Gitmo abuse by BarnStormer

Ugh.. who gives a flying F***, really!

Why can't they let this thing go?!?!?!

CBS leading the charge on another banal, lets do everything we can to embarrass the Bush administration regardless the cost or the risk to US troops, even under the guise of "Oh people are propagandizing the whole affair", whilst in italics "We consider this a confirmed incident".

I wouldn't have a problem with it, if it wasn't bullshit, that in my opinion is small potatoes and puts our men and women at a heightened risk. For what? a goddamned book!! I don't hear anyone screaming that Saudi Arabia imprisoned a bunch of Christians for holding mass. Where's the Outrage amongst the American Journalists? There isn't any. It's all about trying to create more bad news, so it generates more trouble for our service people and indirectly creates more trouble for Bush and company.Which creates more news. It's like they (The Big Media, Fox, CBS, CNN, ABC, NYT, all the propaganda machines of the US) WANT mass American casualties, by doing everything they can to incite the Muslim world. It's criminal and treasonous in my opinion.

Go after Bush and his cronies all you like. Hell, bring them down. But do it legitimately and for legitimate reasons.

Every freaking news agency that keeps bringing this up deserves to be boycotted period. Now if we had gone in and slaughtered these Gitmo detainees..screw it.. Prisoners of War, then there would be something to bitch about. Frankly they still have their heads, they still get 3 squares a day and hopefully eventually they will get a fair hearing.

Someone gets beheaded and they spend 30 seconds on it. Someone pisses on a prisoner's holy book and it's the end of the goddamned world. The only thing more exciting to the Big Media is whether or not the Runaway Bride should go to jail for life or whether or not Michael Jackson showed his weenie to a minor.

It makes me sick. Anybody who thinks this is "IMPORTANT" news needs to get their f***ing head examined.

pardon me, *grabs a bucket* ,I must be pregnant..nope, just saw another CBS "Breaking News" bulletin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 2:48 PM

MINDSEYE

>Someone gets beheaded and they spend 30 seconds on it. Someone pisses on a prisoner's holy book and it's the end of the goddamned world.<

That about sums it up. Nice post!

Freedom - Peace - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 3:15 PM

LOL sorry for the heat of that post. I'm feeling a little testosterone heavy LOL. Long day at work where I work with 3 Zealots and 2 heathens. If thats not enough to drive me over the edge..they start talking politics.

No offense was meant to Barnstormer. It wasn't pointed directly at you. I think I'm suffering from the male form of PMS LOL

I guess I need to go watch a good MMA fight LOL

Peace

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 4:01 AM

Hey Connerflynn,

No offense taken. I posted that link to show just how much BS is being spouted about abuse at Gitmo (the American Gulag I mean).

edited to add:
I thought the CBS report was very positive towards the troops in Gitmo.
end edit:

It just bugs the crap out of me to see what was in that report versus what the Media headlines have been focusing on.

IMHO those boys and girls serving in Gitmo are models of Honor and Human Dignity. We should be proud of them, not bashing them in misleading and sensationalist headlines.

The Muslim extremists of the world act like base animals in comparison to the coalition troops.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 4:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

I thought the CBS report was very positive towards the troops in Gitmo.

Look a little closer at the fine points. I'd like to see our boys and girls come home, so the media can find a new target.

Like Paris Hilton and a Taco Bell Commercial LOL ? How about John Kerry actually having a lower GPA then GW?..nah..that would be too funny roflmao.

How about Paul Wolfowitz having all Chinese made military berets sold as surplus stock (even though taxpayers already paid for them) in protest? Followed by the purchase of new ones from Wolfowitz approved sources LOL
http://www.defense.gov/news/May2001/n05032001_200105032.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 9:56 AM

JADEHAND

Quote:
Connorflynn wrote:

*reads* *laughs* *nods* *applauds*

Visit WWW.Marillion.Com for a better way to live

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 10:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The article was written by John Hinderaker, a contributor to Power Line (blog) and a contributing writer to The Weekly Standard. (Both hard-right conservative publications.) It uncritically quoted only the very best of the report.

Reading the report, many of the more serious incidents are 'resolved' something like this: there was a past log note about Koran mistreatment. No one got details at the time. We didn't follow up either. So, since nobody bothered, it's unconfirmed.

Remember, this is the same army that couldn't find prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq or GITMO (until a guard at Abu Ghraib sent those infamous photos to his dad back home.)

As for the riots in Afghanistan, as VOA reported

Quote:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-05-12-voa74.cfm General Myers also told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday that the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Carl Eichenberry, disagrees with the reports that protests in the city of Jalalabad were caused by anger over the alleged Koran incident.
"It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine," he explained.

It all started innocently enough.

Quote:
(US State Department) According to initial reports, the situation in Jalalabad began on May 10 with peaceful student protests

Quote:
(Reuters May 10 2005) The students blocked the main road to Kabul but there were no clashes with police who kept watch from a distance, a witness said.

By the next day

Quote:
(Radio Free Europe May 11 2005) From Jalalabad, RFE/RL's Afghan Service correspondent Dawood Wafa said the protests started around 8 a.m. local time at the medical faculty of the city's university. Wafa said police opened fire after demonstrators started throwing stones at homes, cars, and offices.

Quote:
(AP)An Associated Press Television News cameraman said the crowds grew larger and wilder after the firing and that the streets were deserted of traffic.

