened, and now that it's opened I should point that everyone DOES have an agenda, and there are issues about which nearly everyone will constantly - perhaps unreasonably - feel inclined to defend or attack. By and large these torture issues (sadly that's how they will be known, whether they consist of actual torture or not) are really about the war - should we be there, should we leave, when should we leave. The concepts of humanity and justice are secondary to this practical issue - there are people on both sides who are susceptible to 'propaganda' of all kinds, who ignore higher principles just to grind an ax.

Care to prove it?

Sure, under the Freedom of Information Act several manuals used at the school were released. These manuals included such diverse material as extortion, assassination, and 'coercive methods of interrogation'. There are several available here:

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=98

Can't actually blame the US if they did this since we dont teach them to torture or to violate human rights.

The same way Osama didn't actually hurt anyone, he just trained them and showed them how.

Because we don't teach them that down there.

Wrong.

Not going to tell you.

Well, regardless, it must be a pretty shitty school then.

The entire point of posting this was to illustrate that most of those on here who are so critical of everything the US does have some hidden agenda. For anyone with any cognitive ability whatsoever, there is definitely, absolutely no comparison possible between the incidents described in the posted article and anything that has occured at Gunatanamo Bay. Yet here they are, folks, the America-haters, trying their best to "draw parallels" between what these insane terrorists do with those they hold ... most of whom are killed after having been tortured ... and the benign, almost benificient treatment of those incarcerated at Guantanamo.

I for one am sick to death of listening to these specious, dissimulating, contorted efforts to compare the two.

Very well said. I agree 100%.

The fact that you are comparing with this with Guantanamo - as described in the threads very title - shows you are emphasizing the difference between the level of 'evil' or unlawful violence displayed allegedly by the US and allegedly by the terrorists. Primarily because you want the US and Guantanamo to be seen in a kinder light as a result, because you are for the war and the occupation, and want to support that effort by a show of apparent moral superiority on behalf of the US occupation.

If you don't want that, then why make the comparison in the first place?

It's hardly obfuscation, either, so that dismissal won't wash.
The very vocabulary you use reveals your real agenda: "occupation," "apparent moral superiority," etc.

As I pointed out in the earlier post, if an American, military or not, violates the law, he or she should be punished according to the law. The rule of law applies to Americans, not to terrorists. That is one of the major reasons I can unequivocally state that the "moral superiority" ( your term ) is far more than "apparent" ( again, your term ).

The point is Gitmo is not torturing people. So will those who are screaming for it to be closed scream about what the insurgents are doing? Will the moderate Muslims who condemn Gitmo and Abu speak loudly and condemn the radical Muslims for doing this to their brothers? Unfortunately, I think not.

Maybe because terrorists, being terrorists, don't really listen when people speak out against them and the US, being a democracy, is meant to listen.

Well, regardless, it must be a pretty shitty school then.

Oh believe me it is anything but!

The very vocabulary you use reveals your real agenda: "occupation," "apparent moral superiority," etc.

As I pointed out in the earlier post, if an American, military or not, violates the law, he or she should be punished according to the law. The rule of law applies to Americans, not to terrorists. That is one of the major reasons I can unequivocally state that the "moral superiority" ( your term ) is far more than "apparent" ( again, your term ).

But you don't even know if they ARE terrorists, because you never tried them. Given that the US paid out cash rewards to 'rat' on your Taliban neighbours in a starving country (Aghanistan) there are, for a fact, innocent people in Gitmo, and you don't even seem to care.

The very vocabulary you use reveals your real agenda: "occupation," "apparent moral superiority," etc.

As I pointed out in the earlier post, if an American, military or not, violates the law, he or she should be punished according to the law. The rule of law applies to Americans, not to terrorists. That is one of the major reasons I can unequivocally state that the "moral superiority" ( your term ) is far more than "apparent" ( again, your term ).

Dude, listen to yourself. You have as blatant an agenda as he/she did. the difference? You are trying to justify actions they are trying to indemnify them. That's all.

And since your only means of justification is 'it's not as bad as...' it's not very good.

Very well said. I agree 100%.
Thank you. I'm very please that someone agrees with me on this. :)

No, it's totally not cool what has been done to some of the prisoners at gitmo, and no, we should not stoop to the terrorists level. I want to make it clear that I don't support anyone who does this. However, I do understand. With all the shit that the insurgents do to our prisoners, I can completely understand why a little revenge might be exacted... and, yes, a little revenge, because that's all gitmo is in comparison.

Oh believe me it is anything but!

I don't.

For those of you who believe sleep depravation is torture, I guess I was tortured by the US military. I was deprived of sleep the first few nights while I was in basic training. We were kept up all night with fire drills every hour or so, then banging trashcans woke us up at some ungodly hour while it was still dark. Having to get up in the middle of the night to pull a couple of hours of guard duty was sleep depravation. Then there were all those times I worked 14 or 15 hours and still got a call in the middle of the night. Often times when the call came, I had to report to work and spend another 12 to 14 hours there. Funny, I never thought of it as torture. Get a life people.

I don't.

That's your choice.

Eutrusca, you're perfectly right when you say that US military personnel that torture and murder prisoners under their control should be prosecuted and punished. However, this prosecution after the fact doesn't help the prisoners any. Abuses such as these are inevitably going to occur when the US creates legal black holes such as Guantanamo Bay, and uses terms such as 'illegal combatant' to put detainees in a grey area outside the jurisdiction of both the courts and the Geneva Convention. If the US military doesn't want to or intend for prisoners to be abused, why go through the legal gymnastics to ensure that there's such a low level of independent oversight?

Maybe because terrorists, being terrorists, don't really listen when people speak out against them and the US, being a democracy, is meant to listen.

Ah HA! There it is! That was the statement for which I have been waiting. I was wondering if anyone would be perceptive enough to realize that one of the major reasons the US is so often criticised is that we are comitted to listen by virtue of who and what we are. After all, why waste your breath preaching to those who will not listen?

This is an indirect support of terrorism, whether many of you choose to believe it or not. By not speaking out against acts comitted by those who will not listen, and criticising those who will, you ( including most of the media ) give the impression that it is the US who is at fault, and indirectly give aid and comfort to the terrorists.

Why is that so difficult to understand? I submit that a clue lies in the gleefulness with which some pounce on anything any American does wrong: you have a hidden agenda.

The very vocabulary you use reveals your real agenda: "occupation," "apparent moral superiority," etc.

As I pointed out in the earlier post, if an American, military or not, violates the law, he or she should be punished according to the law. The rule of law applies to Americans, not to terrorists. That is one of the major reasons I can unequivocally state that the "moral superiority" ( your term ) is far more than "apparent" ( again, your term ).

How is saying the USA is "occupying" Iraq conveying my real agenda? Of course I have an agenda, as I said before, and I'll outline it: I'm against it. But how did calling it "occupation" instead of (?) indicate anything other than a reflection of reality? We invaded. Our troops continue to occupy the nation. Seems a rather simple choice of "vocabulary" to me.

because you never tried them.

You never gave this nation a fair trial and you condemned it long ago.

How is saying the USA is "occupying" Iraq conveying my real agenda?

Because there is no occupation! And no, the occupation has been over with the minute the Iraqi Government took over.

Ah HA! There it is! That was the statement for which I have been waiting. I was wondering if anyone would be perceptive enough to realize that one of the major reasons the US is so often criticised is that we are comitted to listen by virtue of who and what we are. After all, why waste your breath preaching to those who will not listen?

This is an indirect support of terrorism, whether many of you choose to believe it or not. By not speaking out against acts comitted by those who will not listen, and criticising those who will, you ( including most of the media ) give the impression that it is the US who is at fault, and indirectly give aid and comfort to the terrorists.

Why is that so difficult to understand? I submit that a clue lies in the gleefulness with which some pounce on anything any American does wrong: you have a hidden agenda.

How does this make any sense? The REASON that everyone is going to criticize American more than terrorists is because terrorists will NEVER listen- telling them they're immoral, or unreasonable, or wrong is not going to do anything. On the other hand, as a democracy, Americans may be convinced of the errors of their ways- you can be reasoned with, not the terrorists. So why waste breath on those who don't care anyways?

Did the terrorists commit the mass and systematic slaughter of 6 or 7 million people? I'm guessing... no.

I guess terrorists aren't that bad. ;)

And you are refering to...???

You never gave this nation a fair trial and you condemned it long ago.
What are you even talking about? I have no problem with America at all, other than the fact they seem to pump more moron into the internet than every other nation combined.

How does this make any sense? The REASON that everyone is going to criticize American more than terrorists is because terrorists will NEVER listen- telling them they're immoral, or unreasonable, or wrong is not going to do anything.

But no one ever condems them for their actions so no one does anything about it. Think about it. If you condemn something, it won't take long for people to actually do something about it. If you don't condemn it, nothing will get done aout it.

On the other hand, as a democracy, Americans may be convinced of the errors of their ways- you can be reasoned with, not the terrorists. So why waste breath on those who don't care anyways?

Because those that don't say anything, give it tacit support. Its like fighting the school bully. If you don't stand up to him, he can do whatever he wants but the minute you stand up to him, he'll back down.

How does this make any sense? The REASON that everyone is going to criticize American more than terrorists is because terrorists will NEVER listen- telling them they're immoral, or unreasonable, or wrong is not going to do anything. On the other hand, as a democracy, Americans may be convinced of the errors of their ways- you can be reasoned with, not the terrorists. So why waste breath on those who don't care anyways?

Well, if you'd read the entire thing, which I doubt, you'd know what he was trying to say. He was pointing out that when we openly bash Americans for their wrong-doing, we paint America as the bad guy, and thus make the terrorists feel more justified.

And you are refering to...???

he compared the terrorists t the Nazi's and came to the conlusion that it was OK bexause they haven't re-enacted the Holocaust.

It's the same as comparing the US to the terrorists. The US has not been as bad therefore they are OK. By the system of morality you seem to be using to justify gitmo anyway.

Eutrusca, you're perfectly right when you say that US military personnel that torture and murder prisoners under their control should be prosecuted and punished. However, this prosecution after the fact doesn't help the prisoners any. Abuses such as these are inevitably going to occur when the US creates legal black holes such as Guantanamo Bay, and uses terms such as 'illegal combatant' to put detainees in a grey area outside the jurisdiction of both the courts and the Geneva Convention. If the US military doesn't want to or intend for prisoners to be abused, why go through the legal gymnastics to ensure that there's such a low level of independent oversight?
Because the definition of "torture" is so flexible. Because organizations such as Amnesty International indulge themselves in specious comparisons between "Hitler, Pol Pot, and the gulags of the USSR" and Guantanamo. Hard experience has shown that these organizations are prone to the same tendencies as many individuals: they attack those who they know will listen, and totally ignore those who will not, even though the abuses by those who listen are few and promptly punished.

But no one ever condems them for their actions so no one does anything about it. Think about it. If you condemn something, it won't take long for people to actually do something about it. If you don't condemn it, nothing will get done aout it.

Because those that don't say anything, give it tacit support. Its like fighting the school bully. If you don't stand up to him, he can do whatever he wants but the minute you stand up to him, he'll back down.

But we've already condemned the terrorists! My country, like yours, rained death down on them in Afghanistan. If that's not condemnation, I don't know what is. I've never justified terrorist actions, I just don't think there's much more to be said. Yes they suck. THat's pretty much all you can say.

Also I'm pretty sure the terrorists wouldn't back down no matter how much you tld them they sucked, and obviously blowing the shit out of them doesn't seem to bother them much either, so that Bully analogy doesn't make much sense.

Al

Because the definition of "torture" is so flexible. Because organizations such as Amnesty International indulge themselves in specious comparisons between "Hitler, Pol Pot, and the gulags of the USSR" and Guantanamo. Hard experience has shown that these organizations are prone to the same tendencies as many individuals: they attack those who they know will listen, and totally ignore those who will not, even though the abuses by those who listen are few and promptly punished.

I'm willing to agree with you that Gitmo is not torture. It is definitely cruel and inhuman treatment though, which is also against international law. Will you at least admit that?

But we've already condemned the terrorists! My country, like yours, rained death down on them in Afghanistan. If that's not condemnation, I don't know what is. I've never justified terrorist actions, I just don't think there's much more to be said. Yes they suck. THat's pretty much all you can say.

Also I'm pretty sure the terrorists wouldn't back down no matter how much you tld them they sucked, and obviously blowing the shit out of them doesn't seem to bother them much either, so that Bully analogy doesn't make much sense.

Al

Well... we could always start bringing terrorists on TV, forcing them to commit "sins" in the eyes of the islamic fundamentalists, and then cut their heads off after they sinned... the terrorists might surrender to that, what with their unflinching belief in and acceptance of their God and the truths of the books they follow, and probably freak out and surrender...

That was sarcasm, don't reply to it if you intend to treat it seriously.

How does this make any sense? The REASON that everyone is going to criticize American more than terrorists is because terrorists will NEVER listen- telling them they're immoral, or unreasonable, or wrong is not going to do anything. On the other hand, as a democracy, Americans may be convinced of the errors of their ways- you can be reasoned with, not the terrorists. So why waste breath on those who don't care anyways?

And what about those countries that are not involved in Iraq who loudly condemn the US? Where are their voices in condemning the action of the insurgents?

But we've already condemned the terrorists! My country, like yours, rained death down on them in Afghanistan. If that's not condemnation, I don't know what is. I've never justified terrorist actions, I just don't think there's much more to be said. Yes they suck. THat's pretty much all you can say.

Very few have condemned the Terorrists. The US and Britain have. However, those in the Middle East have not. They glorify it. Other nations haven't either. The Arab League hasn't condemned it either. The terrorists have to much power in the Middle East. These people know that if they condemn it openly, the terrorists will target them. It is time for the Middle East to wake up and realize just what type of monster has been unleashed in the world and to do something about it. They have the power to do so but they are not doing anything about it. Saudi Arabia is trying though their police forces have been infiltrated so their efforts are hampered.

