Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12

 

2010-03-26 03:23:26
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6767|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Essentially, any treatment those people at GITMO receive is exactly what they are warranted under the GC, since they were fighting in a way that violated the tenets of the GC to start with.
cool. but who's to tell if they were fighting in that way? their captors? that would render the whole affair kinda pointless, you know. "we captured him while he was fighting dirty" - and that's it? shouldn't there have been some kinda proof, a formal trial or smthing? i understand, a certain secrecy must be observed if any useful information is expected to be beaten out of those prisoners, but still. i understand, they are enemy combatants, they were taken prisoner in a war zone, bearing arms and all - that's all fine. but you also claim that they were violating some convention or crap like that - doesn't that require proof? because if it doesn't then all them conventions just went down the shitter.
You're assuming there wasn't some sort of proof/evidence to hold them to begin with, which would be a flawed assumption.
i'm not assuming there wasn't, i just haven't seen any. have you?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-03-26 03:42:14
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Who says? Try those who wrote and signed the GC, for starters. You really should try reading it. You'd find the language in there that states that belligerents must be treated according to the tenets of the GC until they do not follow it themselves, whether the parties involved are signatories or not. Specifically, signatories must follow the tenets until the other side doesn't, then all bets are off. If you would've read it, you would know that.

Essentially, any treatment those people at GITMO receive is exactly what they are warranted under the GC, since they were fighting in a way that violated the tenets of the GC to start with.
Your argument might hold some force were it certain that they (Gitmo detainees) really were/are 'combatants'. However since many were innocent or held without trial you can't be certain about anything. So since they're there as 'combtatants' they should imo be treated as such. Your argument agains shows how morally hypocritical you are. You may as well say 'the GC are a load of shit so if they other side don't follow them we sure won't'. It might have missed your attention that the US is supposed to be some massive beacon for life, liberty, freedom etc etc. Then you do shit like this. So...who's the failure?
Did you bother to read what I wrote?

Did you bother to read the GC?

Clearly not, to both.

I never said the GC are a load of shit. In fact, quite the opposite.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Whatever gave you the impression that GITMO was some sort of rehabilitation center? It never was. Was never advertised as such. Was never intended to be one. So no...it wouldn't mean that it failed, as that was never its intended purpose.
Well, like I asked, and feel free to answer my question - if ONE ex-detainee who was innocent and turned into a fundamnetalist by being in Gitmo then comitted a terrorist act - AS A DIRECT RESULT OF BEING IN GITMO - then, surely, Gitmo is a failure. If the aim of Gitmo was to consolidate anti-US feeling across half the world then yes, it succeeded admirably.
If my aunt had balls, would she then be my uncle?

If, if, if, if...

You measure success or failure of something based on its intended purpose and whether or not it met its intended purpose. You don't make up some other purpose and then deem something a success or failure based on that purpose. That's idiotic. With or without GITMO, that anti-US feeling would've been there, as it was based on policy, not actions in GITMO.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Clearly, if it weren't for GITMO, every one of those guys would've been raising kittens and painting pastoral landscapes instead of trying to kill Coalition soldiers and innocent civilians. Geez, man! That's fucking obvious.

Because that's as idiotic as the position being taken by you and some others here. Seriously, educate yourself on the topic at hand and go off  fact-based, rather than emotion-fed, opinion.
It's not emotion-fed, why should it be? my position isn't idiotic - it's based on fact. Here are some for you:
Really? Let's see which ones are actually facts...

ruisleipa wrote:

That some (perhaps the majority?) of detainees in gitmo were innocent. That's the basic fact.
Some? Perhaps. Majority? Most definitely not. Too bad you threw that in there. "Fact" one gone.

ruisleipa wrote:

Also, people have been tortured in gitmo.
Debatable.

ruisleipa wrote:

Deaths at gitmo have occurred (through torture?)
Deaths occur every day at every prison. Not through "torture". "Fact" two gone.

ruisleipa wrote:

Most people there were held without trial, often for several years.
Trials are not required, per the GC. "Fact" three gone.

ruisleipa wrote:

Many consider Gitmo to be illegal
Opinion. Not fact. "Fact" four gone.

ruisleipa wrote:

and the ignoring of the GC also to be illegal.
GC hasn't been ignored. You would know this if you had read the thing. "Fact" five gone.

ruisleipa wrote:

Anti-US sentiment has increased across the world as a direct result of Gitmo.
Debatable. Anti-US sentiment would likely have been there regardless. Again, opinion, not fact. "Fact" six gone.

ruisleipa wrote:

Now you and others might like to argue that locking up and torturing innocent people is OK.
Who ever said it was OK to lock up and torture innocent people? Seriously, man. You need to check your rabid propaganda machine.

ruisleipa wrote:

That's another reason why the US has lost a lot of its moral force, because you've been duped into thinking that the US can do anything to keep its position as world superpower and follows differnt moral standards than other countries. You want to invade another country illegally, kidnap innocent people and jail them for years without trial? Fine, don't be surprised when they dog you've beaten comes back and bites you in the ass.
Oh, the tired old "illegal" argument again. When are you going to get it through your head that the only thing that governs international decision-making (to include wars) is national interests? Nations do what they do when they deem it to be in their interests to do so. Period. That "illegal" war was backed up by 18 UN resolutions. Enough that the UN didn't feel compelled to issue one resolution against it, which they could've easily done in the GA if they were worried about a veto in the SC. Didn't happen, did it? So you can gnash your teeth, stomp your feet and hold your breath till you're blue in the face--it's still just YOU being pissed off. Your opinion and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee--and won't change the fact that the only organization that can put the label "illegal" on the Iraq war chose not to do so.

ruisleipa wrote:

Gitmo has created more 'terrorists' than have been locked up. That's pretty much a fact also.
Actually, that's pretty much just your opinion. Unless you count those jihadists who use it as a rallying cry. But then you could say the same thing about any number of "causes", so it's really a red herring argument.