Peaceful protests were the norm in most areas. However, outrage over the shootings, which were seen as heavy-handed ('ya think?), polarized protests which became increasingly violent in Jalalabad and spread to other cities and several countries:

Quote:
(AP June 12 2005) Police fired on hundreds of anti-U.S. demonstrators Thursday in the town of Khogyani to prevent them from departing toward Jalalabad, about 20 miles to the north, local police chief Maj. Gul Wali said.

and a slightly different accounting of the same incident:

Quote:
(Reuters May 12 2005) Angry villagers in a district southwest of Jalalabad, some of them armed, tried to march to the city but were blocked by police, officials and witnesses said.
Protesters threw stones at police and eventually gunfire broke out and two protesters were killed, said district chief Muhammad Omar.
"The protesters were armed but they didn't fire at police," said villager Shair Ali.

And so on.

It's a far cry from the simplistic propaganda you all idiotically parrot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 3:01 AM

Putting so much faith in the truth of a biased press (AP,CBS,CNN etc..etc.) is what's iditotic.
The WAY this has been reported, the fact that it is being reported on with such intensity is obscene.
The koran is a 'book', not a person, it can't be abused. By their definition, an infidel just touching it is disrespecting it or abusing it. So forgive me if some of us really don't take stories of abusing a book too seriously.

Opus

Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Study hard
Be evil

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 5:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The issue I have is that the Administration says the Newsweek article 'caused' violent protests and Newsweek (and the rest of the media) should learn its lesson and go away and be quiet. And people (including you) blindly parrot that.

How much is 'too much being made' of the story?

While the story appears to have generated peaceful protests (not b/c people were protesting the story, mind you, but because they were protesting US actions), protesters being shot by troops caused the violence.

The US actions it portrayed were obviously deeply offensive to Muslims, and certainly that deserved reporting. (Unless you want to crawl back into the hole of ignorance until the next terrorist attack, so you can ask - why did this happen ??)

The Administration couldn't seem to stop lathering over it in press conference after speech. They even got the Pentagon to reverse course and hammer at Newsweek. Every speech and press conference, and their attempt to tell Newsweek what it should publish ended up as news.

Then of course there's the echo chamber that can't stop telling people it's not a story and they should stop talking about it. I dunno, do you want your forum taken away?

In the end, oops, the Administration tried to spin the whole thing (spin takes lots of press) and ended up amplifying it all out of proprotion. So, did they REALLY want it to go away?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 6:55 PM

Newsweek printed a story as fact,that they couldn't confirm, period. They admitted it.

It's hardly just the admin that's trumpeting that the deaths were as a direct result of their story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4608949.stm

Unless you're suggesting the BBC is just another arm of the current admin?

As for the supposed "abuse" of the Koran, it's only relevent to the extent that people who ALREADY hate the US have something new to scream about. When islamofacists show as much concern for other religions and religious texts then I'll be concerned about how the koran is treated.
Here's a suggestion, go to Saudi Arabia and try to hand out some bibles, see what happens?

Finally I would suggest you crawl out of your hole of ignorance.
Try reading up on Islam during the time frames..1700 to 1800 and around 1240 to 1350 and look up Wahabism. Time frames, that even you have to admit were before this admin, and show where the current muslim fanatics and their beliefs come from.
If the media is going to talk about gitmo and koran "abuse" they should be accurate, without misleading headlines, even if it is a non-story.
Quite frankly the gitmo prisoners should be thankful they were given korans to begin with. My history may be a little fuzzy but I don't believe nazi prisoners were all given copies of mein kompf.

Opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 9:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Opus,

The Koran is considered a sacred object in a way the Bible is not. This is a belief common to all brands of Islam.

Jalalabad has never been a center of Wahabism or any type of Islamic fundamentalism.

The US presence in Afghanistan is wearing thin and there are many grievances simmering. 'Koran abuse' is emblematic of the entire problem.

If you read my earlier posting, you would see that despite the freightload of grievances, the protests were mostly non-violent. However, after troops shot and killed some protesters, some became violent.

What inaccurate headlines? The only ones I saw were that somehow the Newsweek STORY directly caused deaths. Links would be appreciated.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 10:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rue- I have not been following this story, but I guess what you are saying is, it was police shooting ppl that caused the violence, not the story itself (which generated only peaceful demonstrations). Correct?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 1:20 PM

It's sacred to them, not to us, and they do view the bible, or cross as our holy relics and treat them with disrespect.
Never said Jalalabad was a fanatical center of islam. I was discussing the prisoners and their supporters.
The people in Afghanistan who would cause the most trouble after we left are the ones most anxious for us to leave, although I have no doubt anyone likes having a foreign force in country.
I don't believe I desputed your facts on the shootings.
Regarding headlines, the deaths attributed to the original Newsweek story was, as you put it, like an echo chamber, within the MEDIA. It was reported once with no proof. Then picked up on and spread by the rest of the media. I've no doubt the admin used it as their source, like any other administration, such as watching the gulf war on CNN. This says more about the media than the admin.
This headline was more in line with what I was speaking of regarding missleading headlines.
(REUTERS)
FBI memo reports Guantanamo guards flushing Koran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050525/ts_nm/security_guantanamo_koran_dc

The headlines state it as fact, the article shows it was only an allegation.

Opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 5:01 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM - exactly.

Opus - As a matter of fact, the very first sentence in the article says: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet." I think it was clearly stating the FACTS, don't you?

