Your english is pretty damn good to be honest Shahter... as good as the Russian PHD student who sits opposite me in college. Sometimes a feeling of home goes a long way, I mean we stay here in Ireland where the weather is miserable 95% of the time, we bitch and moan about it but most of us never actually move anywhere.Shahter wrote:
i'm too lazy to type so i'd just link my old post here. mind, my english back then was even worse than it is today.
so, in short: imagine what would happen to your country if 90%+ of its economy suddently became completely useless and noncompetitive on the world market - that, basically, is what happened to former USSR, that's what we still have to recover from, and that's why so many people are leaving this country looking for better life.
Russia inherited a lot from USSR, yeah, but tbqh i don't think it would be fair to call it "well developed" today - we still have a long way to go.
p.s. i had a chance to move, btw. i know, i'm subjecting myself to lulz, yeah, but anyway - i used to work for an american company (in moscow rep office of one of 'em transnational corporations) and was invited to move to Ireland to work in logistics and prosessing center in there. i dunno why (my wife really wanted to move, btw) but i didn't for some reason. not like i was affraid to change my life - as the matter of a fact, back then i was always excited if such opportunity had ever opened for me, but... i dunno how to explain it in words (let alone, english words ). there's something about this huge, cold and dirty nonsence of a countly i was born in that makes one grow really attached to it...
Yeah his English is outstanding! Some can only wish for that
Apparently not.FEOS wrote:
Those who were captured. By participating in combat against Coalition forces while not following the tenets of the GC.oug wrote:
And who established that.FEOS wrote:
Ummm...capturing them on the battlefield?
That's who established that.
So my question still stands.CameronPoe wrote:
He was not captured by the US in the field but rather handed to the US by the Northern Alliance. For all anyone knows they could just have bore a grudge against him so they decided to fuck him over. He is originally from Uzbekistan. His case makes a mockery of the 'Gitmo is a fair and just place' nonsense tbh.
ƒ³
What's new about it?TheAussieReaper wrote:
Those who were captured were not following the tenets of the GC?FEOS wrote:
Those who were captured. By participating in combat against Coalition forces while not following the tenets of the GC.oug wrote:
And who established that.
Well that's a new one.
1. Wasn't talking to you. Unless your alterego is oug. And if it is...you should stick with that one.Dilbert_X wrote:
Your analogies invariably fail, and they betray your agenda in some Freudian way.FEOS wrote:
You're in a car accident. The rescuers cut you out from behind the wheel of your car and take you to the hospital. Do you need the courts to determine whether or not you were driving?
Of course you need a court to determine who was driving, thats normal practice - outside the Police state you obviously desire.
2. I'll show you shortly how a lack of reading comprehension on your part would make it seem that the analogy fails. But then again, I don't think you're much of one to critique another's analogies, considering the quality of the ones you come up with.
3. There's only one of us that desires a police state...and it ain't me. I'm pretty sure a police state in the US would make you happier than a pig in slop...it would validate all your tinfoil hat theories. Too bad it won't happen.
Did they breathalyze him to determine if he was driving the car? No?Dilbert_X wrote:
A friend of mine was stationary at a traffic light when he was rear-ended by a Police car.
They breathalysed him three times.
Perhaps it would have been easier if the Police didn't have to bother with trivialities like courts and could have just sentenced him on the spot.
Then your story is interesting but irrelevant in trying to disprove my analogy.
The US didn't determine where the battlefield was...the location of the battle did.Dilbert_X wrote:
The US determined where the 'battle field' was, saying someone was 'on the battle field' is not evidence enough.
The fact that almost no-one in Guantanamo has been tried speaks for itself.
Its not enough to say 'They're in Gitmo, they must be baddies'. It just doesn't cut it.
The only thing that the paucity of trials at Gitmo speaks to is the requirements under the GC.
Neither you nor I nor anyone else here has the complete story on any of the detainees. The only thing any of us have to go on is whether they are being treated in accordance with the GC. And the funny thing is that pretty much any way they get treated is in accordance with the GC. They are being treated far better than is required.
But clearly you've read the Geneva Convention or else you wouldn't be arguing so vociferously about it. So you already know that, right?
