NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Just one more example of the perfidy of the pandering press.


Gitmo prison is new but coverage is old (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 2, 2005

The images of hooded, shackled, prisoners in orange suits hobbling around the Guantanamo Bay detention facility continue to be a regular fixture in print and broadcast coverage of the war on terrorism.
Those images, however, are outdated and depict a facility that has been closed since 2002, leaving Department of Defense officials wondering why news organizations persist in showcasing them.
"I'd like to think it's for convenience," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. John Gong, deputy commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo. The task force oversees operations at the facility in Cuba, which houses enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan more than three years ago.
The press consistently recycles the old material, rather than portray the camp how it is today, Gen. Gong said this week in an American Forces Press Service news article.
The Defense Department account points to a Time magazine cover story titled "Inside the Wire at Gitmo," which ran in June featuring a photo of detainees praying inside what look like dog runs, spread across two pages.
The photo had been taken at "Camp X-Ray," a temporary facility that was closed in April 2002 and has not been used since.
But like the prisoner abuse photos from the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq, the dated Camp X-Ray images continue to appear in the media -- so much so that they have become "iconic," according to the press account.
The media has mostly overlooked the replacement facilities, which were reviewed this year by the American Correctional Association and deemed appropriate and in accordance with American jail standards, Gen. Gong said.
According to the Defense Department, the new detention site includes Camp 4, a medium-security facility, which offers the detainees recreational activities, occasional Arabic TV and family-style meals served in a common area. The detainees are allowed outside their quarters for seven to nine hours a day for recreation. White uniforms have replaced the orange jumpsuits.
A prayer call is issued five times a day in accordance with Muslim tradition; guards even place specially fabricated "prayer cones" in the cell blocks to ensure that American personnel maintain a respectful silence for the detainees, according to the department.
Camp 5, the newest facility in Guantanamo, is modeled after state-of-the-art correctional institutions in the United States, to be followed by a more modern Camp 6, scheduled for completion next summer.
Gen. Gong is inviting the press to update its image files in the meantime.
"We welcome people to come in," he said.
Still, it might not be enough for some.
"Military ground rules -- including censoring video shot at the facility -- made it nearly impossible for a CNN crew that visited the prison ... to get a full picture of the prison," CNN noted after a recent visit to Guantanamo.

The typical racist, biggot, American hater will say "S0 wut, it are liek thut n 2902111!1 Down wit UAS!"

The typical racist, biggot, American hater will say "S0 wut, it are liek thut n 2902111!1 Down wit UAS!"
( shrug ) Perhaps they were all neglected children? :)

Unfortunately, the liberal press will never cover what is really happening in the war on terror. As Bill O'Reilly notes, we are engaged in WW III. America is not known as the country that abuses prisoners although some would portray us as doing so.

did they provide current pictures of the camps? got a link so we can see what they are really like?

Wait, I'm confused-is the story now "It never happened" or "It's not happening anymore?" It's so hard to keep up...

It wouldn't matter if they got foot massages every morning. While it is a better thing that they are being treated nicely, it is still not good enough that they are being held without trial.

It wouldn't matter if they got foot massages every morning. While it is a better thing that they are being treated nicely, it is still not good enough that they are being held without trial.
I concur. ^

Unfortunately, the liberal press will never cover what is really happening in the war on terror. As Bill O'Reilly notes, we are engaged in WW III. America is not known as the country that abuses prisoners although some would portray us as doing so.

WWIII? You got to be kidding me. Islamic terrorist have killed maybe twenty thousand westerners in the past ten years. That makes them less dangerous than swimming pools.

Face it. Terrorists are idiots and incomptents.

Wait, I'm confused-is the story now "It never happened" or "It's not happening anymore?" It's so hard to keep up...
I think that it's obvious:

1. There was abuse early on.
2. There have been multiple investigations, including some that are still going on.
3. Some policies have obviously changed. NPR was allowed to attend an interrogation - so have other members of the press. I've only seen the NPR story - no other news agency has published a thing. Makes you wonder why not?
4. The ICRC has been all over the camp since it opened. They are present at all interrogations at Guantanamo now. They even get to talk to the detainees in private.
5. The buildings they live in are all new now. The facility apparently has a dorm room environment (several two man rooms around a living area) and most of the detainees live under those conditions. Some of the more recalcitrant ones live under conditions similar to modern US penitentiary cells.

No one is wanting to show that there's been any improvement - I admire NPR in that they went in thinking they would see detainees hanging from the barbed wire, and they saw something different. No one else is reporting on it.

Why wouldn't someone want to show that there's been an improvement? A change? Why paint the picture that the US not only makes mistakes, but doesn't address criticism?

Bad media..... baaad media
*whacks snout with a rolled up newspaper*

did they provide current pictures of the camps? got a link so we can see what they are really like?
Here's the article, but it doesn't have any photos: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051201-103508-8223r.htm

WWIII? You got to be kidding me. Islamic terrorist have killed maybe twenty thousand westerners in the past ten years. That makes them less dangerous than swimming pools.

Signaturified.

It wouldn't matter if they got foot massages every morning. While it is a better thing that they are being treated nicely, it is still not good enough that they are being held without trial.
Even the non-US citizens?

WWIII? You got to be kidding me. Islamic terrorist have killed maybe twenty thousand westerners in the past ten years. That makes them less dangerous than swimming pools.

Face it. Terrorists are idiots and incomptents.
Excuse me, but aren't you one of the ones who was rasing hell not long ago about the US military casualty total having reached 2,000???

Unfortunately, the liberal press will never cover what is really happening in the war on terror. As Bill O'Reilly notes, we are engaged in WW III.

We had WWIII. A little spat between the US and USSR for sixty years. Thats commonly known as WWIII in more modern historical circles.



America is not known as the country that abuses prisoners although some would portray us as doing so.

'America' does not abuse prisoners, sadly for her; representatives of America do. *coughAbuGhraibcough*

We had WWIII. A little spat between the US and USSR for sixty years. Thats commonly known as WWIII in more modern historical circles.


I keep trying to tell people I served in WW III, but they don't buy it.

Even the non-US citizens?

Human beings Eutrusca, human beings:(

Excuse me, but aren't you one of the ones who was rasing hell not long ago about the US military casualty total having reached 2,000???

Doubt it. I recently came around and now support the war in Iraq. But I'll have a looksie.

Signaturified.

Woot!

Human beings Eutrusca, human beings:(
Not all "human beings" fall under the protection of the Constitution of the United States ... unfortunately. Additionally, calling some people "human beings" requires a considerable stretch of the imagination.

Not all "human beings" fall under the protection of the Constitution of the United States ... unfortunately.
...What?..... Seriously, WTF? You're kidding me right :(


Additionally, calling some people "human beings" requires a considerable stretch of the imagination.

I will never give up the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law. The moment I give that up- 'they' win. :(

For instance: The Birmingham Six
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

And the Guilford Four
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four

I will never give up the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law. The moment I give that up- 'they' win. :(

technically, if the US was to accede to international demands, and call them "Prisoners of War" and grant them privileges accordingly under the Geneva Conventions, as is also demanded by the international community, they would not be entitled to any trial at all - because you don't try prisoners of war unless you find they have committed a war crime.

Otherwise, as "prisoners of war" you detain them until the end of the war.

Face it. Terrorists are idiots and incomptents.

And dangerous.

Excuse me, but aren't you one of the ones who was rasing hell not long ago about the US military casualty total having reached 2,000???

Checked up on, and no, not at all. The only thread that dealt with that figure in depth was your thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451246) in which I made one comment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9846546&postcount=93), a comment that you agreed with (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9846748&postcount=101).

Otherwise, as "prisoners of war" you detain them until the end of the war.

Hmmm, Deja vu.

War's over. This guy said so:

http://lonbud.com/missacc.jpg

Hmmm, Deja vu.

War's over. This guy said so:

http://www.bartcop.com/mission-accomplished.jpg

Different war - the detainees at Guantanamo were caught in Afghanistan - the "War on Terror".

The "war in Iraq" may be over for President Bush, but the War on Terror is forever.

We had WWIII. A little spat between the US and USSR for sixty years. Thats commonly known as WWIII in more modern historical circles.[/QUOTE]

That was the cold war.

'America' does not abuse prisoners, sadly for her; representatives of America do. *coughAbuGhraibcough*

And those few who have abused them have been punished, however it is not Amreican policy to abuse prisoners and never has been.

Different war - the detainees at Guantanamo were caught in Afghanistan - the "War on Terror".

The "war in Iraq" may be over for President Bush, but the War on Terror is forever.

Gee, I don't remember Congress giving it's approval to invade terror.

The "War on terror" is a phrase used by politicians to justify stripping away civil liberties. Not an actual war.