OTOH there were hundreds of articles that headlined and also featured the Bush administration's claims that Newsweek caused deaths, that its actions bordered on treasonous, etc etc.

Mine's bigger than yours.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SignyM - exactly.

Opus - As a matter of fact, the very first sentence in the article says: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet." I think it was clearly stating the FACTS, don't you?

The detainee "accused" the jailer of flushing. That's an important word. The headline stated it as if it had already been determined the guard DID flush it.
There is a difference between an allegation and a determination. That's why you will hear reporters say "Accused child molester Micheal Jackson" and not "Pedophile Micheal Jackson" when they talk about him.

If the Newsweek article can be shown to be responsible for even one US death,(US because the courts only have jurisdiction for them) someone at Newsweek should go to jail.
If the Whitehouse was basing their facts on the MEDIA's reports of deaths, then once again, it's more telling about the media and not the admin.
If articles written by Americans, in this case Newsweek, can be proven to have been deliberatly written to incite,support, help the enemy and hurt the US, then yes, that's treason.
Deliberate in this case, doubt it, just a journalist and editor who were biased to begin with,and went with a story they found believable rather than double checking because of that bias.
I don't fault the Whitehouse's defence one bit.

Opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 6:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What a crock. I've got better things to do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:55 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
If articles written by Americans, in this case Newsweek, can be proven to have been deliberatly written to incite,support, help the enemy and hurt the US, then yes, that's treason.

Fer cryin' out loud! "The enemy?" Seriously, Opus, who is the enemy, exactly? "Terrorists?" That term is a little too nebulous to carry legal weight. Some lunatic justifies his violence because of something he read in the paper, and we're holding the paper responsible now? No amount of mere criticism of the administration or reporting of its scandalous behavior incites, supports or helps "the enemy." Man, this kind of thinking is way, way out of line. Treason? You can't be serious! Didn't your daddy ever teach you that if you don't want to be embarrassed, don't do anything embarrassing? It's not the media's fault if we behave like jackasses at Gitmo, and it sure ain't treason to report it. Why aren't you calling the fool who urinated on people and books treasonous? He's the guy that embarrasses our administration and our nation, not the reporter.

Why the hell is American urine getting anywhere near prisoners or books in the first place? Opus, you should not be called upon to defend this bullshit, and what side of the "Pissgate" controversy you are on should not be a measure of your patriotism. It simply shouldn't be happening!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 3:48 AM

If you DELIBERATELY do something to undermine your country,that is treason.
You'll notice I didn't say Newsweek was treasonous. Nor did I say that any bad reporting of the US is treasonous or wrong.
Their reporting was inept,careless, they were negligent. If one US citizen or soldier died because of it the reporter or editor should have to pay for it.
Their story was FALSE, I'll say it again FALSE.
Put another way, if a paper reported you killed someone without checking all the facts, that you were just a suspect. And a relative of the victim attacks you after reading the story. You don't think the paper should be held partially responsible for the attack? That the media can report whatever they want, true or not, without fear of consequences?
As for the supposed "abuse" of a book, pissed on or other wise. It's a non-story , the fact that they're given a koran to begin with is ridiculous. Let alone for our soldiers to have to go out of their way to treat it like a sacred object is obscene.
Finally treason is a DELIBERATE act to hurt the country. DELIBERATE. Some grunt pissing on a book hardly qualifies.

Opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If the Newsweek article can be shown to be responsible for even one US death (US because the courts only have jurisdiction for them) someone at Newsweek should go to jail.

Why? Or, let me rephrase that- What about Bush's famous "Bring 'em on"? That sounded like incitement to me, and to a lot of people in the Armed Forces. Don't we hold the White House to the same standards as the press?

Quote:
If the Whitehouse was basing their facts on the MEDIA's reports of deaths, then once again, it's more telling about the media and not the admin.

Why? Doesn't the White House have a duty, staffers and intelligence agents to do some basic fact-checking? Since the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DIA all work for the Federal government the White House's resources are far superior to the press', and the only reason to echo this particular line is to whip the press for perceived negative reporting.

Quote:
If articles written by Americans, in this case Newsweek, can be proven to have been deliberatly written to incite,support, help the enemy and hurt the US, then yes, that's treason.

And the fact that someone high up in the Administration revealed an undercover CIA agent's name to the press, and that a (right wing) reporter chose to publish it, is.....?

I think we'd better parse this pretty carefully. When you talk about helping the enemy and hurting the US, that's a pretty broad brush. Who is the enemy? Who is the US? Let me give you one example- terrorists want to disrupt our economic activity by reducing confidence in our markets. A newpaper reports that there is a serious trading scam going on that the SEC doesn't seem to be addressing. The article could be construed as deliberately helping the enemy and hurting the US. Would you muzzle the article? If yes- why? If no- why not?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:18 AM

If a beheading only garnered "30 seconds" of news, there wouldn't have been a rash of beheadings.
Same with suicide bombings. These are effective acts of terror because the world reacts with horror, all the papers put it in the headlines, leaders around the globe condemn the action...that's how "terror" works. Kinda why they CALL it terror, get it?

The Bush Administration's abuse of those they choose to call "foreign combatants," or "suspected terrorists" goes far beyond the shameful actions of a few low-end grunts at Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo.

We hold also ship our "suspects" to other countries to be tortured at our request. This is documented.

At Guatanamo, we detain human beings without due process, without charging them, without necessarily any EVIDENCE, for years on end, in a state of hopeless limbo.