ruisleipa wrote:

By what measure of success was Gitmo a 'success', cos I can give you a list of ways it was a failure.
Look at the intelligence that has been garnered (at least what has been publicly released, because there is much that the public will likely never know about). That was its intended purpose: detention and interrogation to gather intel on AQ to help take them down and prevent further attacks. Based on intel gathered from GITMO detainees, exactly that has happened. Sounds like it did its job.

ruisleipa wrote:

But if you want try giving me some 'facts-based' arguments (totally unlike your last little bit I quoted above by the way) that Gitmo was another American policy coup.
That last bit you quoted wasn't an argument. It was clearly a sarcastic comment that was never intended to be a fact-based argument.

ruisleipa wrote:

Oh and have you hear about the lawsuits now taking place against deaths in US custody...in Guantanamo. Yep, you must be proud to have such an excellent use of your tax dollars. Well done.
Wow. Lawsuits. In the US. Whodathunkit?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-03-26 03:44:17
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:


cool. but who's to tell if they were fighting in that way? their captors? that would render the whole affair kinda pointless, you know. "we captured him while he was fighting dirty" - and that's it? shouldn't there have been some kinda proof, a formal trial or smthing? i understand, a certain secrecy must be observed if any useful information is expected to be beaten out of those prisoners, but still. i understand, they are enemy combatants, they were taken prisoner in a war zone, bearing arms and all - that's all fine. but you also claim that they were violating some convention or crap like that - doesn't that require proof? because if it doesn't then all them conventions just went down the shitter.
You're assuming there wasn't some sort of proof/evidence to hold them to begin with, which would be a flawed assumption.
i'm not assuming there wasn't, i just haven't seen any. have you?
Not recently. I haven't seen any evidence on the last guy thrown in the county jail either. Doesn't mean I automatically assume there wasn't any evidence to put him in jail. Just because I haven't seen it or because it hasn't been made available to me doesn't mean I assume it doesn't exist. That's a non-sensical position.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-03-26 04:20:36
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6214|teh FIN-land

FEOS wrote:

I never said the GC are a load of shit. In fact, quite the opposite.
And I never said you said that. Seriously man. I said 'you may as well say', which is not the same as me suggesting you were saying it, just that the end result is the same. Either you (as a country or individually) consider the GC and the International Declaration on Human Rights to be worthy and followed at all times, or you consider that they're not, and you can pick and choose when it suits you.

FEOS wrote:

You measure success or failure of something based on its intended purpose and whether or not it met its intended purpose. You don't make up some other purpose and then deem something a success or failure based on that purpose. That's idiotic. With or without GITMO, that anti-US feeling would've been there, as it was based on policy, not actions in GITMO.
OK, so what was Gitmo's 'intended purpose'? Presumably to reduce the threat of violence and anti-US feeling across the world? Or at least that was surely the wider aims of the foreign policy Gitmo was part of. Did it do that? No. Did it do the opposite? Yes. Ergo, it was a failure. Unless the aim was the opposite, in which case, it succeeded.

FEOS wrote:

Some? Perhaps. Majority? Most definitely not. Too bad you threw that in there. "Fact" one gone.
Jeez. As I said, some of the detainees were innocent. That's a fact. It's not perhaps, it is verifiable. I said most followed by a question mark, i.e. it was a suggestion, not a statement. The fact stands.

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Also, people have been tortured in gitmo.
Debatable.
Wtf? No it isn't!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7828126.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/ja … tanamo.usa

http://www.truthout.org/051609Y

Fact stands.


FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Deaths at gitmo have occurred (through torture?)
Deaths occur every day at every prison. Not through "torture". "Fact" two gone.
I wasn't talking about every prison, I was talking about Gitmo. Deaths have occurrend at Gitmo - you agree? There have been suicicdes, but also violent deaths. NOw either those deaths were through torture, intended or unintended, or through physical violence from the cream off the US military. Again you'll notice I put a question mark after torture, so again, it was just a suggestion.

Fact stands.

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Most people there were held without trial, often for several years.
Trials are not required, per the GC. "Fact" three gone.
huh? Can you read? I said that most people are held there without trial often for years. Never mentioned the GC. That's a seperate issue. You're now using the GC to say that since the GC according to you doesn't require trials for those people then there's no need for them to be put on trial, and can just be left in prison for years with no problems? Never mind GC, what about justice, the rule of law, showing you're better than your 'enemy', and so on.

Fact stands.

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Many consider Gitmo to be illegal
Opinion. Not fact. "Fact" four gone.
It is a fact that many consider Gitmo to be illegal, which is what I said. You agree again apparently.

Fact stands.

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

and the ignoring of the GC also to be illegal.
GC hasn't been ignored. You would know this if you had read the thing. "Fact" five gone.
Only if you do conisder that the GC related to PoWs hasn't been ignored. But again, it is a fact that many consider the GC has been ignored and that the US has not fulfilled its international obligations in this regard.

Fact stands.

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Anti-US sentiment has increased across the world as a direct result of Gitmo.
Debatable. Anti-US sentiment would likely have been there regardless. Again, opinion, not fact. "Fact" six gone.
I'm pretty sure that this would be provable, but it's common sense isn't it? Here's someone else's view:

Second, strong allegations of inhumane treatment and flimsy evidence have also convinced CIA counter-terrorism specialist, Philip Giraldi, and top terrorist interrogator, Matthew Alexander, that Guantanamo Bay is generating more terrorists for the US to fight.  Giraldi has even pointed out that those who are released, after several years of detention, leave embittered, enraged, and more likely to join Al-Qaeda as a result of their time in Guantanamo.
http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/02/22 … rica-safer

Or here:

Guantánamo as recruiting tool

As Media Matters for America has documented, experts have stated that terrorists have successfully used Guantánamo as a recruiting device. For instance, in a November 2008 op-ed, an Air Force senior interrogator who was in Iraq in 2006 wrote: "I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq."