Also I'm pretty sure the terrorists wouldn't back down no matter how much you tld them they sucked, and obviously blowing the shit out of them doesn't seem to bother them much either, so that Bully analogy doesn't make much sense.

The terrorists are the school bullys and the US is standing up to that school bully. However, we cant take them on alone. The Middle East hasn't stood up to this bully because they are afraid of what the bully will do to them if they do. The bully needs to be confronted. That is the only way to defeat a bully is to confront them. There are many ways in which to confront a bully (especially an international one) The M.E. needs to reign these people in if there is to be any hope of defeating the international terrorists. So yea, my analogy actually fits.

And what about those countries that are not involved in Iraq who loudly condemn the US? Where are their voices in condemning the action of the insurgents?

Non-existant.

And what about those countries that are not involved in Iraq who loudly condemn the US? Where are their voices in condemning the action of the insurgents?

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, in my mind. I supported Afghanistan, however, because that was ACTUALLY ABOUT TERRORISM. So yeah, I don't think Iraq is even worth mentioning in this context.

he compared the terrorists t the Nazi's and came to the conlusion that it was OK bexause they haven't re-enacted the Holocaust.

I think you need to re-read what "he" said. You have lost me on this. :confused:

I'm willing to agree with you that Gitmo is not torture. It is definitely cruel and inhuman treatment though, which is also against international law. Will you at least admit that?
Difficult to discuss in general terms. Have any specifics?

Because there is no occupation! And no, the occupation has been over with the minute the Iraqi Government took over.

I see. And what should I call it? Liberation? No, that was what we did when we removed Saddam. Supporting an ally? Iraq isn't really an ally, despite how pleasant the new government might be towards us. Truth is, occupation is what I call it when troops of one nation move into another nation, and the first nation removes the second nation's government, and keeps the troops there.

Otherwise... the occupation of France ended the minute Vichy took over. There was no occupation of France in WWII.

Non-existant.

It kinda goes without saying. What does international approval or disapproval matter to the terrorists? Nothing. Bugger all.

The terrorists are the school bullys and the US is standing up to that school bully. However, we cant take them on alone. The Middle East hasn't stood up to this bully because they are afraid of what the bully will do to them if they do. The bully needs to be confronted. That is the only way to defeat a bully is to confront them. There are many ways in which to confront a bully (especially an international one) The M.E. needs to reign these people in if there is to be any hope of defeating the international terrorists. So yea, my analogy actually fits.
sure, but us criticizing them in the media/on the internet so going to do exactly 2 things:
1) Jack
2) Shit
so yeah the ME needs to deal with the terrorists, but no, condemning them online is not going to do much at all. Where discussing US politics actually MIGHT, because the US is a democracy.

I see. And what should I call it? Liberation? No, that was what we did when we removed Saddam. Supporting an ally? Iraq isn't really an ally, despite how pleasant the new government might be towards us. Truth is, occupation is what I call it when troops of one nation move into another nation, and the first nation removes the second nation's government, and keeps the troops there.

You do understand that the Iraqi Government can ask us to leave at anytime right? They know we are essential to the security situation over there. The occupation is long over S.B.

Otherwise... the occupation of France ended the minute Vichy took over. There was no occupation of France in WWII.

You can actually make that claim so they were allied to.....

ADOLF HITLER'S GERMANY! That makes them an enemy of the Allied Forces :D

Non-existant.

Maybe you aren't listening? Here's my Country: http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/Press_Releases/20040930/1592.htm

Difficult to discuss in general terms. Have any specifics?
How about this? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30910FF3A5A0C738FDDA80994DC404482

It kinda goes without saying. What does international approval or disapproval matter to the terrorists? Nothing. Bugger all.

But they don't condemn it so they give tacit support for their methods. I'm still waiting for a condemnation of the insurgents tactics of blowing up civilians. That'll be a long time in coming.

You can actually make that claim so they were allied to.....

ADOLF HITLER'S GERMANY! That makes them an enemy of the Allied Forces :D

Yes, they were. Maybe you're screwing around again, it's hard to tell bu the Vichy france forces fought the Allies.

How does this make any sense? The REASON that everyone is going to criticize American more than terrorists is because terrorists will NEVER listen- telling them they're immoral, or unreasonable, or wrong is not going to do anything. On the other hand, as a democracy, Americans may be convinced of the errors of their ways- you can be reasoned with, not the terrorists. So why waste breath on those who don't care anyways?
How about because the entire world is watching? You have an audience! There are many who will draw conclusions based only on what they hear from sources other than their own media. When all they hear from "free" media is a steady drumbeat about all the awful things being done by American soldiers, etc., it's easy to conclude that most of the problems in the world are America's fault.

There are some on here who have drawn that very conclusion after listening to so-called "free" media.

This just in: The average inmate at Guantanamo has gained seven pounds during their incarceration. You should hear what's on their luncheon meau today! Hell. They eat better than I do!

But we've already condemned the terrorists! My country, like yours, rained death down on them in Afghanistan. If that's not condemnation, I don't know what is...

It is called war not condemnation.

Also I'm pretty sure the terrorists wouldn't back down no matter how much you tld them they sucked, and obviously blowing the shit out of them doesn't seem to bother them much either, so that Bully analogy doesn't make much sense.Al

So if the terrorists won't back down, and "blowing the shit out of them doesn't seem to bother them" how do you propose they be dealt with?

Maybe you aren't listening? Here's my Country: http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/Press_Releases/20040930/1592.htm

I know Ireland has done this. I was mostly referring to France, Germany, and other nations. They know who they are.

You do understand that the Iraqi Government can ask us to leave at anytime right? They know we are essential to the security situation over there. The occupation is long over S.B.


Of course they can ask that. And we can say no.

The occupation isn't over til they ask us and we do leave. But they won't ask us. Puppet governments are by definition pro-occupation.

Yes, they were. Maybe you're screwing around again, it's hard to tell bu the Vichy france forces fought the Allies.

And were subsequently defeated :rolleyes: No wonder they are called the cheese eating surrender monkeys! LOL

I'm willing to agree with you that Gitmo is not torture. It is definitely cruel and inhuman treatment though, which is also against international law. Will you at least admit that?

No.

How about because the entire world is watching? You have an audience! There are many who will draw conclusions based only on what they hear from sources other than their own media. When all they hear from "free" media is a steady drumbeat about all the awful things being done by American soldiers, etc., it's easy to conclude that most of the problems in the world are America's fault.

There are some on here who have drawn that very conclusion after listening to so-called "free" media.

Bingo. Arab nations, by and large, produce propaganda instead of news. It must be a great boon to those regimes when Arabs tune into Western news agencies and hear that their government's bullshit is correct.

Of course they can ask that. And we can say no.

The occupation isn't over til they ask us and we do leave. But they won't ask us. Puppet governments are by definition pro-occupation.

During those elections they held, some time back, did a lot of Iraqis vote for the Puppet Party? If it was freely elected, what makes you think it's a puppet?

But they don't condemn it so they give tacit support for their methods. I'm still waiting for a condemnation of the insurgents tactics of blowing up civilians. That'll be a long time in coming.

Are you serious? This has been condmemned many times throughout the past few decades, look at the condemnation of Syrian terrorism in Lebanon for example.

But again, you're missing the point. Us condemning terrorists is not going to stop them. So instead we discuss things that we can actually change.

Of course they can ask that. And we can say no.

And we won't because we already told them that if you ask us to leave, we will. :rolleyes:

The occupation isn't over til they ask us and we do leave.

I guess you haven't listened to a word I said.

But they won't ask us. Puppet governments are by definition pro-occupation.

THEY'RE NOT A PUPPET GOVERNMENT!!!!

Are you serious? This has been condmemned many times throughout the past few decades, look at the condemnation of Syrian terrorism in Lebanon for example.

And what has the world done about it? Nothing so it continues.

But again, you're missing the point. Us condemning terrorists is not going to stop them. So instead we discuss things that we can actually change.

Your right. It needs to be condemned by those in the Middle East and that won't happen any time soon.

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, in my mind. I supported Afghanistan, however, because that was ACTUALLY ABOUT TERRORISM. So yeah, I don't think Iraq is even worth mentioning in this context.

OK, take Iraq out of it if you want, your choice. Where are the nations who loudly condem the US? Why are they not loudly condeming what the terrorists have done in torture chambers?

And we won't because we already told them that if you ask us to leave, we will. :rolleyes:


And yet they haven't asked us. As I said, they won't. If there as a chance of them actually asking us to leave before we wanted to, we wouldn't have made that offer.

I guess you haven't listened to a word I said.

Well I'm typing and reading, so my ears aren't technically engaged, no. But as far as that goes, you haven't answered, what would YOU call it? If not occupation?

THEY'RE NOT A PUPPET GOVERNMENT!!!!

Increase the size of the font while you're at it, that makes that statement far more believable. :rolleyes:

No.
Well if it's not torture, and it's not cruel and inhuman treatment, then we are legally entitled to use it on our citizens. Which is a little scary.

That aside, there have been several rulings internationally which indicated that while hooding, sensory deprivation, etc. were not torture, they WERE in fact cruel and inhuman treatments.

I know Ireland has done this. I was mostly referring to France, Germany, and other nations. They know who they are.
France:
http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/article.gb.asp?ART=43414
Germany:
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=5207

Did the terrorists commit the mass and systematic slaughter of 6 or 7 million people? I'm guessing... no.

I guess terrorists aren't that bad. ;)


It comments like these that cause me to hate people on this forum. When anyone from any part of the world views terrorism as "Not that Bad" then I just can not fathom the mental processes that occurred to bring them to that conclusion.

We need to face the realities of the current situation in Iraq. What has occurred in the past is inconsequential, it can not be changed. Insurgents are Terrorists nothing more, many are foreigners. They deserve death, and are lucky to be sent to gitmo.

Why do I say that? Perhaps it is because I have good friends in Iraq right now facing dangers on a daily bases that people around here can only ever dare to write about in an RP at best. When anyone here has completed an action that requires that much bravery and courage then they can write about Terrorists and bash the US and the Armed Forces, and have a sliver of my respect.

Until anyone here has served In Iraqi against these Insurgents do not write about them because you have NO idea what it is like.

Eutrusca thank you for starting this thread it was a fine article.

Maybe you aren't listening? Here's my Country: http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/Press_Releases/20040930/1592.htm

Good for him. An official press release is good but some headlines in the Irish Times would reach a lot more people. So where is the story? http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0618/

OK, take Iraq out of it if you want, your choice. Where are the nations who loudly condem the US? Why are they not loudly condeming what the terrorists have done in torture chambers?

I don't think any nations HAVE condemned the US as such, though certainly some NGOs have. Again, whats the point in condemning those terrorists, especially because (American) rejection of the ICHR means it's difficult to even level legitimate charges against those terrorists. Moreover, AFAIK every nation on the planet has condemened suicide attacks in the past and present.

Good for him. An official press release is good but some headlines in the Irish Times would reach a lot more people. So where is the story? http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0618/

I don't see it.

It comments like these that cause me to hate people on this forum. When anyone from any part of the world views terrorism as "Not that Bad" then I just can not fathom the mental processes that occurred to bring them to that conclusion.

Well, besides you taking my statement out of context (you apparently didn't see what it was in response to) you failed to realize that that is not my conclusion, because it was a rhetorical statement made to highlight illogical thinking on behalf of whom I was responding to.

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism

Islamic terror orginizations that were CONFIRMED to have been operating openly in Saddam's Iraq, many with direct financial support from Saddam:

Islamic Jihad
Hamas
Ansar Al-Islam
Al Qaeda
Fateh
Palestine Liberation Front
Jehad al-Islamy
P.L.O.
Abu Nidal orginization
Mujahedeen-e-Khalq
Arab Liberation Front
Hezbollah

That's not even all of them either. Sources include CIA Worldbook, Globalsecurity.org and even the left leaning Council on Foreign Relations. If those aren't good enough for you, nothing ever will be.

Good for him. An official press release is good but some headlines in the Irish Times would reach a lot more people. So where is the story? http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0618/

Well the press isn't state controlled here, so ministers have to do thier best with press releases.

Also, your logic is somewhat flawed. The NY Post has no condemnation of terrorism by a goverment offical across it's front page today, does that mean that the US goverment no longer supports the war on terror?

How about this? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30910FF3A5A0C738FDDA80994DC404482

Hum...except for the solitary confinment it sounds like basic training to me.

'humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions';

What do you think Eut, basic training?

Hum...except for the solitary confinment it sounds like basic training to me.

'humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions';

What do you think Eut, basic training?

Sounds like what my mother went through though I don't think she was put through humiliating acts. I could be wrong though. Besides that, she went through AF basic Training :D

It comments like these that cause me to hate people on this forum. When anyone from any part of the world views terrorism as "Not that Bad" then I just can not fathom the mental processes that occurred to bring them to that conclusion.

We need to face the realities of the current situation in Iraq. What has occurred in the past is inconsequential, it can not be changed. Insurgents are Terrorists nothing more, many are foreigners.So it's OK to do this to foreigners than to citizens. Come over here and I'll show you the problem with that in the form of a bucket of slurry and some rope They deserve death, and are lucky to be sent to gitmo. Depends on your pov that really.

Why do I say that? Perhaps it is because I have good friends in Iraq right now facing dangers on a daily bases that people around here can only ever dare to write about in an RP at best. The fact you can fight bravely is not a reason to be allowed to commit torture (or, if you insist, 'inhumane acts'). When anyone here has completed an action that requires that much bravery and courage then they can write about Terrorists and bash the US and the Armed Forces, and have a sliver of my respect. Oh well, since I'm not particularly after your respect...

Until anyone here has served In Iraqi against these Insurgents do not write about them because you have NO idea what it is like. True, true. But you may have no idea of other things on this forum and still butt in.

Eutrusca thank you for starting this thread it was a fine article.

Y'know Santa Barbara was only making the logical conclusion of the 'we aren't as bad as the terrorists' reasoning.