Then, we expect the other nations to listen to *us* as if we have a shred or moral authority??

You reactionary U.S.-Right-All-Time folks makes me sick. Stop blaming the media for *trying* to do their job, and trying to keep this nation and its leaders honest. The only treason here is the treasonous contempt our current leadership shows to the Geneva Convention, to our men in uniform who are trying to serve honorably, and to the trust and faith of the American people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why? Or, let me rephrase that- What about Bush's famous "Bring 'em on"? That sounded like incitement to me, and to a lot of people in the Armed Forces. Don't we hold the White House to the same standards as the press?
Quote:

Huge difference, it wasn't done to support the enemy. Stupid, I'll agree. Also as I said several times...DELIBERATE, it has to be deliberate

Why? Doesn't the White House have a duty, staffers and intelligence agents to do some basic fact-checking? Since the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DIA all work for the Federal government the White House's resources are far superior to the press', and the only reason to echo this particular line is to whip the press for perceived negative reporting.
Quote:

Agree and disagree with you here. People in government watched television to get info about the war, despite having the military there. Like it or not the press can be places and have info the government isn't and doesn't have. But I agree they should have more intel, of course if intel services hadn't been gutted we might.
The echo chamber, was media, once again, taking a flawed story and repeating over and over and over without checking the facts.

Quote:
And the fact that someone high up in the Administration revealed an undercover CIA agent's name to the press, and that a (right wing) reporter chose to publish it, is.....?

Was it done to deliberately hurt the US or just to settle a score? To hurt the US, treason, to settle a score, criminal. Novak isn't a reporter he's a commentator/anyalist, there's a difference. Either way someone should pay for the release of the name. Novak and or the person who gave him the info.

Quote:
I think we'd better parse this pretty carefully. When you talk about helping the enemy and hurting the US, that's a pretty broad brush. Who is the enemy? Who is the US? Let me give you one example- terrorists want to disrupt our economic activity by reducing confidence in our markets. A newpaper reports that there is a serious trading scam going on that the SEC doesn't seem to be addressing. The article could be construed as deliberately helping the enemy and hurting the US. Would you muzzle the article? If yes- why? If no- why not?

Nope, what's the reason for printing the story? Can a direct connection be made between the terroists and the paper? If it can be shown it were a coordinated act, yes, muzzle it, if not, no.

Opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 6:00 AM

In WW2 Nazi's fighting, out of uniform, were lined up and shot, films of it being done were taken and shown. The Geneva convention doesn't cover soldiers fighting out of uniform.
It's a war, they don't have the right to civilian courts, and being out of uniform, military ones either.
YOUR reactionary...US is always wrong...makes me sick.
The media is biased, accept it. All I ask is that they be accurate.

Opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 6:34 AM

LOL. All you ask is that the rest of the world's media feed you lies that resemble those fed you by the propaganda organ that is Fox News.

My last post on this thread.
Good luck to you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 6:51 AM

JASONZZZ

"FIRE"!!! I yelled in a crowded theatre at a 10.25PM showing of Lava Girl and Shark Boy... Nah, I am not responsible for killing a mere 10% of the kids in the theatre in the mad rush to exit the theatre and somehow gotten trampled to death. I "thought" there was something in the midst of combusting in the auditorium, I really did.

Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
LOL. All you ask is that the rest of the world's media feed you lies that resemble those fed you by the propaganda organ that is Fox News.

My last post on this thread.
Good luck to you.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 7:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Opus, there is a law on the books that say that outing a CIA officer is treason.

What you seem to have settled on, in the end of your post, is that you would not only be looking for deliberation, you would also be looking for conspiracy. Correct?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:23 AM

Intent, is the key. Some idiot could release information, out of sheer stupidity, or do something that could harm the country out of ignorance, that would not be treason.
Conspiricy, not necessarily, one person could act alone to harm the country. But in the example you stated, theoretically someone could have an agenda, but without a conspiricy, or the editor blabbing his/her supposed reason for running the piece, you couldn't prove anything. I don't believe just because the story may in some way further the terrorists plans it's automatically treason or should be censored. If it was a story that could or did cause real harm, not questioning it's publication would be stupid.
Regarding the release of the CIA operatives name being treason, if that's the law, fine, they should be charged with treason. No qualms there.

opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Lynch- The information was specifically told to three reporters by someone high up in the Administration. Libby (Cheney's top aide) is a chief suspect. Of the three, only the supposedly "patriotic" conservative, Novak, reported the story.

Why did he publish her name? If he laready "knew" she was an undercover officer, why did he choose that particualr moment to reveal it? And whether he already knew or not, why did he choose to publish it? Surely he or his editors must have known it was against the law.

So now everybody knows that Plame was an undercover CIA officer, and she and all of her contacts were potentially placed in danger. The issue has not evaporated, but it being interminably investigated by the Justice Department. So far, the only people who have been "punished" were the two reporters who refused to publish Plame's name! Their case- having to do with protecting confidential sources- was just decided in Appeals Court two months ago or so.

Since the Democrats don't have majority, and don't have committee chairs, they can't scream for much of anything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 2:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
The Geneva convention doesn't cover soldiers fighting out of uniform.

Nearly all were non-coms fleeing the fighting who were SOLD by warlords to the US for the $2500 bounty.
If they were combatants fighting in the field and captured in the act by US soldiers you might have a point. But you don't.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:49 AM

Recent news also suggests that the U.S. is holding a lot of juveniles at Gitmo.