As the blog Think Progress noted, in June 17, 2008, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora said: "[T]here are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq -- as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat -- are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo."

Additionally, The Center for Strategic & International Studies concluded in a September 2008 study that "the United States has been damaged by Guantánamo beyond any immediate security benefits. Our enemies have achieved a propaganda windfall that enables recruitment to violence, while our friends have found it more difficult to cooperate with us."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200906050037

Of course anti-US sentiment would have been there otherwise, but has it 8i]increased[/i]? I mean, you can believe whatever you want, but never mind the views above, in Europe anti-US sentiment definitely did increase because of Gitmo.

Fact stands.

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Now you and others might like to argue that locking up and torturing innocent people is OK.
Who ever said it was OK to lock up and torture innocent people? Seriously, man. You need to check your rabid propaganda machine.
Sorry, that's what happened at Gitmo. Have you not been following this discussion? Se above.

FEOS wrote:

Oh, the tired old "illegal" argument again. When are you going to get it through your head that the only thing that governs international decision-making (to include wars) is national interests? Nations do what they do when they deem it to be in their interests to do so. Period. That "illegal" war was backed up by 18 UN resolutions. Enough that the UN didn't feel compelled to issue one resolution against it, which they could've easily done in the GA if they were worried about a veto in the SC. Didn't happen, did it? So you can gnash your teeth, stomp your feet and hold your breath till you're blue in the face--it's still just YOU being pissed off. Your opinion and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee--and won't change the fact that the only organization that can put the label "illegal" on the Iraq war chose not to do so.
Come on, you know there are plenty of eminent scholars and jurists of all persuasions who believe the US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal. It's not 'just ME being pissed off'. There are plenty who think the same. And now the UN is the arbiter of everything all of a sudden? Didn't know you were such a big fan.

Read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm

All that talk of stamping your feet was a bit unnecessary btw.

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Gitmo has created more 'terrorists' than have been locked up. That's pretty much a fact also.
Actually, that's pretty much just your opinion. Unless you count those jihadists who use it as a rallying cry. But then you could say the same thing about any number of "causes", so it's really a red herring argument.
Unless you count...what? Of course we count them. Wtf? And it has nothing to do with 'other' causes and it's not a red herring. Lol. You're clutching at straws.

FEOS wrote:

Look at the intelligence that has been garnered (at least what has been publicly released, because there is much that the public will likely never know about). That was its intended purpose: detention and interrogation to gather intel on AQ to help take them down and prevent further attacks. Based on intel gathered from GITMO detainees, exactly that has happened. Sounds like it did its job.
Mmmm...surprising that the, military only release what they want you to know eh? Or not. I bet there' plenty of sensitive information about deaths in custody or lack of evidence against detainees that we'll never see either. If you are correct then it might have 'done its job', but at what cost? Did Gitmo achieve anything that could not have been achieved in ways that wouldn't have led to so many negative consequences?

FEOS wrote:

That last bit you quoted wasn't an argument. It was clearly a sarcastic comment that was never intended to be a fact-based argument.
Sometimes...it's hard to tell.

/SARCASM

FEOS wrote:

Wow. Lawsuits. In the US. Whodathunkit?
Good argument https://www.dogsonacid.com/images/smilies/icon13.gif
2010-03-26 04:42:45
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6767|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You're assuming there wasn't some sort of proof/evidence to hold them to begin with, which would be a flawed assumption.
i'm not assuming there wasn't, i just haven't seen any. have you?
Not recently. I haven't seen any evidence on the last guy thrown in the county jail either. Doesn't mean I automatically assume there wasn't any evidence to put him in jail. Just because I haven't seen it or because it hasn't been made available to me doesn't mean I assume it doesn't exist. That's a non-sensical position.
it's all a matter of trust and authority. there are services like police, fbi, what have you, that do stuff to people: capture them, detain them, interrogate them, torture them - you know, the kewl stuff. there are also rules of conduct and reports on the activities and reasoning of said services released to public from time to time based on which one can form an opinion on all that stuff.
so, what i know is basically this: your nation took prisoners, shipped them to some lowless zone and treats them there like crap. now, before somebody starts crying "usa bashing" again - i, personally, fully support this kinda behavior towards aq members and other trash you may have captured, and if among them are some poor bastards who just were in the wrong place at the wrong time, well, too bad, shit happens - but you also claim that it's okay to deny them treatment as per GC because they were "fighting dirty"... and you are surprised that there are people who don't take your word for it? really?
now, there may very well be proper justification in light of GC for all that happens in gitmo, but since neither of us have seen any of that - why are you so sure nothing's wrong? don't you think gitmo is just a wee bit different from your county jail?

Last edited by Shahter (2010-03-26 04:44:00)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-03-26 04:47:18
13rin
Member
+977|6471

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Source - Foxnews

Taliban commanders have revealed that hundreds of insurgents have been trained in Iran to kill NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The commanders said they had learned to mount complex ambushes and lay improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Well screw that!

Iran is so fucked up, I would so not be surprised if Iran gets invaded one of these days.

What do you guys think can be done?
I'm not surprised.  They have been fighting a proxy war against the coalation forces ever since we went into Iraq.  I hope Israel crushes them.

