Willoughby
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
it is amazing how you can write so much justone and yet say nothing of substance
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
We understand liberty but promote detention without trial - surely a contradiction?
US Constitution : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
You want to give the captured enemy more rights, than the Constitution gives to Americans. Therefore you are on the enemy side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
3) Arming, training and supplying Islamic fighters to wage war against the Soviets and install an Islamic govt (Taleban) in Afghanistan helped to build a system that protected human right?? Reality check required I think. Some of the worlds worst human rights abuses were committed here.
Get real – that was one of the ways to fight the Soviets, our enemy. You did not want to fight Soviets. You were on the enemy side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
4) There are a mutliple of tyrants/dictators around the world. When they are pro-US i.e S.Arabia, Pakistan, Kazikstan (even Iraq prior to 1990s and Taleban prior to 2001) they go unchecked, when they are anti-US we take action. So much for promotion of liberty and democracy. If we really cared about that we would take action against them all.
SySgt told you many times they do not go unchecked. You just have no clue about the right way to check them. It is called politics. You are showing yourself like an elephant in a China store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
5) Our President believes he should be allowed to authorise torture yet we condem Saddam etc for all the acts of torture he committed. If its so wrong why do we think its ok for us to do it? Double-Standards doesn't normally equate to superior morals.
Did our President confessed to you about his believes? Are you reading his mind? Are you out of you mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
6) We are the only nation with the power to police the world....only problem is the world doesn't want us to police them.
You established the fact that we have power. We are a powerful nation. You want us to loose the power? If it is so, you are anti-American. If you want us to keep the power – police and don’t ask. Unless you are meaning your mutliple of tyrants/dictators around the world --- you flip flapped your tyrants again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
If your authority is not derived from the consent of the people (ie the rest of the world)
===B/S. The wording was applied to people of a nation, not a bunch of a ‘’mutliple of tyrants/dictators around the world’’ === you flip flap the tyrans to fit your agenda to attack America, represented by an elected President, whatever is his name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
7) Pre 9/11 exactly what was Bush/Republicans doing about rogue regimes and terrorists? I'll tell you..they were inviting the Taleban
What were Dems doing pre 9/11?? – they were saints….?. Sy Sgt nailed your rhetoric ---you’re trying to revive it. Intellectually not fair. It is an intellectual failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
8) Do you think there were more terrorists in Iraq before or after the war? Progress, I think not.
Do you think there were more terrorists before the picture in the Danish paper or after it was published?????? You think not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
9) We know he HAD WMD, heck we sold him the stuff so of course we know this, in the past. None was found after the war but lets not go back to that arguement.
Go back, reread what you said and bite your tale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
10) He routinely fired missles at Israel we routinely fired missles at him - your point is?
Your point is? The cause of your routine is different from ours? It is clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
12) He attacked Kuwait - most Iraqis believe Kuwait belongs to Iraq (although how many hundreds/thousands of years this belief goes back I don't know) - he actually had public support for this.
You are the part of that kind of public, if you believe. You just complained about not following international laws, and you flip flapping your own point. Am I speaking to Mr. Kerry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man
If we can't be morally superior to someone like Saddam then who the heck can we be superior to??
If you cannot be morally superior to someone like Saddam it is your problem, you don’t have to go around bragging about it. As weel as about your intellectual superiority
Willoughby said:it is amazing how you can write so much justone and yet say nothing of substance
Willoughby said:i think that you missed the bit about how human rights abuses have continued under the american occupation of iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willoughby
i think that you missed the bit about how human rights abuses have continued under the american occupation of iraq
Are you talking about Abu Ghirab? If so, I hope you're not serious. That was a deviation that was punished. There is individual and group misconduct in every war. It is asinine to base your decision on whether or not to engage in war on whether or not someone might act inappropriately.
G-Man said:We understand liberty but promote detention without trial - surely a contradiction?
Willoughby said:look at the two reports that i cited
Billo_Really said:O contrare' Mr. pub, human rights abuses are still taking place in Iraq.
oldreliable67 said:You need to read up a bit more on the procedures in place at Guantanamo. A good place to start might be this article at CNN today.
Read about how the detainees are appearing before the military tribunal. about how many have been sent home or released, about how some are seeking asylum in the US for fear of reprisals if they return home, about how many the US has announced will be released in the near future, etc.