World humanitarian organizations report that U.S. being uncooperative in identifying and giving an accurate count of how many of these "presumed guilty" are, in fact, just kids.

Are some of these juveniles real combatants?
With a surity, some are.

Some could even be vicious thugs.

However, I'm sure being left to rot in Gitmo has made them see the light. I'm sure they're now going to go home and spread LOVE about America...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:

However, I'm sure being left to rot in Gitmo has made them see the light. I'm sure they're now going to go home and spread LOVE about America...

FFS,

Sadly, this is exactly why I suggest they should never be taken into a long term prison system in the first place. They are a permanent liability and not a fixable problem.

I suggest they should be dealt with tactically on site. That means deal with them by a quick tribunal immediately after whatever intelligence can be gained is extracted. These are permanent enemies of the US and the rest of civilized world. They have crossed the line from civilized and into barbarism. I liken them to a rabid dog or bear that has started eating people. Once it begins there is no point in retaining them as there is no hope of recovery.

It is abhorent to me to have to come to such a conclusion but given the alternatives I can see no other choice. The transnational terrorist groups are just too dangerous to allow to continue unabated.

I suggest rather than just criticize GITMO people should consider the alternatives and think of what are the unintended consequences would be if the facility were lost. Most likely it would have to be replaced with something even worse.

When GITMO was created it was described to the effect of being the least worst of the bad options. Hopefully, that is where it will stop.

Thanks!

Andrew Lynch

So, ignoring the careful, doleful rhetoric about how it pains you to have reached your current opinion, what you are advocating is "extracting" intelligence from these people and then executing them.

Lovely the way you assume so much about the detainees. Assume them all guilty, assume them to be rabidly devoted to terrorism, assume each one to be deserving of no better justice than a quick "tribunal" at the hands of their captors.

Also, how glowingly patriotic, the way you assign non-Americans to some some sort of subhuman status more akin to animals.

You really come off as the sort of scary, ignorant, bigoted ba*stard that gives America a bad name on this planet and makes it so easy for our enemies to recruit more souls against us.

God help the United States if your opinion reflects more than the tiniest fragment of
the people in this country.

Thanks!

Susan

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
These are permanent enemies of the US and the rest of civilized world.

To reiterate, nearly all of the people at GITMO are non-combattants who were sold by warlords to the US for a bounty.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
These are permanent enemies of the US and the rest of civilized world.
To reiterate, nearly all of the people at GITMO are non-combattants who were sold by warlords to the US for a bounty.

Says who? Where's your proof? And please don't
tell me your proof consists of statements made
by the prisoners (It's a rare prisoner who says
"I'm Guilty").

Show me a list of the prisoners at Gitmo with a
description of how each was captured and under
what circumstances. Something official that's
not just your BS opinions.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2005 3:28 AM

rue

how about that list, huh?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
These are permanent enemies of the US and the rest of civilized world.
To reiterate, nearly all of the people at GITMO are non-combattants who were sold by warlords to the US for a bounty.

There is no proof other then an article claiming that "some", not "nearly all", were sold for bounty.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8049868/

Also, those that were "supposedly" sold were not necessarily "fleeing" the fighting if you believe their stories. They were kidnapped in different parts of Europe and Pakistan and Kuwait etc..etc..

spin..spin..spin..spin..propaganda wheel spin..spin..spin..

I'm not saying it didn't happen at all, but what the hell does that say about the arabs who sold them?

I still say leave them to their biblical age lifestyles.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Got my news from several sources, but not MSN.

I've given up posting news links as most commercial news items are archived after 1 to 2 weeks and require $$ to access after that. And it seems like they also disappear from Google. That may be why you only came up with 1 story.

(And, anyone who can confirm, refute or explain this observation, please reply. I think it is something to do with a recent proposed lawsuit against Google for making copyrighted and commercial material available through the cache, as this fast drying-up of news items seems to be fairly recent.)

As the stories went, they were fleeing the fighting, were welcomed into tribal villages, given water, food and shelter, then forcibly detained until they were handed over to the US for the promised bounty. It was 'nearly all' of ppl who ended up in GITMO (and only a handful were definitively combatants). I stand by my recounting of international news stories of 3-4 weeks ago. I suspect the reason why your version differs is that US news differs significantly from international sources.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Got my news from several sources, but not MSN.

I've given up posting news links as most commercial news items are archived after 1 to 2 weeks and require $$ to access after that. And it seems like they also disappear from Google. That may be why you only came up with 1 story.

Ugh..I posted 1 link, that didn't mean there weren't more. The fact is that this article was put out by the Associated Press (not created by MSN), meaning that every news agency pretty much ran the same story or a version of that story.

edited to add a few links after a 30 second search:

There are literally hundreds of posts,topics, articles, editorials blahblahblah about this. "Nearly All" of them are direct duplications or use the original article by Michelle Faul as a source.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/06/01/detainees_say_the
y_were_sold_for_bounty/

http://justworldnews.org/archives/001278.html

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010937.html

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050531135109990006&_c
cc=1&cid=842

http://www.thediplomatictimes.info/archives/2005/05/did_cia_buy_som.ht
ml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413841/posts

http://martinirepublic.com/item/1715

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060105Z.shtml

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8995.htm

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1383969,00050001.htm

http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=2831

http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/avantgo/entry.php?blog_id=1&entry
_id=10611

You can find stuff on Google for years. It doesn't vanish, you just have to know how to find it or try typing in a few "key" words.

What is YOUR original source Rue? I'd be guessing that they derived their contention from the same source as all the others have, because everyone and their grandmother ran this exact same article. I'd also guess that based on what you read, you automagically believed that that meant "Definitively" that ALL Gitmo detainees (PoW's) were innocent farmers who were sold by their local governments.

The problem I have is that there are SOOOO many people who make definitive statements without any facts to support them.
The words "ONLY", "Nearly ALL", "All" and "Every" are used in such abundance that it's very difficult to take someones argument with a grain of salt.

If you want someone to see your side and listen to your point of view, then you have to make statements that have some subtlety and are more fact based then a 5 paragraph article put out by the Associated Press with no specific names named and no real facts just assertions by so called "Experts", instead of off the wall definitive rhetorical reiterations.

/rant on
I've been visiting these boards for what seem like ages. I find myself getting so incensed by the absurdity of 90% of the posts that I miss out on all the "LEGITIMATE" points. We spend more time calling each other idiots and dumbasses and party hacks and trolls and Pinkos and Racist pigs, that we never seem to get to the heart of the matter.

I'd just like to enjoy some good ole fashioned political discussion (not debate). I.e. Points with counter points that have basis in fact rather then what the media or the party propaganda has spewed out on the internet.
/rant off

Now to the meat of it. Pure and simple, the Gitmo detainees NEED to have trials. They need to have the opportunity to defend themselves in open court. Enough with all the intrigue already.

/looks for his marijuana he hid in the 80's

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've been aware of the multiple printings of AP and other stories in various publications for years. That's why I look to alternate sources for news.

Places where I found stories about ppl being sold for a bounty: International Herald Tribune (but you have to be selective, they carry many NYTimes, AP, Boston Globe etc stories. You need to look for the rare ones written by IHT staff), Agence France Presse (AFP), UPI, and Inter-Press Services.

To access either AFP and UPI stories directly you either have to be a news carrier and pay a fee, or you can cruise through every day and get the selected stories they provide for free, but available only on that day. I don't know of any on-line news publication that has links to UPI, Yahoo has an AFP selection, but it only goes back 24 hours. There is no search function for AFP. Links seem to time-out quickly, I've saved them for my own use and lost them within a couple of weeks.

IHT has a robust search function, but you must be accurate in your selection or you will miss the item completely or have it buried in thousands of irrelevant hits. The IPS search function seems quirky. And on both of these I have also saved links and have them either time-out (page not found) or become a for-pay item. I've had to go to secondary and tertiary sources many times to get quotes as original sources became unavailable.

Also BBC (on TV, not available through the internet).

Looking around, I noticed this is not a new issue, and has in fact been confirmed as fact by US offcials in the past (2003):

Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00816FD3B5E0C728CDDAB0
994DB404482
FOREIGN DESK | December 1, 2003, Monday
U.S. in Talks To Return Scores Held At Cuba Site
By NEIL A. LEWIS (NYT)
ABSTRACT - Senior Defense Dept officials say military may soon release to their home countries scores of detainees who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; say talks are under way over terms of transferring custody from US military to their home governments and eventual repatriation; issues include whether detainess will be freed once they return home or just reimprisoned locally; American officials are quoted as saying some of detainees being considered for release had been captured by Afghan warlords and sold for bounty offered by Washington for Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters; detention of people captured in Afghanistan has been major irritant in relations between US and several of its allies.

But you have to pay to read the whole thing.

I stand by my original comments.

As for my 'reputation', I nearly always provide links (except recently for news items). Failing that I nearly always provide a lengthy quote that should generate at least one source if used in a Google search. I don't make unsupported claims like some (where are those WMDS?).

Don't like the posting? Tough. Trying to give me a bad name? Good luck.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:52 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

Show me a list of the prisoners at Gitmo with a
description of how each was captured and under
what circumstances. Something official that's
not just your BS opinions.

Well, you'd have to go to your government for such a list... Mind you I could bring up one example.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/2005021
0/KHADR10/TPNational/Canada

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-02-09-canada-gitmo-abuse_x.htm

We see in these articles Omar Khadr is accused of tossing a grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces medic while fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan, planting mines to target U.S. convoys and gathering surveillance.

How does this make him an illegal combatant ?

Article Four, Section Six of the Geneva convention states:

" 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

Only one curious example

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 5:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/Guantanamo_composit
e_statement_FINAL.pdf