Something is going to happen.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-03-26 04:49:25
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I never said the GC are a load of shit. In fact, quite the opposite.
And I never said you said that. Seriously man. I said 'you may as well say', which is not the same as me suggesting you were saying it, just that the end result is the same. Either you (as a country or individually) consider the GC and the International Declaration on Human Rights to be worthy and followed at all times, or you consider that they're not, and you can pick and choose when it suits you.
And I'm saying the GC is being followed. You clearly have not read it, or else you would realize that.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You measure success or failure of something based on its intended purpose and whether or not it met its intended purpose. You don't make up some other purpose and then deem something a success or failure based on that purpose. That's idiotic. With or without GITMO, that anti-US feeling would've been there, as it was based on policy, not actions in GITMO.
OK, so what was Gitmo's 'intended purpose'? Presumably to reduce the threat of violence and anti-US feeling across the world? Or at least that was surely the wider aims of the foreign policy Gitmo was part of. Did it do that? No. Did it do the opposite? Yes. Ergo, it was a failure. Unless the aim was the opposite, in which case, it succeeded.
Why did you post this bit, when further down you respond to the answer to this? Irrelevant blather, tbh.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Some? Perhaps. Majority? Most definitely not. Too bad you threw that in there. "Fact" one gone.
Jeez. As I said, some of the detainees were innocent. That's a fact. It's not perhaps, it is verifiable. I said most followed by a question mark, i.e. it was a suggestion, not a statement. The fact stands.
No, it doesn't. Where is the proof? Until there is incontrovertible proof, it's not a fact, it's merely your opinion.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Also, people have been tortured in gitmo.
Debatable.
Wtf? No it isn't!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7828126.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/ja … tanamo.usa

http://www.truthout.org/051609Y

Fact stands.
What is "torture" is debatable. Yes, it is. Fact does not stand.


ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Deaths at gitmo have occurred (through torture?)
Deaths occur every day at every prison. Not through "torture". "Fact" two gone.
I wasn't talking about every prison, I was talking about Gitmo. Deaths have occurrend at Gitmo - you agree? There have been suicicdes, but also violent deaths. NOw either those deaths were through torture, intended or unintended, or through physical violence from the cream off the US military. Again you'll notice I put a question mark after torture, so again, it was just a suggestion.

Fact stands.
Again, deaths occur at every prison throughout the world for various benign reasons. Until you can show proof that any deaths at GITMO occurred due to torture or malfeasance on the part of the staff there, you have nothing.

Fact does not stand.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Most people there were held without trial, often for several years.
Trials are not required, per the GC. "Fact" three gone.
huh? Can you read? I said that most people are held there without trial often for years. Never mentioned the GC. That's a seperate issue. You're now using the GC to say that since the GC according to you doesn't require trials for those people then there's no need for them to be put on trial, and can just be left in prison for years with no problems? Never mind GC, what about justice, the rule of law, showing you're better than your 'enemy', and so on.

Fact stands.
Fact does not stand. The whole point regarding these people being held revolves around the legality of their detention vis a vis the GC. The only law that applies is the GC. The GC is being followed. Period.

Seriously. You need to read the damn thing.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Many consider Gitmo to be illegal
Opinion. Not fact. "Fact" four gone.
It is a fact that many consider Gitmo to be illegal, which is what I said. You agree again apparently.

Fact stands.
It's a fact that people have an opinion?

Weak.

Their opinion is not fact. Ergo, it is not fact that it is illegal, it is only opinion. Therefore, it is not illegal based solely on their opinion.

Fact does not stand.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

and the ignoring of the GC also to be illegal.
GC hasn't been ignored. You would know this if you had read the thing. "Fact" five gone.
Only if you do conisder that the GC related to PoWs hasn't been ignored. But again, it is a fact that many consider the GC has been ignored and that the US has not fulfilled its international obligations in this regard.

Fact stands.
GC has been followed, as the detainees have not met the requirements for POW treatment under the GC due to their own actions (per the GC). They have put themselves in a legalistic limbo.

Fact does not stand.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Anti-US sentiment has increased across the world as a direct result of Gitmo.
Debatable. Anti-US sentiment would likely have been there regardless. Again, opinion, not fact. "Fact" six gone.
I'm pretty sure that this would be provable, but it's common sense isn't it? Here's someone else's view:

Second, strong allegations of inhumane treatment and flimsy evidence have also convinced CIA counter-terrorism specialist, Philip Giraldi, and top terrorist interrogator, Matthew Alexander, that Guantanamo Bay is generating more terrorists for the US to fight.  Giraldi has even pointed out that those who are released, after several years of detention, leave embittered, enraged, and more likely to join Al-Qaeda as a result of their time in Guantanamo.
http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/02/22 … rica-safer

Or here:

Guantánamo as recruiting tool

As Media Matters for America has documented, experts have stated that terrorists have successfully used Guantánamo as a recruiting device. For instance, in a November 2008 op-ed, an Air Force senior interrogator who was in Iraq in 2006 wrote: "I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq."

As the blog Think Progress noted, in June 17, 2008, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora said: "[T]here are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq -- as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat -- are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo."

Additionally, The Center for Strategic & International Studies concluded in a September 2008 study that "the United States has been damaged by Guantánamo beyond any immediate security benefits. Our enemies have achieved a propaganda windfall that enables recruitment to violence, while our friends have found it more difficult to cooperate with us."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200906050037

Of course anti-US sentiment would have been there otherwise, but has it 8i]increased[/i]? I mean, you can believe whatever you want, but never mind the views above, in Europe anti-US sentiment definitely did increase because of Gitmo.

Fact stands.
As I said, anti-US sentiment would be there regardless. Using GITMO as a rallying cry is the same as using Palestine, Afghanistan, <pick your cause> as a rallying cry. Those who do that stuff will find one to use for their cause regardless.

Fact does not stand.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Now you and others might like to argue that locking up and torturing innocent people is OK.
Who ever said it was OK to lock up and torture innocent people? Seriously, man. You need to check your rabid propaganda machine.
Sorry, that's what happened at Gitmo. Have you not been following this discussion? Se above.
Hasn't been proven. Have you not been following this discussion?