Your absolutely right that a reality check is required - by you. The Taliban gov't resulted from a division and clash between and the radical Islamists elements aligned with Mullah Omar and other less radical elements of the mujadheen, principally the Northern Alliance, following the ouster of the Russians from Afghanistan. Mullah Omar and his followers were successful; the other warlords went back home to their own regions and continued to fight the Taliban.
justone said:US Constitution : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
You want to give the captured enemy more rights, than the Constitution gives to Americans. Therefore you are on the enemy side.
Get real – that was one of the ways to fight the Soviets, our enemy. You did not want to fight Soviets. You were on the enemy side.
SySgt told you many times they do not go unchecked. You just have no clue about the right way to check them. It is called politics. You are showing yourself like an elephant in a China store.
Did our President confessed to you about his believes? Are you reading his mind? Are you out of you mind?
You established the fact that we have power. We are a powerful nation. You want us to loose the power? If it is so, you are anti-American. If you want us to keep the power – police and don’t ask. Unless you are meaning your mutliple of tyrants/dictators around the world --- you flip flapped your tyrants again.
===B/S. The wording was applied to people of a nation, not a bunch of a ‘’mutliple of tyrants/dictators around the world’’ === you flip flap the tyrans to fit your agenda to attack America, represented by an elected President, whatever is his name.
What were Dems doing pre 9/11?? – they were saints….?. Sy Sgt nailed your rhetoric ---you’re trying to revive it. Intellectually not fair. It is an intellectual failure.
Do you think there were more terrorists before the picture in the Danish paper or after it was published?????? You think not.
Go back, reread what you said and bite your tale.
Your point is? The cause of your routine is different from ours? It is clear.
You are the part of that kind of public, if you believe. You just complained about not following international laws, and you flip flapping your own point. Am I speaking to Mr. Kerry?
If you cannot be morally superior to someone like Saddam it is your problem, you don’t have to go around bragging about it. As weel as about your intellectual superiority
aquapub said:If it prevents another 9/11, yes, locking up terror suspects without immediate due process is necessary and not a violation of their human rights. To suggest otherwise is hysterical and grossly misinformed-much like the rest of your points here.
After the fall of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1992, Afghanistan was thrown into civil war between competing warlords. The Taliban eventually emerged as a force capable of bringing order to the country. The rise of the Taliban helped the economy by eliminating the payments that warlords demanded from business people; it brought political benefits by reducing factional fighting (although the Taliban fought aggressively against their enemies, their relative hegemony reduced the number of factions) and brought relative stability by imposing a set of norms on a chaotic society. Although the radical ideology of the Taliban would later alienate many, several observers initially considered its emergence as a positive development.
[...]
After gaining power in and around Kandahar through a combination of military and diplomatic victories, the Taliban attacked, and eventually defeated, the forces of Ismail Khan in the west of the country, capturing Herat from him on September 5, 1995. That winter, the Taliban laid siege to the capital city Kabul, firing rockets into the city and blockading trade routes. In March, the Taliban's opponents, Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani and Gulbuddin Hikmatyar ceased fighting one another and formed a new anti-Taliban alliance. But on September 26, 1996 they quit the city of Kabul and retreated north, allowing the Taliban to capture the seat of government and establish the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
On May 20, 1997, brother Generals Abdul Malik Pehlawan and Mohammed Pehlawan mutinied from under Uzbek warlord Rashid Dostum's command and formed an alliance with the Taliban. Three days later, Dostum abandoned much of his army and fled from his base in Mazar-i Sharif into Uzbekistan. On May 25, Taliban forces, along with those of the mutinous generals, entered the undefended Mazar-i Sharif. That same day, Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, followed by recognition from Saudi Arabia the following day. However, on May 27, fierce street battles broke out between the Taliban and Malik's forces. The Taliban, unused to urban warfare, were soundly defeated, with thousands losing their lives either in battle or in mass executions afterward. Nearly fifteen months passed before the Taliban re-captured Mazar-i Sharif on August 8, 1998.
In 1996, Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan upon the invitation of the Northern Alliance leader Abdur Rabb ur Rasool Sayyaf. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections, which were formalized by a marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter.
Some argue that MAK was supported by the governments of Pakistan, the United States[12] and Saudi Arabia, and that the three countries channelled their supplies through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This account is vehemently denied by the U.S. government, which maintains that U.S. aid went only to Afghan fighters, and that Afghan Arabs had their own sources of funding, an account also supported by Al Qaeda itself. [13]. The State Department quotes CNN analyst Peter Bergen as saying:
"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ***." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]
G-Man said:1) Not really its been tried before in the UK and resulted in increased recruitment for the terrorists (IRA) and the largest wave of terrorist attacks suffered by the UK. There is no evidence to suggest G Bay is deterring persons from becoming terrorists but relatives of those detained in error will be far more likely to take up arms.