10. Other detainees (including detainees sold to the Americans)
307. Asif describes a disturbing number of detainees who have clearly been sold. All three are convinced that there must be a paper trail which will show huge sums of money paid out by the USA for many of those now in Guantanamo. These are some examples (some of the names are familial names, as is customary).
a) ‘Two brothers from Pakistan, one is a scholar the other a reporter, reason they are there because they were having a feud with another family, the other family told some people they are al Qaeda now they are in Cuba. Both were sure that the Americans were paying money for captives.
b) Numerous other people in Cuba who are from Afghanistan and Pakistan were sure they had been sold by corrupt individuals. A lot of people who were having land disputes were sold by the disputers to the Americans.
These people were brought to Cuba. The Americans know they are innocent but still they are not letting them go.
c) Abu Ahmed Makki, a Saudi Arabian citizen married to a Pakistani wife lived in Pakistan with his wife and was arrested in Pakistan by the Pakistan authorities. Most of his possessions were taken including his motorbike and cash. Upon his release in Pakistan by the authorities he asked for his valuables back but he was rearrested and handed over to the Americans who took him to Cuba and he has been there for over two years. He was told he should not be there but they wanted him to spy in the camp for them. He was told once he had cooperated and helped the Americans they would release him.
d) Abu Ahmad Sudani, a teacher in Pakistan who has a wife and a child in Pakistan believes he also was sold to the American forces. He was told that he would be released over a year ago but he is still in Cuba. He doesn’t know when they will release him to. He wants to go to Pakistan because his wife and child are in Pakistan. His wife and child are Pakistani nationality and he is a Sudani.’
e) One Afghani man, a farmer about 55 years old, is a farmer from Bamyam.
He was next to Shafiq. He speaks Farsi and although in Cuba for over a year was only interrogated on two occasions; on one occasion there was no Farsi translator and he was brought back to his cage. He does not know what he has done to be in Cuba. He doesn’t even know where Cuba is! He is depressed, scared and badly affected.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 5:27 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It must be such a drag.

According to today's New York Times the CIA is upset about getting stuck with a bunch of beaten-down detainees. "The CIA's current leadership is concerned," the Times says, "that the legal authority for interrogations and detentions is eroding, and that there is no clear plan for how the agency can extricate itself from what could be a lengthy task of holding and caring for a small population of aging terrorists whose intelligence value is steadily evaporating and who are unlikely ever to be released or brought to
trial."

Don't you just hate it when that happens? You pick up a suspect, you rough him up so much in interrogations that you couldn't ever really bring him to trial, and then you're just stuck with him. And then the Justice Department repudiates its memo authorizing the beating of detainees (conveniently, just in time for Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings), so you're left not only with the detainee but maybe with legal liability for messing with him in the first place.

What's a government agency to do?

If you're the CIA, what you do is try to palm the problem off on someone else. The Times says that CIA officials are thinking about dumping the detainees on the FBI, but the FBI doesn't know about any such plan and would fight it if it did. Another possibility: Hand over the detainees to some other country. But with growing concerns about the torture meted out in rendition cases, that option might not be a political possibility -- that is if anyone ever found out about it.

It's a bad situation all around, and there may be no good answer for the CIA.

"No one has a plan for what to do with these guys," a former intelligence official told the Times, "and the CIA has been left holding the bag."

Life can be so unfair.
-- Tim Grieve

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It must be such a drag.

According to today's New York Times the CIA is upset about getting stuck with a bunch of beaten-down detainees. "The CIA's current leadership is concerned," the Times says, "that the legal authority for interrogations and detentions is eroding, and that there is no clear plan for how the agency can extricate itself from what could be a lengthy task of holding and caring for a small population of aging terrorists whose intelligence value is steadily evaporating and who are unlikely ever to be released or brought to
trial."

Don't you just hate it when that happens? You pick up a suspect, you rough him up so much in interrogations that you couldn't ever really bring him to trial, and then you're just stuck with him. And then the Justice Department repudiates its memo authorizing the beating of detainees (conveniently, just in time for Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings), so you're left not only with the detainee but maybe with legal liability for messing with him in the first place.

What's a government agency to do?

If you're the CIA, what you do is try to palm the problem off on someone else. The Times says that CIA officials are thinking about dumping the detainees on the FBI, but the FBI doesn't know about any such plan and would fight it if it did. Another possibility: Hand over the detainees to some other country. But with growing concerns about the torture meted out in rendition cases, that option might not be a political possibility -- that is if anyone ever found out about it.

It's a bad situation all around, and there may be no good answer for the CIA.

"No one has a plan for what to do with these guys," a former intelligence official told the Times, "and the CIA has been left holding the bag."

Life can be so unfair.
-- Tim Grieve

LOL this is why I have such a hard time taking you seriously. The NYT as a reliable alternate resource!?!?! Thats like saying that the "Star" magazine is top notch journalism.

Thanks for making my point. Search for truth, not what you want to be the truth. I made that mistake.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Places where I found stories about ppl being sold for a bounty: International Herald Tribune (but you have to be selective, they carry many NYTimes, AP, Boston Globe etc stories. You need to look for the rare ones written by IHT staff), Agence France Presse (AFP), UPI, and Inter-Press Services.

To access either AFP and UPI stories directly you either have to be a news carrier and pay a fee, or you can cruise through every day and get the selected stories they provide for free, but available only on that day. I don't know of any on-line news publication that has links to UPI, Yahoo has an AFP selection, but it only goes back 24 hours.

See:
www.drudgereport.com
Though Drudge may be partisan, he sure keeps a decent list of News Links

Though the headlines have a definite political slant, you can avoid that and use the site for all the links. Of which every one that you have listed is there. You don't have the corner on super secret supposed "Alternate resources"

I have numerous sites bookmarked as well. You still haven't listed your source. The ones you have claimed as "Alternate Resources" still all carry the same type of material slanted to fit their own agendas. It doesn't make them anymore or less accurate and I sure as hell wouldn't place all my faith in them either.

I ask again:

What was your source?! For the "NEARLY ALL" statement followed by the bullshit reiteration.

Or are you going to try and change the subject again? LOL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've been aware of the multiple printings of AP and other stories in various publications for years. That's why I look to alternate sources for news.

Places where I found stories about ppl being sold for a bounty: International Herald Tribune (but you have to be selective, they carry many NYTimes, AP, Boston Globe etc stories. You need to look for the rare ones written by IHT staff), Agence France Presse (AFP), UPI, and Inter-Press Services.

To access either AFP and UPI stories directly you either have to be a news carrier and pay a fee, or you can cruise through every day and get the selected stories they provide for free, but available only on that day. I don't know of any on-line news publication that has links to UPI, Yahoo has an AFP selection, but it only goes back 24 hours. There is no search function for AFP. Links seem to time-out quickly, I've saved them for my own use and lost them within a couple of weeks.

IHT has a robust search function, but you must be accurate in your selection or you will miss the item completely or have it buried in thousands of irrelevant hits. The IPS search function seems quirky. And on both of these I have also saved links and have them either time-out (page not found) or become a for-pay item. I've had to go to secondary and tertiary sources many times to get quotes as original sources became unavailable.

Also BBC (on TV, not available through the internet).

Looking around, I noticed this is not a new issue, and has in fact been confirmed as fact by US offcials in the past (2003):
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00816FD3B5E0C728CDDAB0
994DB404482
FOREIGN DESK | December 1, 2003, Monday
U.S. in Talks To Return Scores Held At Cuba Site
By NEIL A. LEWIS (NYT)
ABSTRACT - Senior Defense Dept officials say military may soon release to their home countries scores of detainees who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; say talks are under way over terms of transferring custody from US military to their home governments and eventual repatriation; issues include whether detainess will be freed once they return home or just reimprisoned locally; American officials are quoted as saying some of detainees being considered for release had been captured by Afghan warlords and sold for bounty offered by Washington for Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters; detention of people captured in Afghanistan has been major irritant in relations between US and several of its allies.
But you have to pay to read the whole thing.

I stand by my original comments.

As for my 'reputation', I nearly always provide links (except recently for news items). Failing that I nearly always provide a lengthy quote that should generate at least one source if used in a Google search. I don't make unsupported claims like some (where are those WMDS?).

Don't like the posting? Tough. Trying to give me a bad name? Good luck.

Rue, your defense (ny times) says only SOME of the detainees were sold by warlords, and they were
considering releasing them back in dec 2003.

How the heck can you misread that as NEARLY ALL detainees currently in Gitmo as being sold?

Speaking of detainees, how about this account from
your favorite non-partisan news rag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/international/middleeast/19torture.h
tml?ex=1276833600&en=8711248f5a2b9fe6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Also, no one needs to try to give you a bad name.
You do that quite well all on your own.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:17 AM

HKCAVALIER

Barnstormer, watch that the sarcasm doesn't overwhelm your point.

Looky here: "most, many, nearly all, etc" is IMPOSSIBLE to prove without going down to Gitmo ourselves and counting heads. There's no proof gonna show up on this BB. When we act as if the other party is gonna prove something here, we just look like fools.

The point here, seems to me, is that Rue and others have presented evidence that the general assuption that the detainees are "all" sub-human sociopaths who deserve whatever they get is a load of grade "A" crap. It'd be convenient, tidy, a comfort to our vengeful souls, but it just ain't true.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Barnstormer, watch that the sarcasm doesn't overwhelm your point.

Looky here: "most, many, nearly all, etc" is IMPOSSIBLE to prove without going down to Gitmo ourselves and counting heads. There's no proof gonna show up on this BB. When we act as if the other party is gonna prove something here, we just look like fools.

The point here, seems to me, is that Rue and others have presented evidence that the general assuption that the detainees are "all" sub-human sociopaths who deserve whatever they get is a load of grade "A" crap. It'd be convenient, tidy, a comfort to our vengeful souls, but it just ain't true.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

HK

My sarcasm knob was turned down to 2 on the dial. Unlike Rue, who is normally dialed up to 11 (Spinal Tap humor, sorry). Rue likes to spew these nonsensical "Facts" everywhere she posts.

And if anyone on this board could be considered to be Rude, Sarcastic, or any other thing considered to be Trollish, Rue is the one.

If you wish to admonish anyone, reply to Rue and friends.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
My sarcasm knob was turned down to 2 on the dial. Unlike Rue, who is normally dialed up to 11 (Spinal Tap humor, sorry). Rue likes to spew these nonsensical "Facts" everywhere she posts.

Whoa there, Barnstormer! If you don't like the information Rue brings to the board, that's one thing. But to claim that Rue is "sarcastic" BECAUSE of that information is really shooting yourself in the foot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just a comment.

I haven't been following the Gitmo story very closely, but I don't need to in order to see major flaws in some arguments in this thread.

As has already been stated, some people are assuming that the detainess are "guilty" or "terrorists" just because they are in Gitmo. Clearly, there were a number of ways that innocent people could have been rounded up by accident or turned in maliciously. War is a confusing thing, and war in a nation where vengeance is a cultural norm and settling scores is a common practice can lead to all sort of miscarriages of justice.

The other is the whole notion that you can gain valuable information out of people by torturing them. Torture someone enough, and you'll get all kinds of information...

And the third fallacy is that killing them all is any sort of solution. Do you have any IDEA what kind of harm that would cause our troops????

Right now, the only way out of Gitmo is for a nation (Britain, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, etc.) to DEMAND that it's citizen(s) be freed. Then- they are released. But it really makes you wonder why they were held in the first place if they could be released so easily.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:00 PM