Actually, I'm not at all fat.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm not sure, did the various Afghan tribes, the Northern alliance etc, sign up to the GC?FEOS wrote:
Those who were captured. By participating in combat against Coalition forces while not following the tenets of the GC.
How many of them can even read or write?
I don't remember any griping about the GC when the US was supplying arms and eqpt for the Afghan and Pakistani tribes to use against the Russians.
How does that fit with the GC, hiring mercenaries to attack soldiers of another country? Is that in the GC?
And if they are your hired mercenaries isn't it your duty to make sure they stick the the GC, instead of skinning prisoners alive?
You're just a big fat hypocrite.
Nor am I a hypocrite.
If you bothered to actually read the document you keep referencing and apply just a tad of reasoning to it, you would realize that signatory status is just that: status. It's not a crime to not be a signatory...but not being a signatory means that if you don't follow the tenets of the GC, your opponent is not required to either...even if they are a signatory.
Supplying arms or training to one side or another is not covered by the GC, so your argument...while emotional, is irrelevant.
Him. Singular.oug wrote:
Apparently not.FEOS wrote:
Those who were captured. By participating in combat against Coalition forces while not following the tenets of the GC.oug wrote:
And who established that.
That's who established that.So my question still stands.CameronPoe wrote:
He was not captured by the US in the field but rather handed to the US by the Northern Alliance. For all anyone knows they could just have bore a grudge against him so they decided to fuck him over. He is originally from Uzbekistan. His case makes a mockery of the 'Gitmo is a fair and just place' nonsense tbh.
BTW, do any of you know what information was passed along by the Northern Alliance? Or whether that information was corroborated by other sources and methods?
Didn't think so. Both sides are arguing from a position of ignorance on the case...it's pointless without additional info.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-17 19:25:00)
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Don't be such a wuss, its an open forum, otherwise use PMs.FEOS wrote:
1. Wasn't talking to you. Unless your alterego is oug. And if it is...you should stick with that one.
Anyway, in what circumstances exactly can the prosecution, who are also the witnesses, determine who is guilty and who isn't?
Only in a Police state.
Whatever the circumstances, however clearcut it supposedly is, it needs to go before a properly constituted court - which is presumably why this guy is not being put before a court but being released instead.
I couldn't give a toss either way. Staying within your borders and not trying to impose your brand of totalitarian justice on the outside world would make me happy though. You're already close to a Police state with your laughable 'Patriot Act'FEOS wrote:
I'm pretty sure a police state in the US would make you happier than a pig in slop...it would validate all your tinfoil hat theories. Too bad it won't happen.
Duh, the US determined where the battle was, not the local inhabitants.FEOS wrote:
The US didn't determine where the battlefield was...the location of the battle did.
BTW The Taleban didn't attack you, AQ did.
Its funny, Saudi members of AQ attack the US, and the US goes after the Taleban.
Iran has heaps of WMD and supports Islamic terrorists across the world and the US goes after Iraq.
Abducting and torturing people is apparently the way to protect freedom and democracy.
I don't get it, nor does your next Commander in Chief apparently.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-18 04:01:54)
Fuck Israel
Well if only all the cases of Gitmo detainees were that clear cut... But even if they were - in some science fiction scenario - you would still need to try them before sentencing them.FEOS wrote:
You're in a car accident. The rescuers cut you out from behind the wheel of your car and take you to the hospital. Do you need the courts to determine whether or not you were driving?
That is exactly true. He is a single case. And more importantly, we are not in a position to know! He may be guilty and now he's being set free in Ireland to make buddies with the IRA (lol)FEOS wrote:
Him. Singular.
BTW, do any of you know what information was passed along by the Northern Alliance? Or whether that information was corroborated by other sources and methods?
Didn't think so. Both sides are arguing from a position of ignorance on the case...it's pointless without additional info.
Or he may have been innocent all these years in Gitmo! That's why a trial is necessary!
ƒ³
Not being a wuss...just saying that your opinion, while interesting, is irrelevant to a running discussion between me and oug.Dilbert_X wrote:
Don't be such a wuss, its an open forum, otherwise use PMs.FEOS wrote:
1. Wasn't talking to you. Unless your alterego is oug. And if it is...you should stick with that one.
Oh, so there were lawyers out fighting as well? And judges?Dilbert_X wrote:
Anyway, in what circumstances exactly can the prosecution, who are also the witnesses, determine who is guilty and who isn't?
Only in a Police state.
Whatever the circumstances, however clearcut it supposedly is, it needs to go before a properly constituted court - which is presumably why this guy is not being put before a court but being released instead.
Do you even think before you hit SUBMIT?
You presume a lot for knowing the square root of fuckall about the case.
Go put your tinfoil hat back on. I know of nobody...NOBODY...whose civil rights have been impacted on iota by the Patriot Act. So keep on banging that drum...repetition doesn't increase truth.Dilbert_X wrote:
I couldn't give a toss either way. Staying within your borders and not trying to impose your brand of totalitarian justice on the outside world would make me happy though. You're already close to a Police state with your laughable 'Patriot Act'FEOS wrote:
I'm pretty sure a police state in the US would make you happier than a pig in slop...it would validate all your tinfoil hat theories. Too bad it won't happen.
Pretty sure the Taliban attacked the troops who rounded that guy up...or are you saying they were sitting around a campfire braiding each others' hair when the mean ol' jackbooted US stormtroopers came in and destroyed their idyllic lifestyle?Dilbert_X wrote:
Duh, the US determined where the battle was, not the local inhabitants.FEOS wrote:
The US didn't determine where the battlefield was...the location of the battle did.
BTW The Taleban didn't attack you, AQ did.
The battlefield is determined by where the fight occurs, not where people live or don't live. Nor is it necessarily decided by either side of the battle.
Taliban gave AQ a place to operate, train, and plan. Saudi didn't. See the difference there?Dilbert_X wrote:
Its funny, Saudi members of AQ attack the US, and the US goes after the Taleban.
Or would you rather that the US bombed the shit out of every country of origin of the people fighting against us in Iraq/Afghanistan or who are members of AQ? If so, you should head for a bunker now.
*whine* you can't say that unless the UN says so *whine*Dilbert_X wrote:
Iran has heaps of WMD and supports Islamic terrorists across the world and the US goes after Iraq.
Capturing on the battlefield is not "abducting". And just what proof do you (or anyone else) have that any of these people have been tortured? none. kthxbye.Dilbert_X wrote:
Abducting and torturing people is apparently the way to protect freedom and democracy.
You didn't need to tell us that. We already know.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't get it
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Actually, I was hinting at our foreign policy over the years. For example, we had a truly imperialistic scheme going on in the late 1800s and early 1900s. We had a more subtle version of imperialism during the Cold War. Now, Iraq is the latest and most expensive version.FEOS wrote:
You're taking a single issue (Gitmo) and then saying that as a people we aren't very moral? That is utterly asinine.Turquoise wrote:
Bert, I think the general gist of this thread shows that you can't expect America to be very moral. Very few countries with anything close to resembling our power are.
You know the general principle of power corrupts, right? Well, the more power you have, the more corrupt you generally become. Considering how we're the world's last superpower, is it really any surprise that we're as corrupt as we are?
We'll probably always have "flexible" standards in dealing with terror suspects, mostly because of how paranoid we are. Apparently, a large portion of our society thinks fighting terrorism resembles the 24 tv show.
So complying with the Geneva Convention--even when we aren't required to by that very Convention--makes America "not very moral"?
Come back when you have something more than a TV series to back up your argument, FFS.
Should I list out all the various regimes we've supported and toppled?
Ultimately, what I was suggesting is that it doesn't matter. Power corrupts... it always does. Thankfully, we're still less corrupt than a lot of the world, but we're not exactly boy scouts either.
Well if it's a concentration camp why are we bothering to find assylum for the prisioners. Why not just kill them all? I mean what kind of concentration camp let's all the prisioners go? If it's a concentration camp I'm not impressed. Not impressed at all.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Of course its a concentration camp, coz the only people there are muslims, thus making it a very racist place. Youre a nazi for saying its not a concentration camp, i bet you dont even believe that the holocaust existed.usmarine wrote:
lol.....figures. how stupid. you people are beyond little babies sometimes. you know we wanted to release some people but their country would not take them back?
concentration camp. god you know nothing. fucking retarded.