2) Can you provide me with one example of where detention without trial has had a positive effect and solved the problems?
how is it not a violation of their human rights?not a violation of their human rights
aquapub said:1) Because everything was peachy between us and Islam before these detentions, right? Ever heard of 9/11? Guess what? they're going to organize against us whether we defend ourselves or not. Even if you had proof that IRA ranks swelled at times detentions like this were taking place (which such evidence is conspicuously absent), that still wouldn't prove that they were linked.
2) As soon as the government gives me top security clearance and starts including me in their operational briefings I will have some way of knowing how many terrorist attacks we are thwarting by detaining terror suspects the way we are. :roll:
oldreliable67 said:C'mon, G-Man, read up on this stuff a little before you start posting silly stuff!
Good ol' wikipedia is a good place to start:
See any mention of Osama in there? Thats because he didn't show up in Afghanistan till 1996, though he had funneled money and arms into the Afghan war...
Again, this from wikipedia...
While bin Laden and the Taliban eventually became quite close, bin Laden was a relative late-comer to the Taliban.
G-man said:However, I find it strange that you say there is no mention of Osama til 1996 but 'he had funneled mone and arms during the Afghan war'? If thats correct then clearly he was a 'player' prior to 1996.
G-Man said:I was only demonstrating that the US has provided support to many undesirable regimes throughout the middle east (and wider world) in the past.
G-Man said:Your right-wing rhetoric would be laughable if so much wasn't at stake but I fear your brainwashed mind is beyond repair.
G-Man said:The British tried detention without trial against the IRA decades ago...
G-Man said:I want to see all terrorists arrested, brought to justice and punished accordingly...yes what an aide I am to the enemy side.
G-Man said:You want to see everyone who looks like a terrorist, has a name like a terrorist and perhaps even dresses like a terrrorist arrested, looked up and never released.
G-Man said:would realize this only enrages the local population and makes MORE people take up arms against the US. Policies like this are against US interests and will probably lead to the downfall of the US. If you seriously think publishing the cartoons has created more terrorits than invading Iraq you need help.
G-Man said:Well S Arabia has been the largest safehaven for terrorists
G-Man said:If politics mean we allow this to continue so we have can have their oil
G-Man said:Who are we goona lose the power to?? No nation will EVER have more military strength than us.
G-Man said:Is it 'American' to want to imposs our ideologies and beliefs upon the world? You know we are supposed to be the home of the free.
G-Man said:Its anti-american to argue for world domination....thats not what we are about.-
G-Man said:Well I ain't a Dem but if your arguement is - 'its OK to be completely useless at dealing with terrorist threats and the reasons behind them because the Dems are crap at it too' then again you are aiding the enemy by denying the American people a competent govt. who can bring an end to this terrorism.
G-Man said:I'm morally inferior to Saddam? I don't know whether to laugh or cry about that remark. As I don't take you seriously I'll laugh
Care to suggest any that would meet with your approval?Originally Posted by aquapub
And you are basing this on a partisan, ultra-left wing group like Amnesty International, hence it is crap.
Amnesty International screamed for years about the Taliban abuses (and Saddam's) on women and minorities. THE MOMENT America even started taking interest in doing anything about them their tone radically shifted to their classic, "defend the psychotic butcher" setting and they immediately began propagandizing against us.
Get a remotely objective source before you start stating things as facts.
Billo_Really said:Care to suggest any that would meet with your approval?
GarzaUK said:Fox News?? lol :spin:
justone said:So, they apparently did not do it right. May be they did not arrest enough. I cannot see a relation --- 2 totally different situations. I like Irish people more than I like British. My Irish friend always throws good St. Patrick parties. Though I often bring British beer,and listen only to British rock.
No, it failed because they arrested too many people. The catholic community regarded this treatment as an attack against ALL catholics (probably a bit like the Muslims do now). This led to a vast increase in Catholics willing to take up arms against the UK army....not less. A bit like what is being repeated now in the middle east.