Thats commonly known as WWIII in more modern historical circles.
As well as excuse for rants from paranoid conspiracy theorists (http://www.threeworldwars.com/index.html).

The "War on terror" is a phrase used by politicians to justify stripping away civil liberties. Not an actual war.
I have asked this question repeatedly and never received an intelligent answer: What civil liberties or rights have you lost?

Gee, I don't remember Congress giving it's approval to invade terror.

The "War on terror" is a phrase used by politicians to justify stripping away civil liberties. Not an actual war.

Well, if you remember, right after 9-11 there was a flurry of legislation - and I'm not talking about the Patriot Act. When Rumsfeld said, "the gloves are off," he was referring to the extreme changes to limits on what the military and CIA can do in terms of kidnapping and assassination - limits that were placed on both near the end of the Vietnam War.

We are kidnapping and assassinating people in a lot of countries - the fighting is not restricted to Afghanistan and Iraq. It might as well be a world war.

I have asked this question repeatedly and never received an intelligent answer: What civil liberties or rights have you lost?

Heh. Child abuse has never directly affected me either, so I guess that's all right too then?

technically, if the US was to accede to international demands, and call them "Prisoners of War" and grant them privileges accordingly under the Geneva Conventions, as is also demanded by the international community, they would not be entitled to any trial at all - because you don't try prisoners of war unless you find they have committed a war crime.

Otherwise, as "prisoners of war" you detain them until the end of the war.

They do not fit the definition of "Prisoners of War" under the Geneva Conventions. Thus the U.S. or any other nation are not obliged to grant them the status of POW. If you want to use the Geneva Conventions, why not classify them as spies, which would give us the right to execute them? Now, I don't necessarily advocate that because there is always the possibility they are not spies, even though they were caught on the battlefield in civilian clothing. :(

That was the cold war.

And....? Just because the two protagonists didn't turn it into a 'Hot' or 'Shooting' War, doesn't mean that modern historical cricles don't consider it as WWIII. Argue your point with academia, not me.



And those few who have abused them have been punished, however it is not Amreican policy to abuse prisoners and never has been.

Yeah and I acknowledged that. Representatives carry out abuses while wearing the uniform of their country or in the name of their country. It does not mean it is state policy, but it does not detract from the association.

Well, if you remember, right after 9-11 there was a flurry of legislation - and I'm not talking about the Patriot Act. When Rumsfeld said, "the gloves are off," he was referring to the extreme changes to limits on what the military and CIA can do in terms of kidnapping and assassination - limits that were placed on both near the end of the Vietnam War.

And now I believe McCain is trying to put a stop to that. Looks like the gloves are going back on.

We are kidnapping and assassinating people in a lot of countries - the fighting is not restricted to Afghanistan and Iraq. It might as well be a world war.

1) You shouldn't be.
2) If it's not between two nations, it's not a war.

Hmmm, Deja vu.

War's over. This guy said so:

http://lonbud.com/missacc.jpg

Obviously, you and many other people do not understand the difference between "Mission Accomplished" and the "War is over." Many missions are accomplished before the war is over.

...What?..... Seriously, WTF? You're kidding me right?
No. Why would I joke about that? What about that statement bothers you?


I will never give up the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law. The moment I give that up- 'they' win. :(

For instance: The Birmingham Six
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

And the Guilford Four
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four
And what does that have to do with what I said in the post to which you refer, pray tell?

As well as excuse for rants from paranoid conspiracy theorists (http://www.threeworldwars.com/index.html).

We haven't fought WWIII yet. We're not fighting any new wars with sticks and stones yet are we?

Now, I don't necessarily advocate that because there is always the possibility they are not spies, even though they were caught on the battlefield in civilian clothing.

When "the battlefield" is an entire country, you could execute quiet a lot of people for being spies.

I agree that they are not soldiers. I think they are criminals. And criminals face the judicial process.

Obviously, you and many other people do not understand the difference between "Mission Accomplished" and the "War is over." Many missions are accomplished before the war is over.
Please don't confuse him with the facts, definitions or other acoutrements of logic. His mind is already made up.

We haven't fought WWIII yet. We're not fighting any new wars with sticks and stones yet are we?
Precisely my point. :)

Obviously, you and many other people do not understand the difference between "Mission Accomplished" and the "War is over." Many missions are accomplished before the war is over.

You invade Iraq, destroy it's armed forces and topple it's goverment and are now holding them to trial. If thats not the very defination of victory, I don't know what is.

Also IIRC, Bush used the phrase "the war is over" in that speech.

2) If it's not between two nations, it's not a war.
war (wôr) KEY

NOUN: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Please don't confuse him with the facts, definitions or other acoutrements of logic. His mind is already made up.

If you don't want to debate, then leave. Don't hang about insulting me. It's the sign of someone losing.

war (wôr) KEY

NOUN: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

I wouldn't say that fits where one side pretends to be civilians and the other kidnaps and assassinates them.

And....? Just because the two protagonists didn't turn it into a 'Hot' or 'Shooting' War, doesn't mean that modern historical cricles don't consider it as WWIII. Argue your point with academia, not me.

Well it wasn't a shooting war, but I won't argue the point with you. If you want to call that WW III and the current war on terrorism WW IV that's OK with me. I'm not always a stickler on semantics. :D

No. Why would I joke about that? What about that statement bothers you?

The fact that some people born in the United States of America are not covered by the Constitution of The United States of America.... did I read that right ? :confused:



And what does that have to do with what I said in the post to which you refer, pray tell?
Because taking away from them the recognition of being human, results in situations like the Guilford Four and Birmingham Six (if you didn't click the link, please give it a quick glance) where people are ignored and fall through the cracks of the judical and political system.

Thats why.

And why is it so hard to grasp the concept that WWIII happened, and just no one really paid attention to it? Think of it as a series of incidents and small scale conflicts within the umbrella term 'WWIII'... much like Afghanistan and Iraq would be under the umbrella of 'The War on Terror'

Yeah and I acknowledged that. Representatives carry out abuses while wearing the uniform of their country or in the name of their country. It does not mean it is state policy, but it does not detract from the association.

Therefore, if one of your hometown policemen abuses a prisoner, it is OK to assume it is the policy of your hometown government to abuse prisoners.

Therefore, if one of your hometown policemen abuses a prisoner, it is OK to assume it is the policy of your hometown government to abuse prisoners.

Law enforcement or military? Because law enforcement is independent of govt control, whereas the military would act in accordance with govt orders.

In the first case; no.
In the second case; yes.

When "the battlefield" is an entire country, you could execute quiet a lot of people for being spies.

I agree that they are not soldiers. I think they are criminals. And criminals face the judicial process.

What country has ever been at war where the "entire country" has not been a battlefield?
So, spies during WW II and earlier wars should have been treated as criminals. Benedict Arnold was a criminal and not a spy?

Please don't confuse him with the facts, definitions or other acoutrements of logic. His mind is already made up.

I just don't understan why we agree on so many things. :) :) SMsgt. (E-8) U.S.A.F. Ret. Maybe I should put that in my sig or do you think it would mark me as a neocon?

What country has ever been at war where the "entire country" has not been a battlefield?

I don't know, but I do know that no one has considered "spies" a valid reason for the excutions of every person in a country not waering a uniform

So, spies during WW II and earlier wars should have been treated as criminals.

Terrorist are criminals. Not spies. You brought up spies.

Benedict Arnold was a criminal and not a spy?

Who?

I just don't understan why we agree on so many things. :) :) SMsgt. (E-8) U.S.A.F. Ret. Maybe I should put that in my sig or do you think it would mark me as a neocon?

You haven't given credible evidence yet that terrorists are enough of a threat to do away with with our principles and ideals. When you do, I'll change my mind.

I wouldn't say that fits where one side pretends to be civilians and the other kidnaps and assassinates them.

Exactly. Why are so many "civilians" being kidnapped in Iraq and killed by insurgents? Let's see, most of the people kidnapped by insurgents have been civilians, in fact the last four have been Christian peace advocates who have been there since before the war. So your point is?????

Law enforcement or military? Because law enforcement is independent of govt control, whereas the military would act in accordance with govt orders.

In the first case; no.
In the second case; yes.

To say that law enforcement is independent of government control is absolutely ridiculous. Do you think the police department in your town, county, or state is devoid of control by the civilian authorities? If you do, you need to go back to school and take some civics/government classes.

Exactly. Why are so many "civilians" being kidnapped in Iraq and killed by insurgents? Let's see, most of the people kidnapped by insurgents have been civilians, in fact the last four have been Christian peace advocates who have been there since before the war. So your point is?????

My point is that it is not a war because:

1) Congress never declared war.
2) War is a state that exists between two countries.

When Eutrusca countered by giving the dictionary defination of war (as opposed to the legal defination of a war, I might add) it contained the word "open". I pointed out that the "War on Terror" is far from open.

Ergo, the war on terror is not a war. Ergo, you have to let your POWs go, or charge them with a criminal offence.

To say that law enforcement is independent of government control is absolutely ridiculous. Do you think the police department in your town, county, or state is devoid of control by the civilian authorities?.

No, the point was that they are devoid of control by government authorities. Or at least, should be.


If you do, you need to go back to school and take some civics/government classes.

Do you always make it personal?

You haven't given credible evidence yet that terrorists are enough of a threat to do away with with our principles and ideals. When you do, I'll change my mind.

Is 911 enough?

Is 911 enough?

No.

To say that law enforcement is independent of government control is absolutely ridiculous. Do you think the police department in your town, county, or state is devoid of control by the civilian authorities? If you do, you need to go back to school and take some civics/government classes.

Well, em, sorry to burst that bubble of yours, but I ain't American. There is a world outside you know. ;) Lotta people belong to it, you should pop along sometime ;)

The police authorities in MY country are not under the direct control of the govt as say, the military are. OUR police force are 'guardians of the peace' and have actually been involved in some very underhanded (some say close to sedition) activities against certain govts in the past.

Your original proposition was based on ASSUMING. My above case scenarios stand.

No, the point was that they are devoid of control by government authorities. Or at least, should be.


Thank you! Someone gets it!
*hands DrunkenDove a cookie*

No, the point was that they are devoid of control by government authorities. Or at least, should be.

No, in most jurisdictions civilian authorities can fire law enforcement officers, just as a civilian authority can fire military officers.

Thank you! Someone gets it!
*hands DrunkenDove a cookie*

Woot! Cookie!

No, in most jurisdictions civilian authorities can fire law enforcement officers,

Nope. Not everywhere- and it works beautifully I might add.

No, in most jurisdictions civilian authorities can fire law enforcement officers, just as a civilian authority can fire military officers.

Well, In my country the government has little or no control over law enforcement.

Well, In my country the government has little or no control over law enforcement.

Ditto ;)

Ditto ;)

Heh.

I think that it's obvious:

1. There was abuse early on.
2. There have been multiple investigations, including some that are still going on.
3. Some policies have obviously changed. NPR was allowed to attend an interrogation - so have other members of the press. I've only seen the NPR story - no other news agency has published a thing. Makes you wonder why not?
4. The ICRC has been all over the camp since it opened. They are present at all interrogations at Guantanamo now. They even get to talk to the detainees in private.
5. The buildings they live in are all new now. The facility apparently has a dorm room environment (several two man rooms around a living area) and most of the detainees live under those conditions. Some of the more recalcitrant ones live under conditions similar to modern US penitentiary cells.

No one is wanting to show that there's been any improvement - I admire NPR in that they went in thinking they would see detainees hanging from the barbed wire, and they saw something different. No one else is reporting on it.

Why wouldn't someone want to show that there's been an improvement? A change? Why paint the picture that the US not only makes mistakes, but doesn't address criticism?
Ah. See, cause I was listening to you guys scream up and down that it never happened. So now it happened but it's not anymore. K, got it. The stories are hard to keep straight.

No.

If 911 isn't credible evidence that terrorists are enough of a threat to the United States and the free world, about what happened in Madrid, London, Bali, and Jakarta isn't enough to convince you that terrorist are a credible threat then there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to convince you.

I don't know, but I do know that no one has considered "spies" a valid reason for the excutions of every person in a country not waering a uniform

I dunno, Stalin was pretty good at that... :D

Well, em, sorry to burst that bubble of yours, but I ain't American. There is a world outside you know. ;) Lotta people belong to it, you should pop along sometime ;)

The police authorities in MY country are not under the direct control of the govt as say, the military are. OUR police force are 'guardians of the peace' and have actually been involved in some very underhanded (some say close to sedition) activities against certain govts in the past.

Your original proposition was based on ASSUMING. My above case scenarios stand.

Yes, I ASS U ME d that the poster was American and in most juristrictions in the U.S. the police are under civilian control.

If 911 isn't credible evidence that terrorists are enough of a threat to the United States and the free world, if what happened in Madrid, London, Bali, and Jakarta isn't enough to convince you that terrorist are a credible threat then there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to convince you.

You do know that terrorism existed before Sept. 11th, Madrid, London, Bali and Jakarta don't you? Its not like this was a surprise to the rest of the world- it was more like:

"Jeez, well duh. We've been livin' with this kinda crap for decades. It doesn't stop our lives existing, what took you so long to realise what was going on elsewhere?"

A lot of countries have been dealing with terrorism looong before Sept 11th occured and looong before Bin Laden came onto the scene.

A lot of countries have been dealing with terrorism looong before Sept 11th occured and looong before Bin Laden came onto the scene.

Difference -- America = First World country and leader of the "Free World." If you see a cloud of dust over the horizon, you tend not to worry about the town being raided by renegade cowboys. When they come to your town and burn down the marketplace, then you realize "Shit, they're a bigger threat than we thought."

So is the course of human thought: "It's okay, it could never happen to me."

If 911 isn't credible evidence that terrorists are enough of a threat to the United States and the free world, if what happened in Madrid, London, Bali, and Jakarta isn't enough to convince you that terrorist are a credible threat then there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to convince you.

Let's look at the statistics:

911: 3000 dead
Madrid:191 dead
London: 56 dead
Bali: 235 dead
Jakarta: 11 dead

Total: 3493

Now, I found on a pro-gun site that swimming pools kill approximately 734 children in the US every year. So from 2000 to 2005 swimming pool death equaled 3670 people.

Why no "War on Swimming Pools"? When looked at rationally, terrorism is a minor annoyance, not a reason to change our ideals or submit to a police state.

Yes, I ASS U ME d that the poster was American and in most juristrictions in the U.S. the police are under civilian control.

Does civillian control mean goverment control? Because that was the point he was making.

Let's look at the statistics:

911: 3000 dead
Madrid:191 dead
London: 56 dead
Bali: 235 dead
Jakarta: 11 dead

Total: 3493

Now, I found on a pro-gun site that swimming pools kill approximately 734 children in the US every year. So from 2000 to 2005 swimming pool death equaled 3670 people.

Why no "War on Swimming Pools"? When looked at rationally, terrorism is a minor annoyance, not a reason to change our ideals or submit to a police state.

The swimming pool data comes solely from the US, whereas the terrorist casualties came from five different countries. Also, you say the swimming pool data only applies to children dying, I assume there are also some adults who are killed by swimming pools. You were actually understating the danger of swimming pools.:eek:

Therefore, closing down swimming pools makes much more sense than invading random arab countries.

The swimming pool data comes solely from the US, whereas the terrorist casualties came from five different countries. Also, you say the swimming pool data only applies to children dying, I assume there are also some adults who are killed by swimming pools. You were actually understating the danger of swimming pools.:eek:

Therefore, closing down swimming pools makes much more sense than invading random arab countries.

But swimming pools don't want to bring down your way of life and aren't deliberately plotting to kill you.

At least I hope not. If so, you'd better get rid of your swimming pool.

But swimming pools don't want to bring down your way of life and aren't deliberately plotting to kill you.

No, that would be the builder of swimming pools, the sneaks. :p

But swimming pools don't want to bring down your way of life and aren't deliberately plotting to kill you.

At least I hope not. If so, you'd better get rid of your swimming pool.

I reckon Al Quada should stop bombing and start building swimming pools, it seems to be more effective.:p

On a serious note, I'm pointing out that the number of people killed by the terrorist attacks is relatively small. The only effect they can have is to terrify people so if we panic and lock away everyone who looks a bit foreign then they're winning.

COMMENTARY: Just one more example of the perfidy of the pandering press.

Now that's brilliant use of alliteration!

COMMENTARY: Just one more example of the perfidy of the pandering press.

You bitch about the pandering press, and then quote the Washington Times? If they got any farther up Bush's ass, they'd be coming out of his ears, for fuck's sake. Give it a rest.

But swimming pools don't want to bring down your way of life and aren't deliberately plotting to kill you.

At least I hope not. If so, you'd better get rid of your swimming pool.

Swimming pools are ambialent as to whether we live or die.

Terrorists want us dead.

And yet swimming pools kill so many more of us.

I think that points out something too often missed in all the fearmongering.

We're more of a threat to ourselves than we are to each other.

Now that's brilliant use of alliteration!
Thanks. I try. :D

You bitch about the pandering press, and then quote the Washington Times? If they got any farther up Bush's ass, they'd be coming out of his ears, for fuck's sake. Give it a rest.
ROFLMAO!!! I quote whomever writes an article that happens to peak my interest. Sorry if the sources don't always conform to your demented ideas about what "a free press" means. :D