NationStates Jolt Archive

Come on people. Its not like they're completely innocent of anything. These are terrorists who have done bad things (or conspired to) that have resulted in the loss of life. So what if they're not being put up in the Ritz? If they wanted to be at home in their mud shack they should have chosen a different career.

Then charge them with a crime.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Its not like they're completely innocent of anything.
Except those that they simply let go after a few years...

These are terrorists who have done bad things (or conspired to) that have resulted in the loss of life.
They are not.
For the most part they are footsoldiers of either the Taliban Regime or Bin Laden's militia. In no definition of terrorism is driving the car of the evil dude, or even shooting at US Military or Northern Alliance Militia included.

So what if they're not being put up in the Ritz? If they wanted to be at home in their mud shack they should have chosen a different career.
Yay, let's make fun of their homes. :rolleyes:

How about this; innoncent until proven guilty. That means we have to treat them as if they are innovent until we can prove otherwise. It's how the civlised world prevents innocent people getting hurt.

I guess dehumanising people really works in making you callous to their condition. I wonder if that can be achieved with certain USians, so that when the next towers or whatever fall, I'll find it hard to sympathise.

Hmm.

Except those that they simply let go after a few years...

Eh, at least they didn't shoot them.

They are not.
For the most part they are footsoldiers of either the Taliban Regime or Bin Laden's militia. In no definition of terrorism is driving the car of the evil dude, or even shooting at US Military or Northern Alliance Militia included.

So they're not dangerous? They couldn't cause a threat in the forseeable future? I mean [b]nothing[/b[ that they've done in the past could possibly make them into a terrorist in the future.

Yay, let's make fun of their homes. :rolleyes:

What? They do live in mud shacks. Well, except the ones that got fabulously wealthy off of oil.

I guess dehumanising people really works in making you callous to their condition. I wonder if that can be achieved with certain USians, so that when the next towers or whatever fall, I'll find it hard to sympathise.

Hmm.

I will miss your sympathy. Really, I mean it.

Eh, at least they didn't shoot them.


Great! Yay! Its the "at-least-we're-not-as-bad-as-the-Nazis" argument again!

Come on people. Its not like they're completely innocent of anything. These are terrorists who have done bad things (or conspired to) that have resulted in the loss of life. So what if they're not being put up in the Ritz? If they wanted to be at home in their mud shack they should have chosen a different career.

C'mon.

You really advocating violating both the Geneva Convention and the principals of the US Constitution in terms of
--presuming that everyone captured in Afghanistan or Iraq (or elsewhere) is a terrorist
--not granting accused rights to a fair trial
--mistreatment and torture

We know for a fact that many captured and kept at camp x-ray were NOT terrorists.

This imagery (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2002/inside_camp_xray/default.stm) is what America stands for?

and I find it hard to sympathise when I see an american shot dead in iraq or afghanistan

I will miss your sympathy. Really, I mean it.

By Jove, maybe you got the attention-whoriness in your post and the insignificance of your own lack of sympathy? Could it be so? Do you deserve a cookie for spotting your own reflection that is shown you, and realising that the hairless chimp in it is not some other hairless chimp, but you? :eek:

Eh, at least they didn't shoot them.
Well, I'll be damned. The Land of the Free, the shining village on the hill, the beacon of hope on a planet full of hatred and pain...they didn't shoot the ones considered innocent.
Phew.

So they're not dangerous? They couldn't cause a threat in the forseeable future? I mean nothing that they've done in the past could possibly make them into a terrorist in the future.
Ahem...are you going to lock anyone away who has something in his past that could possibly lead to doing a crime in the future?
Better start rounding up those Poor people...they might steal stuff. And I really don't like those "males", I hear they are much more likely to rape people...

What? They do live in mud shacks. Well, except the ones that got fabulously wealthy off of oil.
And those that didn't have their real homes destroyed by thirty years of war.

Well, I'll be damned. The Land of the Free, the shining village on the hill, the beacon of hope on a planet full of hatred and pain...they didn't shoot the ones considered innocent.
Phew.

:D
Pshaw, we just beat them up of course (beat the guilt out of them). Those without guilt can't be guilty lol

Ahem...are you going to lock anyone away who has something in his past that could possibly lead to doing a crime in the future?
Better start rounding up those Poor people...they might steal stuff. And I really don't like those "males", I hear they are much more likely to rape people...