I guess you do not see who the enemy is. Experience of wars includes hundreds of thousands detained --- the right word is CAPTURED - without any involvement of lawyers. It is an established right of any side in a war – do capture enemy combatants and to detain them until the end of the war, and release them without justice or punishment, if they are not suspected to be criminals. It is all up to the military as long as the military follows some reasonable laws of war. Our military does. If I let our military fight the war I let it deal with POWs.
There ain't thousands at G-Bay..about 500 or so I think. Most were not CAPTURED by US foces..several were abducted from foreign countries (i.e Italy) but most have been handed over by the Pakistan forces and new Afghan govt. The fact of the matter is we know little, if anything ,about the majority of people detained - let alone if they are enemy combatants. Also, if these people have only attacked the Afghan or Iraqi govts (and not any US forces) then they are by no possible explanation enemy combatants against the US.
2) No, you do a mistake because you require more rights to Muslims, than American soldiers and militia are granted by the Constitution in time of war.
1) Muslim terrorist are not local criminals chased by a bunch of cops. Not even Black Panthers, not even IRA. It is called –capturing enemy combatants fighting against you in war.
Our constitution does not give any rights to our forces which are captured by the enemy. How could it possibly do so? Just because human rights abuses are prevailent throughout the middle east we don't need to stoop to those levels.
Terrorists are caught by intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies.
This is a far more effective method.
I already answered – Danish newspaper makes a large Muslim outrage too- I never counted more or less. It is the same meaning – we live with our newspapers and that causes Muslim outrage. Try to figure that out – we make Muslim terrorists just because we are who we are. We are not ideal but our way of life makes them mad. You cannot change America to bend to their wishes. Moral superiority is an American feeling. As well as they feel their moral superiority. Since you reject ours, you might be feeling for them.
No, we are not a target because of who we are but instead because of what we do. America and Americans can do what we please in the USA but when we start interfering in the lives of others (normally thousands of miles across the globe) they take objection.
Do you see a better way to hit S.Arabia (and bunch of others), rather than establishing pro-American regime in Iraq? Suggest a better and REAL way to deal with your complains abut S.Arabia.
S.Arabia is very pro-American. They sell us all the oil we want. Unfortunately the ruling authority have no intention of installing a democracy or giving up their fabulous wealth. A better way to deal with them? Well they have no intention of ever changing so we either try to destabilise the regime or threaten force. Something has to change but we continue to ignore this hot-bed of religious hatred.
N.B If you think they will change because of elections in Iraq you're mistaken.
If we don’t get their oil there will be ones who will get it, and those ones will burn it with no regards to pollution in order to dominate over your. This is how the real world exists.
Hmm we are the worlds largest polluter. No-one can do worse than we are in this field!! How about trying to find alternative energy sources - without asking the oil & gas industry to do it!
China is coming. And you have no idea what constitutes military strength. Otherwise you would start from including oil supply into military strenghth.
China is expanding yes but what does it matter if they could destroy the world 10 times whilst we could only do it 5 times?? We have all the military capability we will ever need (except maybe ground troops). Oil/Gas supplies are important (more so than they should be) thats why we are right in the middle of the mess in the middle east.
If you want to live in the home of the free you have to fight furiously to protect your home. You cannot be free without a fight. Starting from a street fight and finishing with the science of warfare, the rule is – be the first to hit.
We're not free if you can be arrested, detained and imprisoned for an indefinite period without allegations or proof of a crime.
No other ways of coexistence of nations has been observed. (except for your idealistic imagination -- but America cannot survive on your ideas). See China above. You have to follow the laws.
We don't follow the laws...maybe thats the problem??
The competent govt in America by definition - is the one elected by the people, appointed by the President and all other reality you are living in. The constitutional procedure makes our govt competent by definition, even if I don’t like personally. We, the people --- we always make sure we have a competent govt. I don’t see you have a real world suggestion how bring the end to terrorism in any practical way.
Their ability has no reflection to voting results and does anyone think G W is competent to be in charge of the US??
If you want to see the end of terrorism try tackling the reasons behind it. However, I personally feel it is impossible to end terrorism for ever - thats why this 'war' is impossible to win.
I was quite tired the last time, I apologize I was a kind of personal in my tone. May be that’s why you are coming again with the same statements, and I have to submit the same answers.
Well I possibly responded in kind so I apologize as well.
However, I feel the present US govt. has no idea how to deal with the threat (which is real) and is only making matters worse. We need new ideas and a new govt.
Rather than waiting for Iraq to burn to the ground and the Israel/Palestine crisis to blow up the time for action is now before its too late.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?