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Oh, the tired old "illegal" argument again. When are you going to get it through your head that the only thing that governs international decision-making (to include wars) is national interests? Nations do what they do when they deem it to be in their interests to do so. Period. That "illegal" war was backed up by 18 UN resolutions. Enough that the UN didn't feel compelled to issue one resolution against it, which they could've easily done in the GA if they were worried about a veto in the SC. Didn't happen, did it? So you can gnash your teeth, stomp your feet and hold your breath till you're blue in the face--it's still just YOU being pissed off. Your opinion and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee--and won't change the fact that the only organization that can put the label "illegal" on the Iraq war chose not to do so.
Come on, you know there are plenty of eminent scholars and jurists of all persuasions who believe the US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal. It's not 'just ME being pissed off'. There are plenty who think the same. And now the UN is the arbiter of everything all of a sudden? Didn't know you were such a big fan.

Read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm

All that talk of stamping your feet was a bit unnecessary btw.
And there were just as many eminent scholars and jurists of all persuasions who believe it was legal under existing resolutions. Hence why no action was taken against it in the UN. The UN is the only arbiter there is amongst nations, unless one cropped up that I'm not aware of.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Gitmo has created more 'terrorists' than have been locked up. That's pretty much a fact also.
Actually, that's pretty much just your opinion. Unless you count those jihadists who use it as a rallying cry. But then you could say the same thing about any number of "causes", so it's really a red herring argument.
Unless you count...what? Of course we count them. Wtf? And it has nothing to do with 'other' causes and it's not a red herring. Lol. You're clutching at straws.
No, you're clutching at straws. Because you'd have to count all those other causes along with GITMO in order for your argument to have any validity. It's not just GITMO that's doing it. They are recruiting based on many factors. The only way you could isolate GITMO as a "cause" of terrorism would be if you could no-shit find a guy who was definitively innocent before he went there (haven't had one of those yet), got released, then decided to go jihad upon release. Even if that has occurred, the numbers would be in the single to low double digits, if that.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Look at the intelligence that has been garnered (at least what has been publicly released, because there is much that the public will likely never know about). That was its intended purpose: detention and interrogation to gather intel on AQ to help take them down and prevent further attacks. Based on intel gathered from GITMO detainees, exactly that has happened. Sounds like it did its job.
Mmmm...surprising that the, military only release what they want you to know eh? Or not. I bet there' plenty of sensitive information about deaths in custody or lack of evidence against detainees that we'll never see either. If you are correct then it might have 'done its job', but at what cost? Did Gitmo achieve anything that could not have been achieved in ways that wouldn't have led to so many negative consequences?
You can go all paranoid if you want. I don't particularly care. GITMO has achieved the goals it was put in place to achieve. The negative consequences you attribute to GITMO would likely have occurred regardless of whether GITMO's existence were known or not, as the US's foreign policy actions have not been terribly popular in the world anyway.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-03-26 04:59:20
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6477|England

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:


You're assuming there wasn't some sort of proof/evidence to hold them to begin with, which would be a flawed assumption.
i'm not assuming there wasn't, i just haven't seen any. have you?
Not recently. I haven't seen any evidence on the last guy thrown in the county jail either. Doesn't mean I automatically assume there wasn't any evidence to put him in jail. Just because I haven't seen it or because it hasn't been made available to me doesn't mean I assume it doesn't exist. That's a non-sensical position.
I'm sure if they broke into you're house in the night tied you up kidnapped you stuck you in gitmo where the torture begins for no reason with no explanation you would have different things to say, and that is what happens to a lot of people in there just because they might be " suspicious" or even it would seem anybody who has anything bad to say.
2010-03-26 05:00:11
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6667|Canberra, AUS

LostFate wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:


i'm not assuming there wasn't, i just haven't seen any. have you?
Not recently. I haven't seen any evidence on the last guy thrown in the county jail either. Doesn't mean I automatically assume there wasn't any evidence to put him in jail. Just because I haven't seen it or because it hasn't been made available to me doesn't mean I assume it doesn't exist. That's a non-sensical position.
I'm sure if they broke into you're house in the night tied you up kidnapped you stuck you in gitmo where the torture begins for no reason with no explanation you would have different things to say, and that is what happens to a lot of people in there just because they might be " suspicious" or even it would seem anybody who has anything bad to say.
wat.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-03-26 05:04:36
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6767|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:

LostFate wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not recently. I haven't seen any evidence on the last guy thrown in the county jail either. Doesn't mean I automatically assume there wasn't any evidence to put him in jail. Just because I haven't seen it or because it hasn't been made available to me doesn't mean I assume it doesn't exist. That's a non-sensical position.
I'm sure if they broke into you're house in the night tied you up kidnapped you stuck you in gitmo where the torture begins for no reason with no explanation you would have different things to say, and that is what happens to a lot of people in there just because they might be " suspicious" or even it would seem anybody who has anything bad to say.
twat.
fixed it for you. i kinda miss rammunition, you know - these new clowns would seem to give even him a run for his money.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-03-26 05:05:13
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6214|teh FIN-land

FEOS wrote:

And I'm saying the GC is being followed. You clearly have not read it, or else you would realize that.
And I'm saying you're wrong.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5419 (for example)

FEOS wrote:

Why did you post this bit, when further down you respond to the answer to this? Irrelevant blather, tbh.
Lol nice argument.

FEOS wrote:

No, it doesn't. Where is the proof? Until there is incontrovertible proof, it's not a fact, it's merely your opinion.
Jeez, OK:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/1 … ocent.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/apr/23/extract
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html


FEOS wrote:

Again, deaths occur at every prison throughout the world for various benign reasons. Until you can show proof that any deaths at GITMO occurred due to torture or malfeasance on the part of the staff there, you have nothing.

Fact does not stand.
Well you can read some of the links I've given for a start. Fact stands, sorry you don't like it.