Islamic terror orginizations that were CONFIRMED to have been operating openly in Saddam's Iraq, many with direct financial support from Saddam:

Islamic Jihad
Hamas
Ansar Al-Islam
Al Qaeda
Fateh
Palestine Liberation Front
Jehad al-Islamy
P.L.O.
Abu Nidal orginization
Mujahedeen-e-Khalq
Arab Liberation Front
Hezbollah

That's not even all of them either. Sources include CIA Worldbook, Globalsecurity.org and even the left leaning Council on Foreign Relations. If those aren't good enough for you, nothing ever will be.

That's not WHY Iraq was invaded though. There are nations in the middle east with WORSE human rights records, MORE terrorists, and so on.

Well if it's not torture, and it's not cruel and inhuman treatment, then we are legally entitled to use it on our citizens. Which is a little scary.

It was at times, but we got used to it. After all, basic training didn't last forever.

That's not WHY Iraq was invaded though. There are nations in the middle east with WORSE human rights records, MORE terrorists, and so on.

But they haven't violated 17 UN Resolutions or a Cease-Fire. That was why we invaded them. And I'm glad we did too.

It was at times, but we got used to it. After all, basic training didn't last forever.

What is it? About 6 weeks?

But they haven't violated 17 UN Resolutions or a Cease-Fire. That was why we invaded them. And I'm glad we did too.
well then you admit that you didn't invade them because of terrorism, but because of international law (those resolutions were not directed at terrorism as such).

You're correct if your attempt was to illustrate personal agendas. However the major one I am seeing here is yours.

Couldn't agree more!

well then you admit that you didn't invade them because of terrorism, but because of international law (those resolutions were not directed at terrorism as such).

True they weren't directed at Terrorism but they also had known terrorist connection and Bush even said as much too. So the violations of the Resolutions and cease-fire not to mention Terrorism, 2 charges covered.

Sounds like what my mother went through though I don't think she was put through humiliating acts. I could be wrong though. Besides that, she went through AF basic Training :D

That's the basic I went through and it isn't nearly as tough as Marines or Army. My wife went through it also. Believe me we were all humiliated by out TIs. No exceptions.

That's the basic I went through and it isn't nearly as tough as Marines or Army. My wife went through it also. Believe me we were all humiliated by out TIs. No exceptions.

My mother went through AF Basic Training and my dad suffered 4 years at the AFA. The stuff they put them through.... LOL! This is nothing :D

What is it? About 6 weeks?

In 1961 when I went it was 6 weeks at Lackland, then we finished up at tech school going to Basic Military Training (BMT) classes for 2 hours a day for another 8 weeks in addition to going to tech school for 6 hours a day.

In 1961 when I went it was 6 weeks at Lackland, then we finished up at tech school going to Basic Military Training (BMT) classes for 2 hours a day for another 8 weeks in addition to going to tech school for 6 hours a day.

Yea my mom said she was there (I think it was the same place) for 6 weeks as well. Anyway, this isn't torture by any stretches of the imagination.

This is EXACTLY what terrorists think too.
You're a telepath now?

This is yet another cry from Forrest, Corneliu and the usual gang to distract from Bush's accountability with the following standard right-wing claims:

1) "It's only torture if the prisoner bleeds and dies."
2) "They did it worse than us so we don't have to uphold standards, it's war!"
3) "Guantanamo Inmate = Terrorist." Nevermind that even the interrogators there said most of the inmates had no useful information that pertained to terrorism.
4) "Anyone who dares to criticize America is a terrorist." If Joe McCarthy was alive today, he'd be creaming in his pants over this.
5) "Iraq is a terrorist sponsor." Nevermind that Hussein and Bin Ladin despised each other and Iraq only became a major terrorist training ground after the Invasion.

This is yet another cry from Forrest, Corneliu and the usual gang to distract from Bush's accountability with the following standard right-wing claims:

1) "It's only torture if the prisoner bleeds and dies."
2) "They did it worse than us so we don't have to uphold standards, it's war!"
3) "Guantanamo Inmate = Terrorist." Nevermind that even the interrogators there said most of the inmates had no useful information that pertained to terrorism.
4) "Anyone who dares to criticize America is a terrorist." If Joe McCarthy was alive today, he'd be creaming in his pants over this.
5) "Iraq is a terrorist sponsor." Nevermind that Hussein and Bin Ladin despised each other and Iraq only became a major terrorist training ground after the Invasion.

Are you trolling?

This is yet another cry from Forrest, Corneliu and the usual gang to distract from Bush's accountability with the following standard right-wing claims:

1) "It's only torture if the prisoner bleeds and dies."
2) "They did it worse than us so we don't have to uphold standards, it's war!"
3) "Guantanamo Inmate = Terrorist." Nevermind that even the interrogators there said most of the inmates had no useful information that pertained to terrorism.
4) "Anyone who dares to criticize America is a terrorist." If Joe McCarthy was alive today, he'd be creaming in his pants over this.
5) "Iraq is a terrorist sponsor." Nevermind that Hussein and Bin Ladin despised each other and Iraq only became a major terrorist training ground after the Invasion.

I've noticed a trend (noticed it recently, though it's been going for a while...)
People who have no problem with Waco, or Ruby Ridge, or the Lawmaster incident...all seem to have a problem with GitMo.

I think, it's simply a matter of who's in the white-house, and has exactly zip to do with either:
(a) what's really happening
(b) any sort of genuine concern about human rights being violated.

I couldn't help but notice this article seems to emanate from the New York Times, which, in my time spent here on NationStates, I have heard repeatedly slagged by neocons as being so inordinately biased towards the great nebulous entity known as 'the Left' as to rarely be considered by said neocons as a legitimate source of information.

If I'm not mistaken, Eutrusca and Corneliu are among the usual decriers of the NYT. However, I do not find irony in their use of an article from the NYT to support or otherwise illustrate their suppositions. Hypocricy perhaps, but not irony.

More like tragedy.

Fiddle, Nero, fiddle.

Are you trolling?
It's more flame-baiting because he used names. Take away from that and it would be a valid point. Well semi-valid.

His points are dead on though.

And TBH naming names is a good idea, if nothing else it tells them we can see what they are up to.

Well it sound very dissmissive of the other posters. Doesn't exactly foster debate. He should have said something like "the gitmo defenders" or something and we'd be able to draw parellels ourselves.

This is yet another cry from Forrest, Corneliu and the usual gang to distract from Bush's accountability with the following standard right-wing claims:

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to name names in a debate?

1) "It's only torture if the prisoner bleeds and dies."

Incorrect.

2) "They did it worse than us so we don't have to uphold standards, it's war!"

We do have to uphold standards and we pretty much are since we are punishing those responsible for acts of torture! :rolleyes:

3) "Guantanamo Inmate = Terrorist." Nevermind that even the interrogators there said most of the inmates had no useful information that pertained to terrorism.

And those that don't are released! Did you fail to notice that?

4) "Anyone who dares to criticize America is a terrorist."

So very false it ain't even funny.

If Joe McCarthy was alive today, he'd be creaming in his pants over this.

I know you are but for other reasons.

5) "Iraq is a terrorist sponsor." Nevermind that Hussein and Bin Ladin despised each other and Iraq only became a major terrorist training ground after the Invasion.

I believe someone posted a list of all those terrorist organizations that Saddam supported. Nice try.

We do have to uphold standards and we pretty much are since we are punishing those responsible for acts of torture!

...by rounding up whole groups of individuals pele-mele, and torturing them until they tell you the sky is yellow and the sunshine blue. Or whatever else you'd like to hear.

Nice.

Corneliu. I have seen you make all the above arguments and I've seen them all trashed. Either make a good one or shut up.

...by rounding up whole groups of individuals pele-mele, and torturing them until they tell you the sky is yellow and the sunshine blue. Or whatever else you'd like to hear.

Nice.

Quite right! WE NEED TO START DECAPITATING THEM! :rolleyes:

To call GitMo torture is like calling eating meat murder: extremism in the extreme.

Oh, I know! Next time (since they were ALL taken in hostile action against us) that we just mow them down with machineguns? The fact that they WERE captured, and that the RED CROSS visits them are proof that they're getting decent treatment.

I believe someone posted a list of all those terrorist organizations that Saddam supported. Nice try.You mean the list which includes al-Qaeda, the group we've already determined didn't like Saddam?

Actually, the United States government has had infinitely closer financial ties to al Quaeda and its affiliates than did Iraq. There's no evidence Saddam ever gave money to the Taliban, whereas we did so openly as late as June 2001. So terrorist ties are not a valid justification for invasion.

Quite right! WE NEED TO START DECAPITATING THEM!

Why are you shouting at me?

...since they were ALL taken in hostile action against us...The fact that they WERE captured...

Now here's fun:

They're not. Not all of them. Not by a long shot. I had wanted to post the Yahoo! news stories that were available, but when I googled the story, I got this message from Yahoo! news: "The story or page you were trying to access may have expired."

So, I found a copy of the Associated Press story as it appeared, republished in the Toronto Star, and mirrored to this website:

http://gnn.tv/headlines/3166/Guantanamo_inmates_say_they_were_sold_to_U_S

We have had a number of people complaining that they will or will not accept links to articles appearing on one website or another, citing 'bias' or other intagibles. I make no apologies about the specific website I've just linked to, but take note that I make no specific endorsements, either. I just want to underscore, using legitimate news stories from reliable sources (both the Associated Press and the Toronto Star both make for credible news providers, IMO), that the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, and for that matter, Abu Ghraib and any all other American interrogation and torture institutions, are most definitely NOT "ALL taken in hostile action against" American forces, or anyone for that matter.

But with no legal recourse, how can these supposed "worst of the worst" defend the allegations made against them? With no transparency, how can the public be assured that Justice is being served, or even paid lip service?

*edit*

For your reading pleasure, here is the article, sans the website that no doubt will rankle our resident forthing-at-the-mouth Bush apologists.

FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS
Republished from The Toronto Star

American officials say they were unaware of payments for random prisoners

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Pakistani tribesmen slaughtered a sheep in honour of their guests: Arabs and Chinese Muslims famished from fleeing U.S. bombing in the Afghan mountains.

But their hosts had ulterior motives: to sell them to the Americans, said the men who are now prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000 (all figures U.S.), the detainees testified during military tribunals, said transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly received money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase with $3 million in cash into Afghanistan to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces.

“It wouldn’t surprise me if we paid rewards,” said Schroen, who retired after 32 years in the CIA soon after the fall of Kabul in late 2001.

He recently published the book First In: An Insider’s Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan.

Schroen said Afghan warlords like Gen. Rashid Dostum were among those who received bundles of notes.

“It may be that we were giving rewards to people like Dostum because his guys were capturing a lot of Taliban and Al Qaeda,” he said.

Pakistan has handed hundreds of suspects to the Americans but Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told the AP: “No one has taken any money.”

The U.S. departments of defence, justice and state and the Central Intelligence Agency also said they were unaware of bounty payments being made for random prisoners.

The U.S. Rewards for Justice program pays only for information that leads to the capture of suspected terrorists identified by name, said Steve Pike, a U.S. State Department spokesman. Some $57 million has been paid under the program, its website said.

It offers rewards up to $25 million for information leading to the capture of bin Laden and Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

But a wide variety of prisoners at the U.S. camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, alleged they were sold into capture. Their names and other identifying information were blacked out in the transcripts from the tribunals, which were held to determine whether prisoners were correctly classified as enemy combatants.

One detainee who said he was an Afghan refugee in Pakistan accused the country’s intelligence service of trumping up evidence against him to get bounty money from the U.S.

“When I was in jail, they said I needed to pay them money and if I didn’t pay them, they’d make up wrong accusations about me and sell me to the Americans and I’d definitely go to Cuba,” he told the tribunal.

“After that, I was held for two months and 20 days in their detention, so they could make wrong accusations about me and my (censored), so they could sell us to you.”

Another prisoner said he was on his way to Germany in 2001 when he was captured and sold for “a briefcase full of money” then flown to Afghanistan before being sent to Guantanamo.

“It’s obvious. They knew Americans were looking for Arabs, so they captured Arabs and sold them — just like someone catches a fish and sells it,” he said.

The detainee said he was seized by “mafia” operatives somewhere in Europe and sold to Americans because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time — an Arab in a foreign country.

A detainee who identified himself as a Saudi businessman said: ``The Pakistani police sold me for money to the Americans.”

“This was part of a roundup of all foreigners and Arabs in that area,” of Pakistan near the Afghan border, he said, telling the tribunal he went to Pakistan in November 2001 to help Afghan refugees.

The U.S. military-appointed representative for one detainee — who said he was a Taliban fighter — said the prisoner told him he and his fellow fighters “were tricked into surrendering to Rashid Dostum’s forces. Their agreement was that they would give up their arms and return home.”

“But Dostum’s forces sold them for money to the U.S.”

Several prisoners who appeared to be Chinese Muslims — known as Uighurs — described being betrayed by Pakistani tribesmen along with about 100 Arabs.

They said they went to Afghanistan for military training to fight for independence from China. When U.S. planes started bombing near their camp, they fled into the mountains near Tora Bora and hid for weeks, starving.

One detainee said they finally followed a group of Arabs, apparently fighters, being guided by an Afghan to the Pakistani border.

“We crossed into Pakistan and there were tribal people there and they took us to their houses and they killed a sheep and cooked the meat and we ate,” he said.

That night, they were taken to a mosque, where about 100 Arabs also sheltered. After being fed bread and tea, they were told to leave in groups of 10, taken to a truck, and driven to a Pakistani prison. From there, they were handed to Americans and flown to Guantanamo.

“When we went to Pakistan the local people treated us like brothers and gave us good food and meat,” said another prisoner.

But soon, he said, they were in prison in Pakistan where “we heard they sold us to the Pakistani authorities for $5,000 per person.”

There have been reports of Arabs being sold to the Americans after the U.S.-led offensive in Afghanistan but the testimonies offer the most detail from prisoners themselves.