Should we hire Reagon's psychic? She did a good job running the country you know.

Come on people. Its not like they're completely innocent of anything. These are bankers who have done bad things (or conspired to) that have resulted in the loss of income. So what if they're not alive? If they wanted to be at home in their house they should have chosen a different career.

C'mon.

You really advocating violating both the Geneva Convention and the principals of the US Constitution in terms of
--presuming that everyone captured in Afghanistan or Iraq (or elsewhere) is a terrorist
--not granting accused rights to a fair trial
--mistreatment and torture

We know for a fact that many captured and kept at camp x-ray were NOT terrorists.

This imagery (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2002/inside_camp_xray/default.stm) is what America stands for?

Well hell. I for one do not believe in the Geneva Convention or any other international laws imposed on warfare and/or the treatment of prisoners. And of course that leads into the argument of the Constitution. I forget which amendment it is but theres ones that states that all rights that are guaranteed to citizens are also guaranteed to non-citizens as long as they are not explicitly reserved for only citizens. But hey, we can amend it right?

We know for a fact that many captured and kept at camp x-ray were NOT terrorists.

Ok, so they were fighting for the Taliban, or were part of the Iraqi army and were not in any way shape or form hostile to the United States. Gotcha.

This imagery (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2002/inside_camp_xray/default.stm) is what America stands for?

This is what makes our nation so great. Our ability to violate our own laws and standards and still pretend that they actually mean something to us. After all we have a long tradition of this. In the Constitution (or the delcaration of independence. I cant remember which) it says, "all men are created equal", when it should have said, "all men are created equal, except for slaves, who arent people at all." Hell we've done so good keeping up this elaborate charade so long why stop now?

Well hell. I for one do not believe in the Geneva Convention or any other international laws imposed on warfare and/or the treatment of prisoners.Too bad the United States signed the Geneva Convetion and most other international warfare laws. Signing a treaty and then breaking it is cause for war. If the UN wasn't comprised of so many US troops, they'd have removed Guantanmo Bay prison months ago.

Plain and simple, torture is wrong. You can call it "aggressive interrogation" or whatever, it's still dehumanizing and contrary to everything most civilized nations stand for. And don't give me some crap about "giving them what they deserve." Vengence is for the weak and fearful.

and I find it hard to sympathise when I see an american shot dead in iraq or afghanistan

Come on people. Its not like they're completely innocent of anything. These are bankers who have done bad things (or conspired to) that have resulted in the loss of income. So what if they're not alive? If they wanted to be at home in their house they should have chosen a different career.

Sorry. But trying to get a rise out of me by diverting attention to the WTC or Pentagon (Jesus, why couldn't you have picked that one? I mean shit. Its the heart of the American military for chrissakes. Seems to me like you're not really trying...) is futile, because frankly I don't care. Maybe if we had better domestic policy and kept the hell out of Saudi Arabia then Mr. Bin Laden wouldn't have had airplanes flown into our buildings.

By Jove, maybe you got the attention-whoriness in your post and the insignificance of your own lack of sympathy? Could it be so? Do you deserve a cookie for spotting your own reflection that is shown you, and realising that the hairless chimp in it is not some other hairless chimp, but you? :eek:

Thank God we have you to screech, "attention whore! attention whore!" in a topic you don't agree with when you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion.

Ok, so they were fighting for the Taliban, or were part of the Iraqi army and were not in any way shape or form hostile to the United States. Gotcha.


Not everyone at Camp X-ray meets these criteria. Some have merely been seized for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But you are not being serious, so I won't confront you with serious evidence.

Great! Yay! Its the "at-least-we're-not-as-bad-as-the-Nazis" argument again!

Which always stumbles on the 'yeah-but-the-Nazis-had-cooler-uniforms' counter-argument.

Well, I'll be damned. The Land of the Free, the shining village on the hill, the beacon of hope on a planet full of hatred and pain...they didn't shoot the ones considered innocent.
Phew.

Oh yes. Beacause I claimed we were perfection incarnate. Hey... wait a minute. I never said anything like that!

Ahem...are you going to lock anyone away who has something in his past that could possibly lead to doing a crime in the future?
Better start rounding up those Poor people...they might steal stuff. And I really don't like those "males", I hear they are much more likely to rape people...

If someone has comitted a crime in the past that would possibly lead the person to comit a similar crime in the future then I advocate locking them up. And in case you didn't know we already have laws like that. (Three strikes you're out)

And those that didn't have their real homes destroyed by thirty years of war.

A mud shack isn't that hard to build.

Which always stumbles on the 'yeah-but-the-Nazis-had-cooler-uniforms' counter-argument.
Whoa, Nazi's didn't have better uiniforms. I mean their helmets sucked (the spike at top). What if you ducked something and puntured your ally?

Too bad the United States signed the Geneva Convetion and most other international warfare laws. Signing a treaty and then breaking it is cause for war. If the UN wasn't comprised of so many US troops, they'd have removed Guantanmo Bay prison months ago.

Plain and simple, torture is wrong. You can call it "aggressive interrogation" or whatever, it's still dehumanizing and contrary to everything most civilized nations stand for. And don't give me some crap about "giving them what they deserve." Vengence is for the weak and fearful.

Well said.

Whoa, Nazi's didn't have better uiniforms. I mean their helmets sucked (the spike at top). What if you ducked something and puntured your ally?
That gets one gigantic :rolleyes: from me.

Thank God we have you to screech, "attention whore! attention whore!" in a topic you don't agree with when you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion.

Yeah, because aggrandising your own lack of sympathy, and then criticising someone else's as being insignificant doesn't make the shoe fit you at all. :rolleyes:

I guess you'll go on to wonder who that other naked chimp in the shiny room really is.

Not everyone at Camp X-ray meets these criteria. Some have merely been seized for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So I guess, "being at the wrong place at the wrong time" means, holding an AK while shooting at Americans.

A mud shack isn't that hard to build.

Since when did Afghanistan have a tradition of mud shacks? Stone building is the rule there. If you want to throw accusations of living in mud shacks at anyone then it should be the English, after all mud-built homes were still in use there up until the 1960s at least.

If someone has comitted a crime in the past that would possibly lead the person to comit a similar crime in the future then I advocate locking them up.
What bloody crime? Being a soldier on the other side is not a crime!
Being a terrorist could be considered a crime, provided you can properly define what a terrorist is. These guys aren't.

I give you two Australian examples of people you should sympathise with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamdouh_Habib
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
You may not agree with their ideology - but fact of the matter is that they didn't do anything that would justify the treatment they received.

And in case you didn't know we already have laws like that. (Three strikes you're out)
And you do know how ridiculous those three-strike laws are?

Whoa, Nazi's didn't have better uiniforms. I mean their helmets sucked (the spike at top). What if you ducked something and puntured your ally?

Historical hint for you: the Pickelhaube went out of use in 1918. WWI did not involve Nazis.

:headbang: :headbang: and I find it hard to sympathise when I see an american shot dead in iraq or afghanistan


i guess 2 wrongs really do make a right.

there are some differences in a terrorist and a soldier(arguably)doing his job to help liberate iraqis and kill terrorists, that would chop off yours and my head in a new york minute.(but that is another discussion)

using the above logic...if an american is shot..well they deserve it("i find it hard to sympathise with an american shot dead)
why does the same logic not apply to a terrorist that is far more vile and brutal in there deeds?

in essence,the logic that is used should completely exonerate any american mistreatment of the detainees,because we are not shooting them or blowing them up indiscrimmanately like they did with the towers and are doing with the daily car bombings!we are just exerting some mental torture to hopefully get some intel from them.

and i really doubt many that are at camp xray are innocent,more then likely they are horrible,brainwashed fanatics.

that said,i am against indefinate detention without a trial,that goes against everything our constitution stands for..and i am also against torture because i feel it is usually unneeded to get info.

i just take issue with ,it is "ok" to kill an american,blow up innocent people,but detaining and trying to get info from these people is somehow worse and then villafy the us for trying to protect themselves without killing and serious torture like they wouldn't hesitate to do...baffled.

So I guess, "being at the wrong place at the wrong time" means, holding an AK while shooting at Americans.
Because our soldiers do friendly fire all the time. (most of US in Iraq deaths are friendly lol)

I find it hard to leave flamebait threads open.