FEOS wrote:

Fact does not stand. The whole point regarding these people being held revolves around the legality of their detention vis a vis the GC. The only law that applies is the GC. The GC is being followed. Period.
It's not 'period' at all. Expain why Kofi Anna said it was illegal, or why so many international jurists say it was.

FEOS wrote:

It's a fact that people have an opinion?

Weak.

Their opinion is not fact. Ergo, it is not fact that it is illegal, it is only opinion. Therefore, it is not illegal based solely on their opinion.

Fact does not stand.
you might think it's weak but that's what I said.

FEOS wrote:

GC has been followed, as the detainees have not met the requirements for POW treatment under the GC due to their own actions (per the GC). They have put themselves in a legalistic limbo.
No, America has put them there.
Fact stands.

FEOS wrote:

As I said, anti-US sentiment would be there regardless. Using GITMO as a rallying cry is the same as using Palestine, Afghanistan, <pick your cause> as a rallying cry. Those who do that stuff will find one to use for their cause regardless.

Fact does not stand.
That's it? That's your total argument against mine? Must do better. D-.

FEOS wrote:

Hasn't been proven. Have you not been following this discussion?
LMAO yes it has.

FEOS wrote:

And there were just as many eminent scholars and jurists of all persuasions who believe it was legal under existing resolutions. Hence why no action was taken against it in the UN. The UN is the only arbiter there is amongst nations, unless one cropped up that I'm not aware of.
Well then you choose those jurists who most closely follow your opinion and I'll do likewsie in that case.

FEOS wrote:

No, you're clutching at straws. Because you'd have to count all those other causes along with GITMO in order for your argument to have any validity. It's not just GITMO that's doing it. They are recruiting based on many factors. The only way you could isolate GITMO as a "cause" of terrorism would be if you could no-shit find a guy who was definitively innocent before he went there (haven't had one of those yet), got released, then decided to go jihad upon release. Even if that has occurred, the numbers would be in the single to low double digits, if that.
You obviously didn't read those opinions where increasing interest in 'terrorist' organisations is motivated by Gitmo. Try reading them.

FEOS wrote:

You can go all paranoid if you want. I don't particularly care. GITMO has achieved the goals it was put in place to achieve. The negative consequences you attribute to GITMO would likely have occurred regardless of whether GITMO's existence were known or not, as the US's foreign policy actions have not been terribly popular in the world anyway.
Well, that's your opinion innit. I also agree with the last bit - and I wonder why that is so. Blind acceptance of abominations like Gitmo is one reason.
2010-03-26 05:12:33
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6667|Canberra, AUS

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

LostFate wrote:


I'm sure if they broke into you're house in the night tied you up kidnapped you stuck you in gitmo where the torture begins for no reason with no explanation you would have different things to say, and that is what happens to a lot of people in there just because they might be " suspicious" or even it would seem anybody who has anything bad to say.
twat.
fixed it for you. i kinda miss rammunition, you know - these new clowns would seem to give even him a run for his money.
if you're gonna be a dickhead do it somewhere else.

read his post. people being kidnapped out of their beds? what the fuck?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-03-26 05:18:05
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5229|Cleveland, Ohio
my god feos and rus, chill on the quote boxes.
2010-03-26 05:18:54
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6767|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

twat.
fixed it for you. i kinda miss rammunition, you know - these new clowns would seem to give even him a run for his money.
if you're gonna be a dickhead do it somewhere else.

read his post. people being kidnapped out of their beds? what the fuck?
you are serious, aren't you? no, you can't be... oh, well.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-03-26 05:20:28
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6667|Canberra, AUS

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

Shahter wrote:


fixed it for you. i kinda miss rammunition, you know - these new clowns would seem to give even him a run for his money.
if you're gonna be a dickhead do it somewhere else.

read his post. people being kidnapped out of their beds? what the fuck?
you are serious, aren't you? no, you can't be... oh, well.
ah.

whoops.

that was a case of serious misinterpretation, my bad.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-03-26 06:14:26
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6214|teh FIN-land

11 Bravo wrote:

my god feos and rus, chill on the quote boxes.
lol I know it takes me half an hour just to format the fuckin things
2010-03-27 21:43:15
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

LostFate wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:


i'm not assuming there wasn't, i just haven't seen any. have you?
Not recently. I haven't seen any evidence on the last guy thrown in the county jail either. Doesn't mean I automatically assume there wasn't any evidence to put him in jail. Just because I haven't seen it or because it hasn't been made available to me doesn't mean I assume it doesn't exist. That's a non-sensical position.
I'm sure if they broke into you're house in the night tied you up kidnapped you stuck you in gitmo where the torture begins for no reason with no explanation you would have different things to say, and that is what happens to a lot of people in there just because they might be " suspicious" or even it would seem anybody who has anything bad to say.
Oh. Because that's exactly what happens with GITMO detainees, right?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-03-27 22:08:25
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And I'm saying the GC is being followed. You clearly have not read it, or else you would realize that.
And I'm saying you're wrong.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5419 (for example)
That's not reading the GC for yourself. That's reading someone else's agenda-driven drivel.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Why did you post this bit, when further down you respond to the answer to this? Irrelevant blather, tbh.
Lol nice argument.
It's not an argument, it's a question. And a valid question, to boot.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No, it doesn't. Where is the proof? Until there is incontrovertible proof, it's not a fact, it's merely your opinion.
Jeez, OK:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/1 … ocent.html
One guy's take on the situation. From State, not from Defense. Not like he's got "the inside scoop".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/apr/23/extract
One of the detainee's stories. Of course he's going to say he was innocent. He was just catching butterflies and painting pastoral scenes when the black helicopters came and got him for no reason whatsoever. Now he's written a book. What makes more money: Innocent guy gets locked up and tortured for no reason or guy decides to fight the jihad then gets locked up for it? I'm thinking the former...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html
So now it's bad to keep them there because they'd be treated worse if they went back to their home countries? Get real. BTW, those guys are living it up in the Caribbean now (not in Cuba).