In March 2002, the AP reported Afghan intelligence offered rewards for the capture of Al Qaeda fighters — the day after a five-hour meeting with U.S. Special Forces. Intelligence officers refused to say if the two events were linked and if the United States was paying the offered reward of 150 million Afghanis, then equivalent to $4,000 a head.

That day, leaflets and loudspeaker announcements promised “the big prize” to those who turned in al-Qaida fighters.

Said one leaflet: “You can receive millions of dollars…This is enough to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life — pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people.”

Helicopters broadcast similar announcements over the Afghan mountains, enticing people to “Hand over the Arabs and feed your families for a lifetime,” said Najeeb al-Nauimi, a former Qatar justice minister and leader of a group of Arab lawyers representing nearly 100 prisoners.

Al-Nauimi said a consortium of wealthy Arabs, including Saudis, told him they also bought back fellow citizens who had been captured by Pakistanis.

Khalid al-Odha, who started a group fighting to free 12 Kuwaiti detainees, said his imprisoned son, Fawzi, wrote him a letter from Guantanamo Bay about Kuwaitis being sold to the Americans in Afghanistan.

One Kuwaiti who was released, 26-year-old Nasser al-Mutairi, told al-Odha interrogators said Dostum’s forces sold them to the Pakistanis for $5,000 each and the Pakistanis in turn sold them to the Americans.

“I also heard that Saudis were sold to the Saudi government by the Pakistanis,” al-Odha said.

“If I had known that, I would have gone and bought my son back.”

You mean the list which includes al-Qaeda, the group we've already determined didn't like Saddam?

That is a baseless claim, it's never been proven in any way there was animosity between them. Besides it doesn't mean they wouldn't work together. Skinheads and Islamists don't like each other but they share a common goal.

...by rounding up whole groups of individuals pele-mele, and torturing them until they tell you the sky is yellow and the sunshine blue. Or whatever else you'd like to hear.

Nice.

Um... source? You're making a serious allegation here, I presume you have some {Non-Speculative} sources to back it up? you know, congressional testimony, official documentation, independently verified reports? We can toss wild-ass speculations at each other all day long about what's going on at Guantanamo Bay, what the definition of "torture" is, and whether or not the prisoners at GitMo are, in fact, legitimate prisoners... but that's not serving the debate either. I can back up statements about unlawful combatant status, U.S. Military interrogation doctrine, the applicable Geneva Conventions, and U.S. Military Regulations regarding the treatment of prisoners. Further, You may not have been paying attention, but the ICRC (international comittee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent) has access to the prisoners at Guantanamo bay. So far, there doesn't appear to be any verified reports of mistreatment, only speculations and guesses combined with unverified and discredited false reports... and a handful of incidents misreported by Newsweek, and taken out of context from a DoD report. (It turns out, the prisoners were using pages from the Koran to stop up the plumbing! no doubt a form of protest over being given a copy of the book published by non-muslims...)

None of the evidence, of course, will sway some people-they know-what-they-know and damn-the-facts, they want to impose a "Higher Truth" than that.
I saw much the same kind of thinking during the decline of the Militia Movement, as the moderates drifted out and the skinhead kooks, and FBI Informants, moved in.
I always kind of wondered if I would see that same kind of knee-jerk, rumour-driven, tinfoil-hat paranoia in the Left one day. And now I have. Both eras, the concern wsa over human rights for what amounts to religious and political minorities-it's just that while it's fine to blow a (non-suspect) woman's head off iin the execution of a warrant (while she's holding a baby), apparently it's not fine to sweat an arabic combatant captured in fighting for information about his comrades.

I suspect the real cause of your venom and spleen isn't the war, or GitMo, it's that George W. Bush is in the White House instead of Al Gore Jr.

That is a baseless claim, it's never been proven in any way there was animosity between them. Besides it doesn't mean they wouldn't work together. Skinheads and Islamists don't like each other but they share a common goal.

:confused: Skinheads and Islamists don't work together. You just proved the opposite of what you were trying to.


It's just that while it's fine to blow a (non-suspect) woman's head off iin the execution of a warrant (while she's holding a baby), apparently it's not fine to sweat an arabic combatant captured in fighting for information about his comrades.

If said woman is a branch davidian holding a gun in the other hand shooting at you while using her child as a human shield, yes it is justifiable to shoot back. It isn't ideallic law-enforcement and it won't be pretty, but it's a necessitated reality. And I think you meant to say 'arabic suspect' since they haven't been charged w/ anything.


PS Dobbs: please...shorten...post...

You just proved the opposite of what you were trying to.

No, you're just too dense to get it. They both hate jews, they work toward bringing down Israel. Saddam and AQ both hate America, why would they not work together towards that goal? Are you denying that Sept 11th ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi Intellegence agent at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague on April 8, 2001?

to be honest, just skimming through, at first I thought it was about guantanamo. Then I realised, nope, it was about Abu Ghraib. Then, shock horror, it wasn't the americans doing mean nasty things, it was the iraqis doing mean nasty things.

Oh, and the red cross hasn't produced a report, because it's part of it's ethos not to. If they did, then it is extremely unlikely they would be given access to prisoners in the future

No, you're just too dense to get it. They both hate jews, they work toward bringing down Israel.

Alright, use your supposedly superior intellect to prove to me that skinheads and islamists are operating in collusion. And please try to do so without flaming.

Um... source? You're making a serious allegation here...*snips*

I'm not alleging a damn thing. What you think Abu Ghraib is, a day-camp for Iraqi nudists? You detain people at random, or for spurious reasons like, "we're looking for given supposed terrorist 'A', who is bearded, let us then round up a few hundred bearded Iraqis" and you employ methods of torture, coercion, blackmail, etc. in a bid to exact useful information. Or what exactly do you suppose they do?

And isn't supposition really at the root of all of this? Because there's no legal recourse, because there's no transparency, all any of us have to go on is supposition. That such a state of affairs was ever considered permissable in the first place is a slap in the face of all people who value personal freedom, honour, and human dignity.

I suspect the real cause of your venom and spleen isn't the war, or GitMo, it's that George W. Bush is in the White House instead of Al Gore Jr.

Suspect all you like. That's a serious allegation you're making. *chuckles* Now, how about a source to back up your allegation...?

Hmm? Tit for tat.

Thank you. I'm very please that someone agrees with me on this. :)
I agree with you, I just got worn out arguing my point in my thread yesterday. Keep up the good work man.

Corneliu. I have seen you make all the above arguments and I've seen them all trashed. Either make a good one or shut up.

Someone from the left infringing on freedom of speech because they don't like what the person is saying? :eek:

I'll bet not one of you Bush apologists realized just how inexpensive Kuwaitis are.

You could probably still get them at a discount if you buy them in bulk, though.

Someone from the left infringing on freedom of speech because they don't like what the person is saying? :eek:

No, it's someone from the left saying that if you don't have a valid argument there's no point to airing it. Since we've trashed them all before there is really no reason to re-use them.

Freedom of speech is fine. The abuse of it to make pointless and specious arguments is irritating in the extreme.

Alright, use your supposedly superior intellect to prove to me that skinheads and islamists are operating in collusion. And please try to do so without flaming.


I'm still waiting NF...

(Don't be ashamed to admit you have no proof. It happens to the best of us. ;) )

I'm not alleging a damn thing. What you think Abu Ghraib is, a day-camp for Iraqi nudists? You detain people at random, or for spurious reasons like, "we're looking for given supposed terrorist 'A', who is bearded, let us then round up a few hundred bearded Iraqis" and you employ methods of torture, coercion, blackmail, etc. in a bid to exact useful information. Or what exactly do you suppose they do?


Anyone trained in modern interrogation will tell you: Torture does not yeild effective results 99% of the time. Most subjects under torture will tell you what they think you want to hear to make it stop-often making up stories. This is known to be an ineffective method with significant inefficiencies. The Army has known this since 1967's "Phoenix Programme", which was run by CIA and resulted in little-to-no impact on VC activities in the Ia Drang valley.
The other methods (Sleep deprivation, randomized mealtimes, and valium-flavoured pizza) used (and documented) at GitMo, are also used commonly by British and French counterintel and counterterror outfits.
As for random-sweeps like you describe: Inefficient, a severe drain on combat-resources. Few commanders are that boneheaded. Again, it's counter to U.S. doctrine in occupation situations and has been since the Philipine Insurrection of the 1920's, where it failed to impact the Moros.
Cost-benefit wise (and Army Units have to stretch every budget dollar) it's cheaper to bribe the locals and use less ham-handed means, slip "Infiltrator" prisoners in to listen to gossip, and use the same tactics used by FBI against the Mob. Yes, this does include Blackmail. A favourite is to show a subject doctored press-releases in which he is named for ratting out someone you've caught on your own. the threat of being named-as-an-informant, then publically released, works to create informants in a remarkable number of cases, once the guy's turned, he's owned. He'll keep informing because now the 'evidence' is real.
The threat of bodily harm, see, comes from his former comrades... and the "press release" doesn't have to be a statement by the U.S. officially-it could be the planting of a rumour, or an intentional "leak" to the Press, who will then faithfully report the "breaking news". That's doctrine, dude. Torture doesn't work.

As for Abu-Ghraib, people are facing courts-martial for violating U.S. Army and UCMJ regulations regarding the handling of prisoners, and the Lt. Colonel in charge of the facility is trying like hell to cover her ass (and likely failing miserably. I can't read the internal mail at the Pentagon...) over it. Neither Policy, nor condoned.



And isn't supposition really at the root of all of this? Because there's no legal recourse, because there's no transparency, all any of us have to go on is supposition. That such a state of affairs was ever considered permissable in the first place is a slap in the face of all people who value personal freedom, honour, and human dignity.


Welcome to the world of Military Operations in Wartime, where even the Soldiers don't know the score... however, we do know what ICRC has found, we have a fair idea of what conditions in Guantanamo really are, based on the "reports" we've gotten and information forcibly released by court-order. Few of the techinques detailed in the "abuse reports" are inconsistent with normal treatment of Civil prisoners or commonly used interrogation techiques favoured in other western countries. Disrupted sleep, randomized mealtimes, isolation, and other methods were found to be acceptable in cases involving IRA suspects in Brit hands ten to fifteen years ago.

We also have a fairly transparent access to Army and Marine interrogation doctrine via the number of Veterans out there, and the number of training manuals available on the subject from outfits like Paladin Press (usually reprints of superceded documents, they do demonstrate trends in thinking).
further, we have press reports and interview transcripts from those subjects released, and there is ample documentation available on what charges are being filed in the Abu Ghraib cases, as well as public statements, including the self-serving gibberish of that aforementioned Lt. Colonel.



Suspect all you like. That's a serious allegation you're making. *chuckles* Now, how about a source to back up your allegation...?

Hmm? Tit for tat.

Note I didn't phrase that last one as a definitive statement, but I have noticed a trend for those that were silent or even endorsed Waco and Ruby Ridge, to be critical of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. This is particularly among Democrats and Europeans, here on this very site (and on the NS forums at their old address before the move to Jolt, when I was... a different, now expired, username.) When people ignore or endorse jack-booted-thug behaviour against American civilians, but scream about it when used against foreign combatants, it is not a difficult thing to suspect political, rather than humanitarian, motivations. Given that GW Bush is very unpopular with the American Left, it is reasonable, I think, to note that he was unpopular before Osama Bin Laden was a name known to every household in the U.S., This is further enhanced by the Dem/Euro endorsements of American intervention in the former Yugoslavia, which conveniently overlooked the strafing of refugee convoys that occurred under the direction of Wes Clark. (It was accidental, we think. Unfortunately, as you 've pointed out, the situation was and is, non-transparent....)
Similar events in the Haitian intervention during the late 1990's, including the detention of suspected militants, drew little attention, and UN "Peacekeepers" in African operations comitting laundry-lists of crimes including extortion and rape-of-minors barely makes a ripple compared to depriving Abdul Abdullah Haji of rights he arguably doesn't have.

With approval, silence, or only mild condemnation of significantly similar or worse events elsewhere, (or elsewhen), there has to be another motive.

Logically, it is political-we can rule out Humanitarian based on the intensity of both criticism, and direction of criticism. Since there was little to no criticism from those sources when the other events took place, what has changed?

the guy in the white house has changed. The 2000 election was hotly contested and ended up with a very divisive result that polarized a number of people. GW is not popular in Europe, wasn't when he was sworn in, and as everyone who's watched such things knows, there's a limit to how long any sympathy for a disaster or atrocity will last when dealing with Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. The stepping on vested interests involved in the Iraq offensive further aggravates this-French, German, Russian, and other commercial interests lost when the cease-fire was abruptly ended. Bush is viewed as responsible for that. (and probably rightly so-he didn't bother to consider how the fall of Saddam's Regime would impact ELF oil, and freezing non-participants out of the rebuilding contracts, while providing stimulus to both form and hold the international coalition, probably didn't help that populatrity!)

So, we have vested interests, pre-existing hostility, and a scapegoat. Makes sense. We also have thunderous silence over abuses that occurred under a, shall we say, 'More internationally Popular" president who happened to be of the "Correct" Party affiliation.

Further, we have documented incidents of actions by nations that are critical of U.S. policy whose troops, under the blue-banner, have done, and are doing, worse things in Africa.

The Political smell is getting overpowering. I doubt you would be critical if GW wasn't a Republican named Bush, but a Democrat named Gore, or Kerry, under the same conditions.

...by rounding up whole groups of individuals pele-mele, and torturing them until they tell you the sky is yellow and the sunshine blue. Or whatever else you'd like to hear.

Nice.

:confused: You have now totally lost me! Yes we have taken people and thousands have been released! Our soldiers that go over the line have been rounded up and tossed into the brig. We are punishing our own so what is your problem?

Corneliu. I have seen you make all the above arguments and I've seen them all trashed. Either make a good one or shut up.

And which arguement will that be? The fact that we are punishing those that cross the line?

You mean the list which includes al-Qaeda, the group we've already determined didn't like Saddam?

Now this is rich. Then why was Al Zaraqawi in Baghdad? Why was he in Iraq? He was there before the war even started. He's a known *ahem* Al Qaeda *ahem* operative. If they didn't like eachother then why was he there getting treated for wounds suffered in Afghanistan? Give me a break.

Someone from the left infringing on freedom of speech because they don't like what the person is saying? :eek:

I was wondering that myself Celtlund. Sounds like the liberal left to me. Come out with a cohesive arguement then get told to shut up because it wasn't what they want to hear.

I'll bet not one of you Bush apologists realized just how inexpensive Kuwaitis are.

Who around here is a Bush apologist here? I just got ticked off at him for stating that he isn't going to alter the BRAC report. That pissed me off because my father's base is on the chopping block. So whose a Bush apologist? And what is this talk about Kuwaitis?

You could probably still get them at a discount if you buy them in bulk, though.

:confused:

He's a known *ahem* Al Qaeda *ahem* operative.He must be having an identity crisis then, I'm pretty sure I remember his terrorist group in Iraq declaring in late 2004/early 2005 that they were allying themselves with al-Qaeda and changing their name from Tawhid wal Jihad (or something like that, I'm not entirely sure) to al-Qaeda in Iraq. So, tell me again what year the war in Iraq started? 2003 wasn't it? If he was already an al-Qaeda operative, why did he go around blowing stuff up with his own organisation rather than doing it all in the name of al-Qaeda and bin Laden?

He must be having an identity crisis then, I'm pretty sure I remember his terrorist group in Iraq declaring in late 2004/early 2005 that they were allying themselves with al-Qaeda and changing their name from Tawhid wal Jihad (or something like that, I'm not entirely sure) to al-Qaeda in Iraq. So, tell me again what year the war in Iraq started? 2003 wasn't it? If he was already an al-Qaeda operative, why did he go around blowing stuff up with his own organisation rather than doing it all in the name of al-Qaeda and bin Laden?

Yes he was already an Al Qaeda Operative. He was in Baghdad getting medical treatment after fleeing Afghanistan. I heard that he fled Afghanistan anyway. I heard of him back in 2001 when we launched our opening move in Afghanistan. You really need to follow everything that goes on.

He was not an al-Qaeda operative, he had his own group since the 90s, one that he hoped could potentially rival al-Qaeda. And for some strange reason (possibly boredom), I read Wikipedia's article about al-Zarqawi a few months ago. :confused:

He was not an al-Qaeda operative, he had his own group since the 90s, one that he hoped could potentially rival al-Qaeda. And for some strange reason (possibly boredom), I read Wikipedia's article about al-Zarqawi a few months ago. :confused:

Don't ever believe everything you read on Wiki. Some of it is true, some of it is not. One of my classmates found that out the hardway when he used Wiki for a paper we had to do for class.

Zarqawi was mentioned BY NAME while the fighting was going on in Afghanistan. I heard it with my own ears. Of course, I followed the action closely so its no surprise that I did.

What is happening at Guantanamo in no way compares to the evil actions of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

And Zarqawi is a top official in Al Qaeda. Hence the name of his group being "Al Qaeda in Iraq". It is a branch of Al Qaeda. It is not a seperate group.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it presents stereotypes and misinformation as facts. Just because 5 million people think the world is flat and post it as such on a popular site called wikpedia, does not make the world flat.

Actually, all of the insurgents in Iraq that are killing not only Americans but mostly Iraqis, are members of Al Qaeda.

Oh that tri-weekly chicken dinner, tax payer-suplied prayer rug & Koran, and those evil female guards all combine to make the vilest torture system ever known to man. Oye.

Whenever I think of the Republican/war supporters who grace this board and try to enlighten all of those left wing/ anti Iraq war people, I can't help but think, "Why the hell are they here bitching to the left? They should be out there fighting! After all, if they're so much behind it!" So, I found this on the net and I couldn't help but think of those folks who are so pro Iraq war...

http://pics.livejournal.com/jackola/pic/000tg0ar

Dude Corneliu, you made about ten posts in a row! :eek:

If someone pisses you off, take it out on them. The rest of us here are (relatively) unaffiliated with whatever the altercation is.

Well, so, if Hitler killed 6 million jews, if I kill 20 million, am i excused, innocent, or more righteous?
I invoke Godwin's Law

Dude Corneliu, you made about ten posts in a row! :eek:

If someone pisses you off, take it out on them. The rest of us here are (relatively) unaffiliated with whatever the altercation is.

What I want to know is this, apparently Corneliu is 21? 22? Why the hell is he not in Iraq fighting with his attitude? I mean, surely he should be!

Or maybe...

http://pics.livejournal.com/jackola/pic/000tg0ar

Or maybe...
http://pics.livejournal.com/jackola/pic/000tg0ar
Or maybe...
http://images.animationfactory.com/animations/business/politics/democrat_donkey_on_a_bullseye/democrat_donkey_on_a_bullseye_lg_wm.gif
What a jackass ;)

What I want to know is this, apparently Corneliu is 21? 22? Why the hell is he not in Iraq fighting with his attitude? I mean, surely he should be!

I can answer that question. Because he's been around the military his entire life, as have I. When you've been around the military for as long as we have, you learn a thing or two about the military life.

And he's 22.

Or maybe...
http://images.animationfactory.com/animations/business/politics/democrat_donkey_on_a_bullseye/democrat_donkey_on_a_bullseye_lg_wm.gif
What a jackass ;)

*Giggles*

That's funny Super-power :) :D

Freedom of speech is fine. The abuse of it to make pointless and specious arguments is irritating in the extreme.
Then why do you persist? :D

Then why do you persist? :D

Nice comeback Eut. LOL

What I want to know is this, apparently Corneliu is 21? 22?

22 and a Senior in College

Why the hell is he not in Iraq fighting with his attitude?

Maybe because I don't want to be in the military?

I mean, surely he should be!

Why?

Or maybe...

http://pics.livejournal.com/jackola/pic/000tg0ar

Not even funny.

Or maybe...
http://images.animationfactory.com/animations/business/politics/democrat_donkey_on_a_bullseye/democrat_donkey_on_a_bullseye_lg_wm.gif
What a jackass ;)

This on the other hand, is funny.

Now why on earth did the Democrats choose an ASS for a symbol is beyond me :D

Whenever I think of the Republican/war supporters who grace this board and try to enlighten all of those left wing/ anti Iraq war people, I can't help but think, "Why the hell are they here bitching to the left? They should be out there fighting! After all, if they're so much behind it!" So, I found this on the net and I couldn't help but think of those folks who are so pro Iraq war...

http://pics.livejournal.com/jackola/pic/000tg0ar
Well, I could say any number of things about this, but I think I'll just limit it to:

* I served for over 30 years.

* I would still be serving had I not almost killed my fool self in a military parachuting accident.

* I tried to volunteer to go back in twice, once after 9/11 and again after the conflict in Afghanistan began. Both times I was told that I was "too old and too disabled" to go back on active duty.

* I'm not a Republican.

Obviously my situation is a bit different than that of many others, but I have been known to "bitch at the left" on here. :)

Whenever I think of the Republican/war supporters who grace this board and try to enlighten all of those left wing/ anti Iraq war people, I can't help but think, "Why the hell are they here bitching to the left? They should be out there fighting! After all, if they're so much behind it!" So, I found this on the net and I couldn't help but think of those folks who are so pro Iraq war...

http://pics.livejournal.com/jackola/pic/000tg0ar

As someone who has just canceled his Senate campaign to volunteer for Iraq duty I got a present for you libs out there who are supporting Al Qaeda and hating anyone who is American.

The one finger salute.


(I would use a pic but I don't know where you guys get them at.)

BTW, Xanaz, this is the my 4th year in the military.

If you think things are so aweful in Iraq, why don't you join one of those humanitarian groups and go to Iraq and help make a difference. Instead of alwasy bashing Bush and the United States.

There's a few people I'd like to see put their actions where their words are.

I've seen you all on here bashing America. Screaming the lives of Iraqis are miserable. If you really believed that, if you really cared a damn about the Iraqi people, you would volunteer to go over and help with humanitarian relief.

Likewise those who want to support the war and are able bodied, why the heck don't you sign and volunteer for Iraq duty so some of the guys over there can come over here and spend christmas with their families?

Excuse me, if some of you get a little offended. But all I've seen on here, as regards Iraq, is a lot of bitching and flaming and no one willing to actually act on their positions.

Here's to hoping my request goes through. Especially since my First Sgt. had me go and get a doctor's signature saying I was fit for deployment. Well, I will be in a couple of months. But its still up the company commander. I just hope he approves.

It's because we're all a bunch of bourgeois citizens. Picking up a gun or a shovel and actually doing something productive is antithetical to the vlaues of the average anonymous online forum poster.

:eek:
I've said too much.

The entire point of posting this was to illustrate that most of those on here who are so critical of everything the US does have some hidden agenda. For anyone with any cognitive ability whatsoever, there is definitely, absolutely no comparison possible between the incidents described in the posted article and anything that has occured at Gunatanamo Bay. Yet here they are, folks, the America-haters, trying their best to "draw parallels" between what these insane terrorists do with those they hold ... most of whom are killed after having been tortured ... and the benign, almost benificient treatment of those incarcerated at Guantanamo.

I for one am sick to death of listening to these specious, dissimulating, contorted efforts to compare the two.
It is interesting that you talk about "hidden agendas". It appears that you have one as well. Anyone who opposes American torture of prisoners are somehow, in your eyes, "America-haters"?

You also obviously go for sensationalism? Iraqis who torture their prisoners are "insane terrorists". I guess American troops that torture Iraqis are sane, rational guys who had a temporary misguided moment?

You are also trying to justify that American torture is somehow kinder and more gentle, even though some have died. Sorry but it does not wash and two wrongs do not make a right.

Your President declared:

"Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers."President Bush, remarks to 2003 Republican National Committee Presidential Gala, Oct. 8, 2003

Obviously he was wrong.

I also think that by you bringing this article forward, it keeps the focus on the subject. It surely will not help it go away.

Whenever I think of the Republican/war supporters who grace this board and try to enlighten all of those left wing/ anti Iraq war people, I can't help but think, "Why the hell are they here bitching to the left? They should be out there fighting! After all, if they're so much behind it!" So, I found this on the net and I couldn't help but think of those folks who are so pro Iraq war...

http://pics.livejournal.com/jackola/pic/000tg0ar

Do you support law enforcement? If so, then I demand that you become a police officer! Do you support education? If so, then I demand that you become a teacher! Do you support firefighters? If so, then I demand that you become one. Do you support football? If so, then I demand that you become a NFL linebacker! Do you support hockey? If so, then I demand you become a goalie in the NHL! After all, you have a double-standard if you don't.

Get the point?

Well, I could say any number of things about this, but I think I'll just limit it to:

* I served for over 30 years.

* I would still be serving had I not almost killed my fool self in a military parachuting accident.

* I tried to volunteer to go back in twice, once after 9/11 and again after the conflict in Afghanistan began. Both times I was told that I was "too old and too disabled" to go back on active duty.

* I'm not a Republican.

Obviously my situation is a bit different than that of many others, but I have been known to "bitch at the left" on here. :)

That's quite a resume. :) Thank you for serving.

I can answer that question. Because he's been around the military his entire life, as have I. When you've been around the military for as long as we have, you learn a thing or two about the military life.
Yeah, you probably learn not to enlist because you might get your damn fool ass shot off in the Iraqi sandbox, trying to give liberty to some poor Iraqi who just wants to shoot your damn fool ass off?

It is interesting that you talk about "hidden agendas". It appears that you have one as well. Anyone who opposes American torture of prisoners are somehow, in your eyes, "America-haters"?

You also obviously go for sensationalism? Iraqis who torture their prisoners are "insane terrorists". I guess American troops that torture Iraqis are sane, rational guys who had a temporary misguided moment?

You are also trying to justify that American torture is somehow kinder and more gentle, even though some have died. Sorry but it does not wash and two wrongs do not make a right.

Your President declared:

"Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers."President Bush, remarks to 2003 Republican National Committee Presidential Gala, Oct. 8, 2003

Obviously he was wrong.

I also think that by you bringing this article forward, it keeps the focus on the subject. It surely will not help it go away.


In the course of the war on terror, only 4 enemy POW's have died. Compare that with the thousands of Iraq civilians those same Pow's have butchered.
What those foriegn, non Iraqi, jihadists are doing in Iraq is 1,000 times worse than Guant. At least we don't make people drink sand. We don't electricute them over and over.

Here's the deal: liberals and retards in general love to plug their ears and ignore all the facts in this case, because obviously anything that helps us in the war on terror is evil....you're brainwashed. Well, at least some of you are, and at least I can feel sorry for those people.

I agree that there is nothing like what was described in the article going on at Guantanamo. However, the statement that liberals plug their ears and ignore the facts is ridiculous. Some liberals, like Michael Moore, just take it too far and sometimes lie - and I'm willing to admit that. I'm also willing to admit that Bill O'Reilly is a liar for continually distorting the "facts" that he cites. So we're both on the same page here. Extremists from any group of people will do the same thing.

On a final note, while I'm pretty pissed that George W. Bush is president, one should note that no other US president has ever had to deviate from their intended inaugural parade route due to protesting crowds. I think that this says something about the way he has polarized the nation and for that reason alone I don't think he's been a good president.

Or how bout that American GI they had a couple months back? Where they forcefully held his mouth open and poured crude oil down it.

Oh wait, that's alright cause he deserves cause he's American.

Yeah, you probably learn not to enlist because you might get your damn fool ass shot off in the Iraqi sandbox, trying to give liberty to some poor Iraqi who just wants to shoot your damn fool ass off?

CH, our father leaves for that sandbox tomorrow. I am proud of him for serving the country he loves. He knows he could die over there but at least it'll be doing something that is worth while. Making the lives of the Iraqi populace better.

Yes he was already an Al Qaeda Operative. He was in Baghdad getting medical treatment after fleeing Afghanistan. I heard that he fled Afghanistan anyway. I heard of him back in 2001 when we launched our opening move in Afghanistan. You really need to follow everything that goes on.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://slate.msn.com/id/2103109/)

The distance between Zarqawi and Bin Laden, it turns out, has been suspected for a while. They have had contacts and fought together in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s. But after the war, Zarqawi dedicated himself to overthrowing Jordan's King Hussein, while Bin Laden eyed bigger targets. Following a stint of several years in a Jordanian jail for plotting against the regime, Zarqawi returned to Afghanistan, where he built training camps and established his group, al-Tawhid. He retained his focus on Jordan, with the added goal, as one trainee put it, "to kill Jews everywhere." Zarqawi's camps were hundreds of miles from Bin Laden's, and the two reportedly competed for funds and recruits. One of Zarqawi's fighters, a Jordanian named Shadi Abdallah, told German investigators, "He is against al-Qaida."

"You really need to follow everything that goes on."

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://slate.msn.com/id/2103109/)

The distance between Zarqawi and Bin Laden, it turns out, has been suspected for a while. They have had contacts and fought together in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s. But after the war, Zarqawi dedicated himself to overthrowing Jordan's King Hussein, while Bin Laden eyed bigger targets. Following a stint of several years in a Jordanian jail for plotting against the regime, Zarqawi returned to Afghanistan, where he built training camps and established his group, al-Tawhid. He retained his focus on Jordan, with the added goal, as one trainee put it, "to kill Jews everywhere." Zarqawi's camps were hundreds of miles from Bin Laden's, and the two reportedly competed for funds and recruits. One of Zarqawi's fighters, a Jordanian named Shadi Abdallah, told German investigators, "He is against al-Qaida."

"You really need to follow everything that goes on."

And al tawhid is related too......

AL QAEDA

Please CH, you really need to come up with a better one that that.

CH, our father leaves for that sandbox tomorrow. I am proud of him for serving the country he loves. He knows he could die over there but at least it'll be doing something that is worth while.
I wish your father a safe return.

Making the lives of the Iraqi populace better.
This is debatable.

I wish your father a safe return.

I'll let him know that

This is debatable.

:rolleyes:

And al tawhid is related too......

AL QAEDA

Please CH, you really need to come up with a better one that that.
Proof please.

Edit 12:15 a.m. Perhaps Corneliu thought I typed poof, because it appears that he has disappeared? Now where is that damn proof?

Or how bout that American GI they had a couple months back? Where they forcefully held his mouth open and poured crude oil down it.

Oh wait, that's alright cause he deserves cause he's American.
Show me anyone on these boards that think that that is okay.

...And what is this talk about Kuwaitis?



:confused:

Be confused no longer.

http://gnn.tv/headlines/3166/Guantanamo_inmates_say_they_were_sold_to_U_S

I linked to this article before in post# 140. I recommend you read the article with my preamble rather than just clicking the link. My preamble goes to some lengths to derail the all-too familiar mantra of 'I don't trust a given website/news provider to be unbiased or accurate' we hear all too often of late. The article is from the Associated Press, was republished by the Toronto Star, and did appear on Yahoo! News, but has apparently expired. It is featured on this website, however.

Here is my original post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9096313&postcount=140

That is what I'm talking about. Why bother with things like investigative legwork or case-building when you can hire whole villages to kidnap unsuspecting tourists and sell them to the U.S. of A.?

CH, our father leaves for that sandbox tomorrow. I am proud of him for serving the country he loves. He knows he could die over there but at least it'll be doing something that is worth while. Making the lives of the Iraqi populace better.

Too bad they won't appreciate your father's sacrifice. Or yours.

I mean, surely he should be!

If you're so against this war, why aren't you out there being a human shield? Surely you should be!

So, let's just ignore everything that was written and scream "The U.S. tortures people!" The fact is, you're basing your idiotic ideas about what happens at Guantanamo off of claims made by admitted terrorists and self-proclaimed enemies of the United States. But I'm sure they'd have no reason to try to sabotage the image of the nation that they're trying to destroy, right?

Here's the deal: liberals and retards in general love to plug their ears and ignore all the facts in this case, because obviously anything that helps us in the war on terror is evil. Obviously. The simple truth is that any time any investigation has been conducted, by any organization, the harshest forms of "torture" that have been documented at Guantanamo Bay are sleep deprevation and guards pouring water on the head of a detainee. You're right. That shit's just not kosher, let's burn the mother down!

You're brainwashed. Well, at least some of you are, and at least I can feel sorry for those people. The ones who are actively working against the U.S., however, in the fact that they know that there is nothing, NOTHING constituting torture going on at Guantanamo and kick and scream that there is anyway (and you can trace the source of that behavior back to them still being pissed that their party lost to W. again), well, it takes every amount of self-restraint I have when I hear them to keep blood from shooting out of my ears.

How about what the FBI says? Oh, wait, they're just liberal commie scum trying to kill America. CIA? NAZIS! Red Cross... dushbags.

Reports are coming out everywhere about Guantanamo. Oh, and by the way-Most of the people at Guantanamo aren't "enemies of the US". Less than 100 were involved in terrorist activities, and the rest are mostly comprised of conscripts, who were forced to fight(Or else they would be killed along with their family). This, of course, comes from our government. Who, I'm sure you'll agree, are scumbags trying to destroy America.

Show me anyone on these boards that think that that is okay.
too many names to list. Try 50% of the people who have been posting on here. Particularly the liberals.
Don't try to change your tunes now. Its too late. You've been caught posting stuff like "Americans deserve to be beheaded." And "Americans in Iraq deserve to die".
When you get caught in the act one time too many, it is way too late to change your tune claim "we don't think that".
People posted it, and they defended it vigorously to the point of slandering their opponents (who knew way better) and flamebaiting to get their opponents deleted from this site.
Its way too late for many of you to claim that you don't support torture or murder of Americans cause by the vast majority of posts on here, that is precisely what is being promoted.
You all think this is just some academic debate. Its not.
You all claim the US is the most evil empire in history. It is not.
You all claim Bush is the most evil leader in history. He is not. There are worse people even today. Course, some people posted that they thought Saddam should not have been deposed cause he was a "cool" person.
I've seen American troops demonized far too often on this forum. I've seen people posting their opinions (just that opinions, not facts) that Europe is better than America. That Europe can beat America. You know what? It people like myself and every other American soldier that is keeping the Europeans a free people. The Europeans have almost no troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even in Bosnia, which is THEIR area, they insisted on the US troops doing the work while they sat at home and sent only a token force of 100 troops while America sent thousands to secure European democracy and freedom.
And its the Europeans and Canadians that are calling us baby killers and torturers. But every time something happens who is it that Europe calls for help? The US of A. The Europeans hate Bush, but which national leader do they call for help when it comes to terrorism or aid for Africa? George W. Bush.
And it ain't just the Europeans its the damn liberal athiest extremists here at home. The same people hiding out in their parents attics or some geeky university computer lab bashing Bush, bashing America, falsely accusing US troops of killing civilians on purpose. The same people who refuse to actually go to Iraq and see the truth in person. The same people who get all their info from Al Jazeera and other sites that promote Al Qaeda's false propaganda.
I for one, have never tortured anyone. I for one have never killed a single fucking civilian. In fact no one in my unit has.
Americans who protest against Bush's policy in Iraq are not just exercising free speech, they are giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden, to Zarqawi, to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is out there monitoring your response to everything. By your very posts you are telling them that you support them. Hell, there have been people who have posted on here that they hoped Al Qaeda took over Iraq cause the Iraqis deserved it for supporting American "scum".
I've seen people on here post that depriving a person of sleep for 48 hours is worse torture than electrical shock is. I've seen alot of you claiming that Guantanamo was way worse than the gulags.
And I've seen too many Democratic Senators committ treason by giving vocal support to the terrorists in Iraq.
If you didn't post any that, this is not directed at you. But those of you did, and you know exactly who you are, it is too late to go back and claim that you never posted any of that.

How about what the FBI says? Oh, wait, they're just liberal commie scum trying to kill America. CIA? NAZIS! Red Cross... dushbags.

Reports are coming out everywhere about Guantanamo. Oh, and by the way-Most of the people at Guantanamo aren't "enemies of the US". Less than 100 were involved in terrorist activities, and the rest are mostly comprised of conscripts, who were forced to fight(Or else they would be killed along with their family). This, of course, comes from our government. Who, I'm sure you'll agree, are scumbags trying to destroy America.
1. Not true. Those reports are only coming from the terrorists and their sponsors.
2. You don't know that. Those who are found to not have connections to Al Qaeda are released once that is determined. If you want to speed up the process, then join the US military. Until then, don't making claims about stuff you do not know.
3. 100% of Al Qaedans are volunteers. Al Qaeda has no power to force people to fight for it. It has no power to draft.
4. The government is trying to destroy its own country on what basis? O wait, cause bush in office and Bush is evil cause Bush is Republican.

Did I miss something?

If you're so against this war, why aren't you out there being a human shield? Surely you should be!

There you are NorthernFox! You know, I'm still eagerly awaiting your evidence of skinheads and islamists operating in collusion against jews. Have you found some yet?
:D

Have you found some yet?

O, are we playing that game now? Ok! Prove they're not.

#1 - was eliminating saddam a good thing? yes
#2 - was the UN ever going to do it? no
#3 - is the occupational government working tword a better future? yes

now lets just let it go and hope the UN can get their act together before we have to start doing this on a regular basis

100% of Al Qaedans are volunteers. Al Qaeda has no power to force people to fight for it. It has no power to draft.

I think maybe he was talking about the Afghanis conscripted by the taliban?

-snip-.
The other methods (Sleep deprivation, randomized mealtimes, and valium-flavoured pizza) used (and documented) at GitMo, are also used commonly by British and French counterintel and counterterror outfits.
-snip-
. Few of the techinques detailed in the "abuse reports" are inconsistent with normal treatment of Civil prisoners or commonly used interrogation techiques favoured in other western countries. Disrupted sleep, randomized mealtimes, isolation, and other methods were found to be acceptable in cases involving IRA suspects in Brit hands ten to fifteen years ago.

This is factually wrong. The uses of sleep/sensory deprivation, and other 'non-coercive means of interrogation' have been banned in the EU since the late seventies. See ECHR, 18th January 1978, Ireland v. United Kingdom

In summary:
-14 Irish persons arrested and taken to unidentified centers for interrogation.
-Disorientation or sensory deprivation techniques were used which included
a)Wall Standing: forcing the detainees o remain for periods of some hours in a "stress position"
b)hooding
c)subjection to noise: pending thier interrogation, holding the detainees ina room where there was a continuous loud and hissing hoise
d)Deprivation of sleep
e)Deprivation of food and drink

The court:

Held by 16 votes to 1 that the use of the five techiniques constituted a practice of infuman and degrading treatment, which practice was in breach of Article 3 (of the European human rights treaty).

So actually Gitmo-style treatment has been illegal in Europe for decades.

Note I didn't phrase that last one as a definitive statement, but I have noticed a trend for those that were silent or even endorsed Waco and Ruby Ridge, to be critical of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. This is particularly among Democrats and Europeans, here on this very site (and on the NS forums at their old address before the move to Jolt, when I was... a different, now expired, username.) When people ignore or endorse jack-booted-thug behaviour against American civilians, but scream about it when used against foreign combatants, it is not a difficult thing to suspect political, rather than humanitarian, motivations.
This seems dumb to me. Ruby Ridge/Waco is YOUR problem, involving YOUR civilians, YOUR administration, etc. Gitmo and Abut Ghraib is EVERYONE's problem, because there are NOT your citizens. Gitmo establishes (frightening) international norms, which RubyRidge/Waco do not. There are qualitative differences between the situations.

Similar events in the Haitian intervention during the late 1990's, including the detention of suspected militants, drew little attention, and UN "Peacekeepers" in African operations comitting laundry-lists of crimes including extortion and rape-of-minors barely makes a ripple compared to depriving Abdul Abdullah Haji of rights he arguably doesn't have.

This was huge news here in Europe, it was all over BBC world and Euronews. Moreover,no one argued that the UN Peacekeepers were in the right: however, the US claims their actions are morally upright. Again, there's a qualititative difference here.

With approval, silence, or only mild condemnation of significantly similar or worse events elsewhere, (or elsewhen), there has to be another motive.

How about in the US, if it's not about America directly, it doesn't get attention?

So, we have vested interests, pre-existing hostility, and a scapegoat. Makes sense. We also have thunderous silence over abuses that occurred under a, shall we say, 'More internationally Popular" president who happened to be of the "Correct" Party affiliation./quote]

Hell, blame the republicans. They focused everyone's attention directly at his penis rather than any abuses he commited. The RNC picked that fight themselves.

[quote]Further, we have documented incidents of actions by nations that are critical of U.S. policy whose troops, under the blue-banner, have done, and are doing, worse things in Africa.

Again, guess what? Those peacekeepers are being prosecuted, and their actions were condemned. Not so much in the US.

Proof please.It's part of al-Qaeda. Since late 2004, over a year since Iraq was invaded.

Corneliu; just read through this thread. I had a question for ya.

I didn't see anything rebutting the arguments revolving around the School of the Americas issue from you. The evidence against the School of Americas (now renamed, it had grown too contraversial) was fairly overwhelming with the release of the actual training manuals used within the school (of which I am a proud owner of a copy).

Furthermore the units that spent time in that school by and large have been credited with some pretty dastardly things. Several of the graduates from said school are up for human rights violations if I remember correctly.

All in all, I had long believed the case was closed on the "School of the Americas"; after all, the US government had to close down the school, completely redesign the cirriculum, distance themselves from the units that had been there, and spent a good deal of money on the whole affair to keep it from blowing up in an even larger public relations nightmare.

So then you tell me that your bachelor-level college professor informed you otherwise? Perhaps said professor needs to hit the books again. Most of the info available in the public sphere supports the "dirty war, dirty tactics" scenerio.

Simply put; the evidence is fairly overwhelming, the only arguments being just how much US troops/commanders knew about the activities that went on AFTER the graduation. Since the case agaisnt them having direct involvement is fairly weak, the whole matter is fairly quiet now, the military won't go after their own if they can help it.

So, my question is basically this; what exactly did you professor tell you, and what what his evidence to support it?

So, let's just ignore everything that was written...*snip

Here's the deal: liberals and retards in general...*snip

You're brainwashed...*snip

... in the fact that they know that there is nothing, NOTHING constituting torture going on at Guantanamo and kick and scream that there is anyway (and you can trace the source of that behavior back to them still being pissed that their party lost to W. again), well, it takes every amount of self-restraint I have when I hear them to keep blood from shooting out of my ears.is there anything I can do to help you...with the blood thing?

and NO, let's NOT ignore everything that was written...

There you are NorthernFox! You know, I'm still eagerly awaiting your evidence of skinheads and islamists operating in collusion against jews. Have you found some yet?
:Dlikely someone will pull the Nazi, Hitler or Hollocaut word...
.
.
well...less likely now that I say this outloud :D

1. Not true. Those reports are only coming from the terrorists and their sponsors.
Oh, you mean terrorists and their sponsors like the FBI, Red cross or the ACLU?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30910FF3A5A0C738FDDA80994DC404482
RED CROSS FINDS DETAINEE ABUSE IN GUANTÁNAMO
International Committee of Red Cross charges in confidential reports to United States government that American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion 'tantamount to torture' on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; report follows monthlong visit to Guantanamo by Red Cross inspection team last June

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4581383.stm
FBI records detail Koran claims
After interviewing a detainee, an unnamed FBI agent wrote on 1 August 2002: "Personally, he has nothing against the United States. The guards in the detention facility do not treat him well. Their behaviour is bad.
"About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4523825.stm
Soldier lifts lid on Guantanamo 'abuse'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4087052.stm
Mr Qahtani had apparently been forced to bark like a dog, stand for prolonged periods, had his facial hair shaved off and pictures of scantily clad women hung round his neck. He was forcibly injected with fluids after refusing food and water.
FBI memo about abuse at Guantanamo bay:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09_05_05_fbi_email.pdf

3. 100% of Al Qaedans are volunteers. Al Qaeda has no power to force people to fight for it. It has no power to draft.
As for #3, oddly enough I have to argue against this with you. I'd say Al Qaeda does indeed have the power to force people to fight for it: to whit 'You fight for us, else your family dies'.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about Guantanamo bay:
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2005/tt050620.gif


Off on a tangent, but I just downloaded William Shatner's version of Pulp's "Common People" and it's absolutely awful! It's great.

today I hear that sadaam, in prison, likes Doritos for a snack-he cant get enough. He also likes french toast for breakfast, but doesnt like froot loops cereal.

It's because we're all a bunch of bourgeois citizens. Picking up a gun or a shovel and actually doing something productive is antithetical to the vlaues of the average anonymous online forum poster.

:eek:
I've said too much.

That's the most lucid and sensible thing I've seen on NS for a long time. :) (or, do I mean :( )?

(This is also why I do all of the home improvement/car repair & gardening that I can. Not because I'm cheap, but because I like *doing* things, not just spending all of my time staring at a computer screen...)

To Demented Hamsters:

1. The ACLU is not a credible agency. The Red Cross, along with Amnesty Internationl, admitted they got all their information on prisoner abuse from former prisoners who went right back to work for Al Qaeda. Contrary to the article you wrote, the Red Cross did not have access to the prisoners at Guantanamo. They would have had access to former prisoners. People who have orders to lie about their treatment, so as to smear the US.
Its in the Al Qaeda training manual. I suggest you read it.

2. Even if there was Koran abuse, it does not constitute torture. And again, no Koran was ever flushed. The FBI, which you cite, determined that was a false report and the rest of the abuse that did take place was done by the prisoners themselves and not by US troops.

3. The fact that the guy made big bucks by writing about alleged abuse delineates from his credibility. He wrote what he thought would sell the most books.

4. Eh no. Al Qaeda does not do that. The only terrorist groups that do that are the ones in Israel and they force people to kill themselves with bombs.

Like I posted earlier, either pick up a gun or a shovel and actually do something. Stop smearing the name of the US and its people.

Why are you shouting at me?

To make a point: that flushing a Koran (if it even happened) is a far cry from having your head hacked off.

Now here's fun:

They're not. Not all of them. Not by a long shot. I had wanted to post the Yahoo! news stories that were available, but when I googled the story, I got this message from Yahoo! news: "The story or page you were trying to access may have expired."

So, I found a copy of the Associated Press story as it appeared, republished in the Toronto Star, and mirrored to this website:

http://gnn.tv/headlines/3166/Guantanamo_inmates_say_they_were_sold_to_U_S

Yes, but even the "sold" ones were still in the region of Tora Bora. It's not like we were trolling the streets, looking for just anybody to fill the cells! There *was* basic sorting on the ground in Afghanistan first. That's why only about 650 out of 10,000 *went* to GitMo!

We have had a number of people complaining that they will or will not accept links to articles appearing on one website or another, citing 'bias' or other intagibles. I make no apologies about the specific website I've just linked to, but take note that I make no specific endorsements, either. I just want to underscore, using legitimate news stories from reliable sources (both the Associated Press and the Toronto Star both make for credible news providers, IMO), that the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, and for that matter, Abu Ghraib and any all other American interrogation and torture institutions, are most definitely NOT "ALL taken in hostile action against" American forces, or anyone for that matter.

I'm fine with anything that's a wire service/major news source. I think in general, you'll get more credit with AP/UPI/Reuters than with National Review/HowardDean.Com :)

But with no legal recourse, how can these supposed "worst of the worst" defend the allegations made against them? With no transparency, how can the public be assured that Justice is being served, or even paid lip service?

It's not about Justice. It's about war. If the terrorists gave quarter, that'd be one thing, now wouldn't it? If the US was really draconian, it could have just blown up the plane they flew them to GitMo on.
I won't get into the whole enemy combatant/prisioner debate, as it's been going on for years by better legal minds than anyone here on NS.

For your reading pleasure, here is the article, sans the website that no doubt will rankle our resident forthing-at-the-mouth Bush apologists.

<snip for brevity>

I'm not a Bush apologist, but I do think that GitMo is a necessity given what we're fighting.

But, aside from giving cash rewards for turning people in, how else would one get these people? We do it with criminals in the US...
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net
vs.
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm

What's the difference?
In both cases, a reward is given for information/the alleged guilty party...

The tools we use against the terrorists at home are the same as we use against the mafia. The tools we use abroad are the same we used against Hitler.

The tools we use against the terrorists at home are the same as we use against the mafia. The tools we use abroad are the same we used against Hitler.but we did arrest the mafia bosses...and we did get Hitler and all his generals...

when are we going to get OBL?...when are we going to win the War on Terror?

the best Bush did was to catch the guy in charge of making coffee...then Bush turned around and told the medias that he caught #3 :rolleyes:

"The question is not "Are we the same", but "Why are we not different enough?"

Honestly, if anyone is proud of being able to compare themselves favorably to a terrorist, I sense some skewed moral system.

I can answer that question. Because he's been around the military his entire life, as have I. When you've been around the military for as long as we have, you learn a thing or two about the military life.

And he's 22.

So let me get this straight.. he's been around the military all his life and knows a thing or two about it, so therefore that's why Corneliu doesn't enlist despite him advocating for the war in Iraq.. that is what you're saying.. hmm that doesn't make sense. Sorry.

Oh and Formal, where have you been? I haven't seen you on the forums in ages!

O, are we playing that game now? Ok! Prove they're not.

I don't think you get it. You boldly asserted that skinheads and islamists were working together against jews. I asked you to show me what proof of this you had. You have as of yet shown me nothing.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders, pal. If you don't have anything to back up your claims, why did you make them in the first place?

:rolleyes:

Are you people for real? These outrageous jumps in logic are so irrational, it hurts. The point of the article is this: Juxtapose our "torture" (sleep depravation...hooding...sexual advances...not great, but not horrible) vs real torture, physical pain and violence. Despite the hype in the liberal culture, there's no physical torture going on at Gauntanamo or anywhere else. The scandal at Abu Ghraib comes up as a point against this, but, hello, all those involved were punished. It wasnt a sanctioned action. Anyways, the point is, dont jump to a irrelavant conclusion (ie. the Hitler killing the Jews comments); when the truth is in your face, just please accept it for once.

Despite the hype in the liberal culture, there's no physical torture going on at Gauntanamo or anywhere else....when the truth is in your face, just please accept it for once.


That assumes the US government (or any government for that matter) will tell the unequivocal truth about its actions. While I understand the desire to believe this, it is still misplaced trust. The white house doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to candor. 3-mile-island, Vietnam, Iran-Contra, Iraq, Agent Orange, Lewinsky, Abu Graib, Watergate ...the list is endless.

In fact it's hard to find an instance where our government told us the truth about anything. So you can't really blame people for being suspicious of its truthfulness, not when they've been consistently lied to throughout recent history. And what other reason do we have to believe that there is no torture in gitmo? Why have the exculpated detainees said they were tortured? And why have over 20 detainees died there in 2 years?

You're brainwashed.
Look who's talking! You people shouldn't be called conservatives, you should be called preservatives!

Oh, you mean terrorists and their sponsors like the FBI, Red cross or the ACLU?

[QUOTE=Demented Hamsters]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?.
"Tantamount to torture" means bad, but not really torture. Otherwise they would have called it torture. The only methods mentioned here are 'humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions'. None of these constitute torture.


[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4581383.stm
So you have a single unnamed agent claiming the guards behave badly after interviewing a single detainee.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4523825.stm
A former US soldier trying to sell a book, and the most disturbing interrogation he remembers is a woman rubbing fake menstrual blood on a prisoner. If I get a glass of tap water, poor it on my brother's head, and tell him it was my urine are you going to charge me with torture?

Proof please.

Edit 12:15 a.m. Perhaps Corneliu thought I typed poof, because it appears that he has disappeared? Now where is that damn proof?

I disappeared because I went to bed! :D

So let me get this straight.. he's been around the military all his life and knows a thing or two about it, so therefore that's why Corneliu doesn't enlist despite him advocating for the war in Iraq.. that is what you're saying.. hmm that doesn't make sense. Sorry.

Maybe because your thick skulled. I am in support of this war because of the following:

1. Violation of 17 UN Resolutions
2. Violation of a UN Cease-Fire
3: Violation of Human Rights
4: Supporting Terrorism

That is why I am in support of this Iraq War. I've said this many times before but apparently you haven't been listening.

Oh and Formal, where have you been? I haven't seen you on the forums in ages!

Because she had more important things to do then argue with Liberals all day.

What's the difference?
In both cases, a reward is given for information/the alleged guilty party...

The difference is that these people have no access to legal representation, nor is any forthcoming.

And the single-most important word of your entire post is:

"alleged". Not a word one hears from most Americans with regards to those detained in this trumped-up, so-called 'war on terror'. Alleged. To hear it from a number of people on NS, these alleged guilty parties are already the 'worst of the worst' and 'scum', simply because they are being held in detainment. Without proof of their guilt, they are nonetheless being demonized - it seems all the proof needed is the fact they are being held (illegally).

Nice. Real nice. And circular, too.

So, Gitmo is being filled with alleged terrorists, but who alleges they are terrorists? The backwoods tribal warlords who are being paid handsomely by the US to send a steady stream of warm bodies? Gee - there's a reliable, credible source. How many unsuspecting Kuwaitis and others have to be sold into bondage before you people stop dithering?

My guess is there's no limit.

CH, our father leaves for that sandbox tomorrow. I am proud of him for serving the country he loves. He knows he could die over there but at least it'll be doing something that is worth while. Making the lives of the Iraqi populace better.


Godspeed and best wishes for your father's safe return. He should be proud and your family proud as well. He is doing something worthwhile.

Godspeed and best wishes for your father's safe return. He should be proud and your family proud as well. He is doing something worthwhile.

We are all proud of him. We do pray for his safe return. Thank you for the Best Wishes C.L.

Maybe because your thick skulled. I am in support of this war because of the following:

1. Violation of 17 UN Resolutions
2. Violation of a UN Cease-Fire
3: Violation of Human Rights
4: Supporting Terrorism

That is why I am in support of this Iraq War. I've said this many times before but apparently you haven't been listening.

Oh yes, I have been listening, that is why I still don't understand why you're not over in Iraq fighting. Or you just like to argue about it while other Americans die, but just not you?



Because she had more important things to do then argue with Liberals all day.

Unlike yourself? LOL

The difference is that these people have no access to legal representation, nor is any forthcoming.

Er?
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/20/guantanamo/

And the single-most important word of your entire post is:

"alleged". Not a word one hears from most Americans with regards to those detained in this trumped-up, so-called 'war on terror'. Alleged. To hear it from a number of people on NS, these alleged guilty parties are already the 'worst of the worst' and 'scum', simply because they are being held in detainment. Without proof of their guilt, they are nonetheless being demonized - it seems all the proof needed is the fact they are being held (illegally).

Nice. Real nice. And circular, too.

Yep. We took our logic from the folks that want Gitmo closed, and just changed the words around. :rolleyes:

BTW: Most Americans dont *care* about GitMo. And, btw, you are showing quite a bit of bias there. Alleged? I think the US is FINALLY doing something about a war by the terrorists against the West that has been going on for years.

Ok, let's see... how's THIS for terror?
(Note: you can find the original here: http://www.answers.com/topic/list-o...orist-incidents , I stripped out all the non-US related ones as they don’t apply to this topic. This is not meant to take away from the British, Spanish, Italians, Russians, Australians and others that have suffered.)

• 1983 April 18 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63
• 1983 September 23 Gulf Air Flight 771 is bombed, killing all 117 people on board
• 1983 October 23 Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut kills 241 U.S. Marines. 58 French troops from the multinational force are also killed in a separate attack.
• 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacking
• 1985 October 7 - October 10 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking by Palestinian Liberation Front, during which passenger Leon Klinghoffer is shot dead.
• 1985 EgyptAir Flight 648 hijacked by Abu Nidal group, flown to Malta, where Egyptian commandos storm plane; 60 are killed by gunfire and explosions.
• 1986 TWA Flight 840 bombed on approach to Athens airport; 4 Americans, including an infant, are killed.
• 1986 April 6 the La Belle discotheque in Berlin, a known hangout for U.S. soldiers, was bombed, killing 3 and injuring 230 people, for which Libya is held responsible. In retaliation, the US bombs Libya in Operation El Dorado Canyon and tries to kill dictator Qaddafi.
• 1986 Pan Am Flight 73, an American civilian airliner, is hijacked; 22 people die when plane is stormed in Karachi, Pakistan.
• 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing (Lockerbie). The worst act of terrorism against the United States prior to September 11, 2001.
• 1989 Avianca Flight 203 bombed over Colombia
• 1993 February 26 World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and injures over 1000 people
• 1993 Failed New York City landmark bomb plot
• 1993 Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters. Two died.
• 1994 December 11 A small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. Authorities found out that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for his planned terrorist attack.
• 1995 Operation Bojinka is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after an apartment fire occurred in the apartment.
• 1995 Bombing of military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• 1996 June 25 Khobar Towers bombing
• 1997 A terrorist opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".
• 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.
• 1999 Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States-Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
• 1999 Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb US and Israeli tourists in Jordan and pick up 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
• 2000 The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks
• 2000 October 12 USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors
• 2001 September 11, 2001 attacks kill almost 3,000 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
• 2001 Paris embassy attack plot foiled
• 2001 Richard Reid, attempting to destroy American Airlines Flight 63, is subdued by passengers and flight attendants before he could detonate his shoe bomb
• 2002 Singapore embassies attack plot foiled
• 2002 June 14 attack outside U.S. Consulate in Karachi
• 2002 Kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl
• 2002 October 12 Bali car bombing of holidaymakers kills 202
• 2003 Riyadh Compound Bombings - bombings of United States expat housing compounds in Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160. Al-Qaeda blamed
• 2003 Casablanca Attacks in Casablanca, Morocco leaves 41 dead. The attack involved 12 bombers and 5 targets. The targets were "Western and Jewish". Attack attributed to a Moroccan al-Qaeda-linked group
• 2003 Canal Hotel Bombing in Baghdad, Iraq kills 22 people including the top UN representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello
• 2003-2004 In response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency in that country stage dozens of suicide bombings, kidnappings and several beheadings targeting Iraqi, Coalition and humanitarian targets. Attacks on some coalition forces may not be terrorist attacks under Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions which gives lawful combatant status to non-uniformed guerrillas resisting foreign occupation if they display arms openly. As neither the US or Iraq have signed this protocol it is not applicable to attacks on US forces.
• 2003 October 15 - A bomb is detonated by Palestinians against a US diplomatic convoy in the Gaza Strip killing three Americans
• 2004 May 29 Al-Khobar massacres--Islamic terrorists kill 22 people at an oil compound in Saudi Arabia.
• 2004 December 6 Suspected al Qaeda-linked group attacks U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 5 local employees.

How many times do you stand in the street and let the other guy hit you before you hit him back? If GitMo is necessary to find the answers to stop this extremist violence, then fine.


So, Gitmo is being filled with alleged terrorists, but who alleges they are terrorists? The backwoods tribal warlords who are being paid handsomely by the US to send a steady stream of warm bodies? Gee - there's a reliable, credible source. How many unsuspecting Kuwaitis and others have to be sold into bondage before you people stop dithering?

My guess is there's no limit.

Uh huh. And 100% of them fill this picture on your say-so? Please. At last *some* (if not *most*) were captured INSIDE Tora Bora.

Oh yes, I have been listening, that is why I still don't understand why you're not over in Iraq fighting. Or you just like to argue about it while other Americans die, but just not you?

Dude, my father left 2 hours ago. Destination? Iraq! I wouldn't be saying anything if I were you. Have you gone? No I didn't think you have. I haven't gone either. Besides that, I'm technically ineligable to participate in combat because I'm my father's only son.

Unlike yourself? LOL

I have no life. She does.

Dude, my father left 2 hours ago. Destination? Iraq! I wouldn't be saying anything if I were you. Have you gone? No I didn't think you have. I haven't gone either. Besides that, I'm technically ineligable to participate in combat because I'm my father's only son..

I shall say what I please thank you very much! No, I'm not over there, however unlike you, I am against the war in Iraq. So why would I sign up to go to an unjust war? Also, there is no rule saying because you're your father's only son you can't enlist! Haha, nice try! Don't worry I know your type.. seen it before.

http://pics.livejournal.com/jackola/pic/000tg0ar

P.S. I'm not a "dude"

I shall say what I please thank you very much! No, I'm not over there, however unlike you, I am against the war in Iraq.

No duh! I never would've guessed :rolleyes:

So why would I sign up to go to an unjust war?

Why aren't you doing all you can to get us out of there? Why aren't you being used as a human shield? Your acting the part.

Also, there is no rule saying because you're your father's only son you can't enlist! Haha, nice try! Don't worry I know your type.. seen it before.

Try again hun.

http://pics.livejournal.com/jackola/pic/000tg0ar

This is rude and doesn't describe me at all :rolleyes:

P.S. I'm not a "dude"

Whatever dudette.

Whatever, you're full of so much bull, I can't even stand the stench!

Uh huh. And 100% of them fill this picture on your say-so? Please. At last *some* (if not *most*) were captured INSIDE Tora Bora.

Well, that sounds great, but you can't substantiate that claim - because of the complete lack of transparency. You say they were captured inside Tora Bora, how do any of us know that to be accurate? I say, and I've twice provided links to an AP newsarticle that maintains Kuwaiti nationals, among others, are being lured to outlying regions, held against their wills, and sold outright to US Forces as so-called 'terror suspects' to be detained, interrogated, and yes - even tortured - on the say-so of greedy backwoods warlords.

How much simpler all this would be if there was transparency, accountability, and a clear-cut legal process to work through. Of course, as others have said, this isn't about Justice - (and it's not about war, either, frankly) it's all about scapegoating and farming domestic fear in the hearts of Americans.

Well, that sounds great, but you can't substantiate that claim - because of the complete lack of transparency. You say they were captured inside Tora Bora, how do any of us know that to be accurate?

You're right. By the same token, we don't know how many were just "sold" into GitMo, either.
I really don't think that the Administration (which, let's face it, isnt' beloved to begin with) would willingly take a black eye to keep these people there (releasing them slowly) unless it had to.,

I say, and I've twice provided links to an AP newsarticle that maintains Kuwaiti nationals, among others, are being lured to outlying regions, held against their wills, and sold outright to US Forces as so-called 'terror suspects' to be detained, interrogated, and yes - even tortured - on the say-so of greedy backwoods warlords.

And I'm not disputing that it happened. I'm disputing the perception that they're all there for that reason. Or that even most of them are.

How much simpler all this would be if there was transparency, accountability, and a clear-cut legal process to work through. Of course, as others have said, this isn't about Justice - (and it's not about war, either, frankly) it's all about scapegoating and farming domestic fear in the hearts of Americans.

And how much easier would it be for the terrorists to know who's there, when they're being released, and not have to turn over any information?

Right. And I go into NYC every morning because I'm afraid of terrorists. Not. All 9/11 did to me was really piss my crap off at the groups responsible for the list of terrorist attacks on the US I posted above. They're vermin, and need to be wiped out, just as Nazism, Fascism, and Communism have been.

Dude, my father left 2 hours ago. Destination? Iraq! I wouldn't be saying anything if I were you. Have you gone? No I didn't think you have. I haven't gone either. Besides that, I'm technically ineligable to participate in combat because I'm my father's only son.


I think it's pretty shameful to use someone else's actions to justify your own conviction, particularly when that someone is a family member. My own father is a doctor, but it would be ridiculous of me to claim that this made me an authority on the ethics of stem cell research. Similarly, insinuating that you are a patriot because your father is going to Iraq strikes me as opportunistic and immature. It's something an elementary school student would come up with, not a young man and certainly not someone of 20+ years of age.

They're vermin, and need to be wiped out, just as Nazism, Fascism, and Communism have been.

Apart from the fact that not one of the three ideologies you've mentioned have, in fact, been 'wiped out', 'terrorism' is not an ideology - it is rather a symptom of ongoing disparity and unaddressed issues, and outgrowth of fruitless dialogue. This does not excuse the actions of groups who employ terror methods to further their goals, of course. But it also does not confer upon these people the status of non-humans.

These are not 'vermin'. These are people. Calling people vermin and treating them as such is not going far at all toward resolving conflict.

And isn't that what George Bush wants? An end to conflict and needless suffering? Or is it that he wants more suffering - much more suffering - and no end to war and conflict?

I think it's pretty shameful to use someone else's actions to justify your own conviction, particularly when that someone is a family member. My own father is a doctor, but it would be ridiculous of me to claim that this made me an authority on the ethics of stem cell research. Similarly, insinuating that you are a patriot because your father is going to Iraq strikes me as opportunistic and immature. It's something an elementary school student would come up with, not a young man and certainly not someone of 20+ years of age.

Hear, hear. It's frankly tiresome listening to that junior windbag wheezing at length. Want to prove your points, Corny?

Enlist already.

I shall say what I please thank you very much! No, I'm not over there, however unlike you, I am against the war in Iraq. So why would I sign up to go to an unjust war? Also, there is no rule saying because you're your father's only son you can't enlist! Haha, nice try! Don't worry I know your type.. seen it before.

http://pics.livejournal.com/jackola/pic/000tg0ar


LOL nice pic

today I hear that sadaam, in prison, likes Doritos for a snack-he cant get enough. He also likes french toast for breakfast, but doesnt like froot loops cereal.

He doesn't like Froot Loops??? dude, Froot Loops are almost better for a pure sugar rush than Honeycomb. (*then again, they do get soggy in milk, and are best eaten straight out of the little box...)

Hear, hear. It's frankly tiresome listening to that junior windbag wheezing at length. Want to prove your points, Corny?

Enlist already.

I really hate it when I agree with the goddamn liberal, but Cornelieu, the Army and the Corps need people with conviction and commitment to uphold the traditions of the service. They need clear-thinking troops who know how to spot an unlawful order and keep themselves under control.
With so many Hippie-Junior people out there, the Service does need your kind, now more than ever.

Besides, even in these "anti-war" times, chicks dig uniforms. I was a "geek" when it wasn't cool in high school, but after Basic, I got more action than the whole football team.

One thing I dont understand is that the USA still have a bounty on Castro's head, so why have they got a naval base on Cuba?

Another thing, the Americans moaned about the Sun showing pictures of Saddam doing some laundry saying it is against the Geniva convention, HELLO GUANTANAMO?! And I seem to recall the Americans broadcasting Saddam getting a dental check, which is more degrading, Saddam being shown getting a check up, while he is still shaking from the army landing on top of his whole or Saddam nice and happy doing a regular house hold task?

America, think before you speak :headbang:

Whatever, you're full of so much bull, I can't even stand the stench!

And your so brainwashed that its not even funny. I pity you.

Hear, hear. It's frankly tiresome listening to that junior windbag wheezing at length. Want to prove your points, Corny?

Enlist already.

If I enlist, I can't go into combat! Whats the motivation. I want to, believe I do but since I can't go into combat to defend my country, why?

And your so brainwashed that its not even funny. I pity you.

Please, save the pity for yourself, I've seen no one and I mean no one parrot the Bush party line on this site more than you. You want to see some one who's been brainwashed, I suggest you consult a mirror!

If I enlist, I can't go into combat! Whats the motivation. I want to, believe I do but since I can't go into combat to defend my country, why?
Defend it from what? A phantom threat? Higher oil prices? The teletubbies? What are we defending the homeland from? :confused:

Please, save the pity for yourself, I've seen no one and I mean no one parrot the Bush party line on this site more than you. You want to see some one who's been brainwashed, I suggest you consult a mirror!
That's why American propaganda works so well...people don't know they're being brainwashed, but all you have to do is turn on FOX News or listen to Bush try to speak. Freedom = Slavery!

If I enlist, I can't go into combat! Whats the motivation. I want to, believe I do but since I can't go into combat to defend my country, why?

Well lets for argument sake say what you're saying is true, that you couldn't go into combat, (which I will be looking up later btw) you could still be support staff, be in Iraq working the supply line for all those troops to make sure they get the supplies they need. Many things you could be doing.

Oh and just for the record, even if you were in combat in Iraq, you wouldn't be fighting for your country, last time I checked the USA was fine, Iraq was no threat to us. So you'd be fighting for Iraq, not the USA, just wanted to clear that up!

Well lets for argument sake say what you're saying is true, that you couldn't go into combat, (which I will be looking up later btw)

Don't bother. I just asked my mother (Former enlisted in the USAF) and she confirmed it. She worked in Personel/Admin.

you could still be support staff, be in Iraq working the supply line for all those troops to make sure they get the supplies they need. Many things you could be doing.

You don't understand apparently! I can't go to a combat zone. I don't know why, I have a better chance of killing myself falling down a flight of stairs.

Oh and just for the record, even if you were in combat in Iraq, you wouldn't be fighting for your country, last time I checked the USA was fine, Iraq was no threat to us. So you'd be fighting for Iraq, not the USA, just wanted to clear that up!

I'd be fighting with the US military and not the Iraqi Military. I would be fighting for the United States and defending her from the evils of this planet. Saddam was an evil of this planet and a violator of International Law AND Human Rights so we eliminated him. Man, I wish I could go into combat but I guess I'll settle for doing my nation's duty in the Halls of Congress.

Please, save the pity for yourself, I've seen no one and I mean no one parrot the Bush party line on this site more than you. You want to see some one who's been brainwashed, I suggest you consult a mirror!

HAHAHA!! I've condemned him on several things. Unfortunately those things have not popped up on these threads.

Right now, my two biggest pet peaves with this administration is Immigration and the fact that he isn't going to alter the Base Closing List of which, my father's base is on said list. That pissed me off.