ruisleipa wrote:

Well you can read some of the links I've given for a start. Fact stands, sorry you don't like it.
Read 'em. Laughable "proof" of your "facts", tbh.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Fact does not stand. The whole point regarding these people being held revolves around the legality of their detention vis a vis the GC. The only law that applies is the GC. The GC is being followed. Period.
It's not 'period' at all. Expain why Kofi Anna said it was illegal, or why so many international jurists say it was.
This would be the same guy who said there was nothing amiss with the oil-for-food program? Read the fucking GC for yourself, ruisleipa. Quit relying on other people's opinions (who likely haven't read it themselves, either).

ruisleipa wrote:

you might think it's weak but that's what I said.
Oh I don't think it's weak. It is.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

GC has been followed, as the detainees have not met the requirements for POW treatment under the GC due to their own actions (per the GC). They have put themselves in a legalistic limbo.
No, America has put them there.
Fact stands.
No. Again, if you would bother to read the applicable LAW (not good ideas, but fucking LAW), you would see that the actions of those being held at GITMO and other places put them there. Fighting without clear markings, hiding in civilian populations, etc. Those actions obviate any protections they are due under the Geneva Conventions...per the Geneva Conventions. Those actions that they willingly took put them in the position in which they find themselves.

There is also a larger issue of international law not keeping up with the problem of international non-state actors (like AQ). The GC is inadequate in addressing how they are dealt with, as are existing international and domestic laws. Again, leaving these people in legalistic limbo once captured.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As I said, anti-US sentiment would be there regardless. Using GITMO as a rallying cry is the same as using Palestine, Afghanistan, <pick your cause> as a rallying cry. Those who do that stuff will find one to use for their cause regardless.

Fact does not stand.
That's it? That's your total argument against mine? Must do better. D-.
That's all you've got to counter? Since my argument is in line with many others who have said the same thing, I think I'm on pretty good ground.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Hasn't been proven. Have you not been following this discussion?
LMAO yes it has.
Except for the part where it hasn't.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And there were just as many eminent scholars and jurists of all persuasions who believe it was legal under existing resolutions. Hence why no action was taken against it in the UN. The UN is the only arbiter there is amongst nations, unless one cropped up that I'm not aware of.
Well then you choose those jurists who most closely follow your opinion and I'll do likewsie in that case.
See, that's the difference between you and I. I look at both sides of the issue, not just the one I agree with.

ruisleipa wrote:

You obviously didn't read those opinions where increasing interest in 'terrorist' organisations is motivated by Gitmo. Try reading them.
And there are just as many that can point to non-GITMO reasons, if not more. Try viewing the world without blinders on.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You can go all paranoid if you want. I don't particularly care. GITMO has achieved the goals it was put in place to achieve. The negative consequences you attribute to GITMO would likely have occurred regardless of whether GITMO's existence were known or not, as the US's foreign policy actions have not been terribly popular in the world anyway.
Well, that's your opinion innit. I also agree with the last bit - and I wonder why that is so. Blind acceptance of abominations like Gitmo is one reason.
Who's "blindly accepting" anything? The only "blind" dogma I see here is yours. You ignore any facts that don't coincide with your views (yet again, on yet another topic) and say that anyone who disagrees is "blindly accepting" the extreme alternative. Logical fallacy, completely, thoroughly disproven throughout this thread.

But keep on telling yourself whatever makes you feel better.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-04-09 23:39:24
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6214|teh FIN-land
So now it seems Bush, Cheney et al knew innocent people were there will you accpet Gitmo is a stain on the US's much-vaunted superior morality and has immeasurably harmed the US's standing in the world, or do you, like sheep, agrgee with your great ex-leaders that incarcerating innocent people between 12 and 93 years old was OK?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 092435.ece

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.

The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.

Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell’s chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them”.

General Powell, who left the Bush Administration in 2005, angry about the misinformation that he unwittingly gave the world when he made the case for the invasion of Iraq at the UN, is understood to have backed Colonel Wilkerson’s declaration.
Related Links

    * Prisoner demands Guantánamo compensation

    * Afghan prison may become the new Guantánamo

    * Freed Guantánamo inmates rejoin al-Qaeda

Colonel Wilkerson, a long-time critic of the Bush Administration’s approach to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq, claimed that the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken.

He also claimed that one reason Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld did not want the innocent detainees released was because “the detention efforts would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were”. This was “not acceptable to the Administration and would have been severely detrimental to the leadership at DoD [Mr Rumsfeld at the Defence Department]”.

Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.”

He alleged that for Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld “innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks”.

He added: “I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell. I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making.”

Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld, Colonel Wilkerson said, deemed the incarceration of innocent men acceptable if some genuine militants were captured, leading to a better intelligence picture of Iraq at a time when the Bush Administration was desperate to find a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, “thus justifying the Administration’s plans for war with that country”.

He signed the declaration in support of Adel Hassan Hamad, a Sudanese man who was held at Guantánamo Bay from March 2003 until December 2007. Mr Hamad claims that he was tortured by US agents while in custody and yesterday filed a damages action against a list of American officials.

Defenders of Guantánamo said that detainees began to be released as early as September 2002, nine months after the first prisoners were sent to the jail at the US naval base in Cuba. By the time Mr Bush left office more than 530 detainees had been freed.

A spokesman for Mr Bush said of Colonel Wilkerson’s allegations: “We are not going to have any comment on that.” A former associate to Mr Rumsfeld said that Mr Wilkerson's assertions were completely untrue.

The associate said the former Defence Secretary had worked harder than anyone to get detainees released and worked assiduously to keep the prison population as small as possible. Mr Cheney’s office did not respond.

There are currently about 180 detainees left in the facility.

FEOS wrote:

Who's "blindly accepting" anything? The only "blind" dogma I see here is yours. You ignore any facts that don't coincide with your views (yet again, on yet another topic) and say that anyone who disagrees is "blindly accepting" the extreme alternative. Logical fallacy, completely, thoroughly disproven throughout this thread.

But keep on telling yourself whatever makes you feel better.
The only one who has to blindly accept anything is you.  I feel sadly sure the latest revelations won't stop your chest-thumping support for the great beacon of American justice and freedom that is Gitmo...sad if true.
2010-04-10 00:12:52
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5466|Ventura, California
The world needs a terrorist prison, that's what Guantanamo is. There may be an extremely low percentage of people who actually are innocent, but I don't see you whining about all the innocent Americans in regular American prisons.

What's funny is that everybody who gets released goes on to rejoin terrorist activities and here you are preaching about how evil we are and how those men should be released.

If you released them, you would be personally responsible for the deaths of many innocent people in the near future.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2010-04-10 04:40:08
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6214|teh FIN-land

-Sh1fty- wrote:

The world needs a terrorist prison, that's what Guantanamo is. There may be an extremely low percentage of people who actually are innocent, but I don't see you whining about all the innocent Americans in regular American prisons.

What's funny is that everybody who gets released goes on to rejoin terrorist activities and here you are preaching about how evil we are and how those men should be released.

If you released them, you would be personally responsible for the deaths of many innocent people in the near future.
You obviously haven't read many of my other posts if you think I never complain about all the other innocent men in American prisons. but go ahead and start a thread about it and I'll join in if you like. As it is this conversation isn't about normal American prisons.

Not true that everyone released goes on to 'terrorist activities' but read the alst few pages of this thread and you'll get an idea of my opinions as to WHY they might leave gitmo and hate the West.

I also NEVER said anywhere I thought everyone should be released, I say that gitmo is an abomination, simply, so don't do a lowing and start reading stuff in to my posts purlease.

Finally I'm not gonna be personally responsible for anything since, er, this is just an internet forum, and your 'statement' is totally unprovable and in the realm of fantasy.
2010-04-13 18:53:23
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

ruisleipa wrote:

So now it seems Bush, Cheney et al knew innocent people were there will you accpet Gitmo is a stain on the US's much-vaunted superior morality and has immeasurably harmed the US's standing in the world, or do you, like sheep, agrgee with your great ex-leaders that incarcerating innocent people between 12 and 93 years old was OK?
I never said GITMO wasn't a stain on our moral standing in the world, ruisleipa. What I have said is that the stain is rather unwarranted, based on the nature of those casting aspersions and the nature of the world in general. Who is more sheep-like, ruisleipa? He who recognizes the shortfalls in his own government's actions, or he who knee-jerk blames a single country for all the ills in the world?

I'd say the latter. Thus, the below from me still applies:

FEOS wrote:

Who's "blindly accepting" anything? The only "blind" dogma I see here is yours. You ignore any facts that don't coincide with your views (yet again, on yet another topic) and say that anyone who disagrees is "blindly accepting" the extreme alternative. Logical fallacy, completely, thoroughly disproven throughout this thread.

But keep on telling yourself whatever makes you feel better.

ruisleipa wrote:

The only one who has to blindly accept anything is you.  I feel sadly sure the latest revelations won't stop your chest-thumping support for the great beacon of American justice and freedom that is Gitmo...sad if true.
It would be sad if it were true. But it's not, so...it's not.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-04-13 23:28:04
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6214|teh FIN-land

FEOS wrote:

What I have said is that the stain is rather unwarranted, based on the nature of those casting aspersions and the nature of the world in general. Who is more sheep-like, ruisleipa? He who recognizes the shortfalls in his own government's actions, or he who knee-jerk blames a single country for all the ills in the world?
I do apologise if I have misunderstood your position, as nothing in any posts you have said previously led me to believe that you do not consider gitmo a good idea in any way whatsoever, as your unsuccesful attmepts to prove my points wrong earlier indicated. I also didn't notice any admissions from you that the govt did wrong in establishing gitmo, nor any sign that you did recognise the effects of your governments' actions.

I on the other hand do NOT 'knee-jerk blame' a single country for all the ills in the world, and if you can find any evidence of that position whatsoever I will happily eat my computer. You're just doing a lowing and putting words into my mouth. All my comments in this thread, for example, were aimed specifically at gitmo as an institution that has certainly caused more harm to America, in particular morally, than possibly anything else, at which point you ineffectively tried to fight against those claims despite them being obviously true. I've NEVER seen any recognition from you of the shortfalls in your govt's Gitmo policy, although I'm absolutely sure you have a lot to complain about in other spheres.

You're only sheep-like if you follow what other people tell you to do, i.e. your govts propaganda abvout gitmo, proven to be wrong.

If I may then use your quote back atcha, but this time applied to the 'knee-jerking':

FEOS wrote:

It would be sad if it were true. But it's not, so...it's not.
Aye.
2010-04-14 01:05:16
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5466|Ventura, California
Nuke Iran

Amirite?

I'm honestly worried about somebody like Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. I don't mind if they have nuclear plants for electricity but Iran is fucked up enough without them having the power to wipe out a country.

Also, something needs to be done about these training camps in Iran, because we know where the bad guys are getting their training to blow us up with IEDs and we're doing nothing about it.

What would happen if the US sent radar invisible UAVs and took out some camps in Iran, and didn't claim responsibility? Iran wouldn't be able to do anything to be honest, it could have been many countries.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2010-04-14 02:23:53
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6667|Canberra, AUS
but Iran is fucked up enough without them having the power to wipe out a country.
They're actually one of the more progessive Middle Eastern countries in many respects.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

 

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard