2. A Guantanamo detainee is railing against the President on the op-ed page of the NYT: "Gitmo Is Killing Me."
One man here weighs just 77 pounds. Another, 98. Last thing I knew, I weighed 132, but that was a month ago... The only reason I am still here is that President Obama refuses to send any detainees back to Yemen. This makes no sense. I am a human being, not a passport, and I deserve to be treated like one.
Posts
127 comments:
So they are going to commit mass suicide by self starvation?
That ought to help our standing in the world.
Good thing Obama and Holder have a policy to deal with this.
The thin person is railing.
For justice.
No, Mr. Bond, we expect you to die.
Maybe the President can do another apology tour, and remind everyone that he lived in a Muslim country for awhile. That ought to settle things down and make everyone love us, right?
Depends on the facts.
"So they are going to commit mass suicide by self starvation?"
No. We are force-feeding them. Remember the horror expressed in the media when they were force-fed in the Bush era? Yet that is what this NYT forum consists of: criticizing Obama for mistreating the detainees in the liberal media.
I think Bush would be a fun grand-dad.
My sister is really enjoying her grandmother phase (it helps that my grand-niece is the cutest baby in the world, no lie!). She recommends it most highly.
The NYT deeply believes that terrorists caught in the War on Terror are on the right side of history, they can't stomach any hardship on their part. The babies in Gosnell's clinic? They were threatening the Great Utopia, dismemberment was too good for them.
I am a human being, not a passport...
I don't think I've ever heard that before.
"I'm not a passport."
I remember "I'm not a potted plant."
From Google
I'm not a human being 2
I'm not a vampire
I'm not a rapper
The salient question for the detainee is: Was he actually a terrorist when he was detained? Of course, he says he wasn't. My hope is that the US Govt has damning proof that he was, and that's why they are holding him.
Perhaps his life is only a series of discomforts. I've viewed that kind of life. But it is a life. There are 1000s for whom the opportunity was snuffed out.
Okay, let's try this again....
Quote from the guy writing in the NYT, explaining what he was doing in Afghanistan when the US invaded: When I was at home in Yemen, in 2000, a childhood friend told me that in Afghanistan I could do better than the $50 a month I earned in a factory, and support my family. I’d never really traveled, and knew nothing about Afghanistan, but I gave it a try.
Okay, let's assume, just for kicks, that the guy is telling the truth. How big a shit hole was Yemen if the thought of moving to Taliban-era Afghanistan for ECONOMIC REASONS seemed like a good idea? I'm thinking Yemen doesn't want this guy back so as to improve their gene pool.
A more interesting column (if it were written well) might be how life has changed/evolved in the 11 years for the survivors. But that probably wouldn't drive webclicks and revenue like the pity-me the poor detainee piece.
It's all about the webclicks. Will this be one of the most-forwarded pieces of the day? Aided and abetted by one Althouse?
I don't think I've ever heard that before.
"I'm not a passport."
I remember "I'm not a potted plant."
Don't forget "I'm not a number."
The Prisoner.
How does the NYT decide whether to shut off comments on a opinion piece?
I'm very interested to know how NYT readers reacted to that one.
Our past history with released detainees has not been uniformly salubrious. If they're going to blame someone for their not being released, then need to blame the previously-released detainees who were found fighting against the US.
What was Obama's excuse for failing to close Gitmo after promising to close it and signing an Exec Order to that effect?
Did he even have an excuse or was it just another example of him lying to please his brain dead voter base?
Recently seen in the hospital's visitor log-book: "Truly inspiring to be able to come here. Mila is a great girl. Hopefully she will be a belieber."
George Bush's third term.
The fate of children Obama murders as collateral damage in his "everyone on this plot of ground is a militant" drone campaign is kinder than indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay. The place will be remembered as infamously in history as Devil's Island.
Whether this man is lying about what got him there is not germane to the argument that this shameful institution blackens the name of the United States just as thoroughly as Obama's kill list. Secret government is tyrannical government.
Secret power is always and inevitably abused. Holding people without charging them and killing them under a secret though, we are assured, completely benign and totally constitutional legal regime is behavior worthy of a Czar, not a president.
Why not go the whole hog and start pulling peasant's teeth to find out how they're attached?
I have never understood hunger strikes.
Starve yourself, fine.
Get some exercise too.
Gitmo's still open?
Whether this man is lying about what got him there is not germane to the argument that this shameful institution blackens the name of the United States
What is so shameful about it?
MadisonMan said...
The salient question for the detainee is: Was he actually a terrorist when he was detained?
Here is what DoD thinks of his story, courtesy of Wikileaks and the Gray Lady: A High Risk detainee
As usual, garage states that Obama is not far enough Left for some people. Like Obama they believe in enforcing a different set of rules, but they have to get more power first.
It'll all work out
Wisconsin needs its own Gitmo. Get those fatties slim!
George Bush's third term.
4/15/13, 8:32 AM
No, that would be the fourth. Curiously it was very important to many people to elect a replacement in 2008, but not in 2012.
Why is this terrorist railing against GW Bush when Obama is the one keeping him there?
I don't know how bad Gitmo is, but I suspect the guy could have worse a worse fate. There are 240 detainees in Gitmo. There are perhaps tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in the W's war, causing who knows what grief.
I don't understand the hunger strike, which seems mostly like a political statement. The indignities of the prisoner seems mostly focused on the force feedings.
Undoubtedly, Barack Obama is Dick Cheney's biggest fan. Which isn't a criticism of Obama but rather a reason to laugh at every slobbering Lefty clown who voted for him.
The Gitmo prisoners are treated so well that they literally have to mistreat themselves to get attention. And there is no innocent goat herder sitting at Gitmo. These are known terrorists, terrorists captured in battle, occasionally captured by stealth. There are plenty of real bad guys over there, we don't have to make them up.
I have never understood hunger strikes.
I'm laughing, imagining the first guy that tried it.
Oh, sorry, he is criticizing Obama.
I fled to Pakistan like everyone else. The Pakistanis arrested me when I asked to see someone from the Yemeni Embassy. I was then sent to Kandahar, and put on the first plane to Gitmo.
Uh-huh. Totally believable.
What was Obama's excuse for failing to close Gitmo after promising to close it and signing an Exec Order to that effect?
The senate decided it was a bad idea:
On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
from wikipedia. So I guess you can blame Harry Reid and all those senators for the guy being there, and not in Illinois.
The prisoners are starving themselves for Anti-US political propaganda purposes.
I think the leftwing lawyers that are enabling and promoting this anti-US propaganda effort called a "hunger strike" belong in jail right next to them.
"The salient question for the detainee is: Was he actually a terrorist when he was detained? Of course, he says he wasn't. My hope is that the US Govt has damning proof that he was, and that's why they are holding him."
Even our military has acknowledged that most of those detained at Gitmo over time were never terrorists.
"The Gitmo prisoners are treated so well that they literally have to mistreat themselves to get attention. And there is no innocent goat herder sitting at Gitmo. These are known terrorists, terrorists captured in battle, occasionally captured by stealth. There are plenty of real bad guys over there, we don't have to make them up."
And you know this...how?
That's a trick question; the answer is: you don't know this.
Cry me a river.
"The prisoners are starving themselves for Anti-US political propaganda purposes."
The prisoners don't need to starve themselves for this. Our own actions now and over the past 12 years have blackened our honor and reputation beyond redemption. (Of course, it's not as if we were so fucking virtuous prior to our terror war against the world...it's just that what's past is forgotten and this is not in the past.)
Robert Cook said...
Even our military has acknowledged that most of those detained at Gitmo over time were never terrorists.
Do you have a cite for this, Mr. Cook?
Folks who think like Cookie are a big reason why this administration prefers to simply blow everybody up with Hellfire missiles rather than capture them alive, interrogate them, and intern them.
Robert Cook said...
Even our military has acknowledged that most of those detained at Gitmo over time were never terrorists.
Perhaps not terrorists, but committed Jihadi's it seems, at least in the case of this guy, from DoD's own files...
PS: Yemen doesn't want to agree to take him back under conditions acceptable to us either...
And Eustace parachutes in and shows her ignorance of the laws of land warfare and what constitutes a EPW and why we can hold them until the war is over.
She won't address that most of the folk in GITMO are mostly only legally entitled to a summary execution for violating those laws.
Grow up Eustace. The folks there in GITMO would be happy to slit your infidel throat and would actually gain esteem in their nations and countrymens eyes were they to do so.
Eustace, you are ignorance on stilts with a sparkler jammed up its ass; a colossal jewel of glittering stupidity.
Cook:
That's a trick question; the answer is: you don't know this.
There is a 2004 report out by the red cross. It doesn't sound fun, but this one tickled me:
At other times, female personnel were allowed to interrogate them, which could be demeaning to some Muslim men.
Talk about a glass ceiling: "You can't interrogate the Muslim prisoners because you are a woman."
I guess the Muslims haven't heard of the EEOC.
You too, Robert Cook. Grow up. Your adolescent, anti-US 'tude is immaturity defined. The world would treat them all just the same or worse if they had to deal with them.
Even our military has acknowledged that most of those detained at Gitmo over time were never terrorists.
Way to counter a specific with a generality.
Fail.
Even our military has acknowledged that most of those detained at Gitmo over time were never terrorists.
Complete and utter bullshit.
The entirety of your political beliefs are formed by ignorance.
Do you have a cite for this, Mr. Cook?
Here is an analysis based on DOD Data
Also:
"In 2010, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a former aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, stated in an affidavit that top U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, had known that the majority of the detainees initially sent to Guantánamo were innocent, but that the detainees had been kept there for reasons of political expedience."
Source
Beyond this, that we have released the majority of those held at Gitmo over time indicates our government did not have evidence to show they were ever terrorists.
"Complete and utter bullshit."
Now there's an incisive and irrefutable argument.
Oh for God's sake, of course they're terrorists. They can call themselves whatever they want, but their not soldiers. They're cowards and maniacs. You only have to watch what they do and listen to what they say over the last, say, lifetime, to figure that out. The recidivism rate from Gitmo should be enough for even the densest rube.
Source
I love that.
A singular assertion is "fact" now because it confirms your biases.
The late Mrs T knew how to handle terrorist trash. Hunger strike? Here is your food. Don't want to eat it? Fine. After a few IRA terrorists died of hunger while playing the game of chicken the rest got the message. If jihadi scum at Gitmo wish to starve themselves to death, let them.
Robert Cook said...
Now there's an incisive and irrefutable argument.
Um, stupid shit, the response is on par with your absurd contention.
I love the fact that you think an examination, by a a group who just happens to share your worldview, of what is definitively not a majority of those ever held at GITMO confirms that "our military has acknowledged that most of those detained at Gitmo over time were never terrorists"
Note: you're obviously dumb.
Let me help you: Please provide an example of our military acknowledging any such thing.
Note: dummy, an "analysis" by a left wing group of "DOD data" is not the military acknowledging any such thing.
Note: dummy, a cite to WikiPedia holding a singular allegation is not the military acknowledging any such thing.
Can you read?
Robert Cook logic: Warm days never happen in cold climates because the DoD acknowledges that most winter days are cold!
Seriously you're a human being and deserved to be treated like one?
Dude you tried to kill US troops and if you're returned to the Mid-East you will do it again.
Fark you.
Starve yourself to death and get your reward in Paradise.
From the op-ed, are we supposed to sympathize with someone who went to Afghanistan to kill people for money? Isn't that what he's saying?
Claim:
Even our military has acknowledged that most of those detained at Gitmo over time were never terrorists.
Allegedly information supporting said claim:
A Profile... By Mark Denbeaux
Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees
To ridicule and mock your stupidity is the only proper response.
As usual, garage states that Obama is not far enough Left for some people
Good leaders do what is right. Hucksters like Obama do what will sell. Then he lies about it and blames Congress for not closing Gitmo. No surprise the Freedom Party sides with Obama on this one.
"I am a human being, not a passport, and I deserve to be treated like one."
Neither were the people you and your friends murdered.
The Frawgs had the right idea - Devil's Island.
garage mahal said...
George Bush's third term.
Promise?
Robert Cook said...
In 2010, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a former aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell,
Gee whiz, couldn't have been some political squish trying to make points, could it?
PS Miss Jenna looks like her mama, but she's got daddy's mischief in her eyes
Hmmmm. Gitmo or killed by a drone? Gitmo or get killed by a drone?
That's a tough one.
Mayor Bloomberg reportedly intrigued by the possibilities.
Maybe if we hadn't called it the War on Terror, and had instead gone to war for a limited purpose...terror will never go away but now we are stuck warring against it. So the Gitmo detainees are still there.
I don't know anything about Gitmo or the detainees. I do know that the justice system for Americans has very little to do with truth or justice. Seems possible to me that Gitmo is not about justice, either.
Bullshit. Gitmo closed over four years ago.
If he can drone whoever catches his eye in you-name-it-stan and keep the legal justification for it secret because, you know, it wouldn't do for the bad guys to learn what we're thinking and all, he can do it here.
If he can keep whoever gets picked up in this war on an abstraction without charging them and hold them forever and never reveal one stinking detail about why each of them is being held then he can do it to his domestic enemies as well. And he, or one of his successors, will do.
Your emperor spits on your honor and dignity every minute of every day but your outrage is reserved for this wretch on a hunger strike.
Guantanamo Bay is a disgrace.
Drone wars are a disgrace.
Flame on, boot lickers.
terror will never go away but now we are stuck warring against it.
Well no, we can just go back to the good old days when Islamic terrorisim was just a 'nuisance', as described by our current Sec of State.
I'm confused why drones are such a disgrace. Prior to drones we were killing Islamic terrorists with airstrikes and other than the usual suspects who cheer on the terrorists, I don't recall the strum and drang over that.
All I can imagine, Colonel, is that you don't know much about how the drone war is conducted and justified. Nearly no one knows anything about how it's justified because all that tail chasing mumbo jumbo is a deep dark secret. That in is self is a disgrace. As for the rest of it, you might read some contrary views. The people in charge of it won't inform you. Their lies are not very well camouflaged. A cursory examination of under reported news from drone patrolled real estate should raise questions in the most fevered flag waver's mind.
You, at least, ask a simple question and leave the flamethrower switched off. We could use a good deal more of that here.
A deeper, darker secret is which Althouse leftie regular is Eustace Chilke?
And why Lefties think it is so clever to use multiple names/sockpuppets?
Beyond this, that we have released the majority of those held at Gitmo over time indicates our government did not have evidence to show they were ever terrorists.
As always, the timing of the silly, bullshit assertions by the left is impeccable:
A Libyan warlord and jihadist leader suspected of being involved in a 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was reportedly wounded and captured during a special operation on Sunday, AP reported.
Sufyan bin Qumu was shot during an operation in the eastern city of Darna, in the al-Thruwn region, which is an Islamist stronghold. The wounded man was delivered to a hospital, where he remains in custody in the intensive care unit, an anonymous security official told AP.
A member of Islamist organizations for decades, bin Qumu spent half of his life fighting in a range of conflicts. A suspected associate of Osama Bin Laden, bin Qumu spent years in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
Again, To ridicule and mock your stupidity is the only proper response.
It's not every prisoner in a secret incarceration program who gets to detail his plight in the NYT.
Talk about a red herring, Darrell.
You have discovered neither a pseudonymous pseudonym nor a lefty.
Why either possibility matters in the context of the subject being discussed is the real mystery.
All I can imagine, Colonel, is that you don't know much about how the drone war is conducted and justified.
Indeed. I also wasn't privy to the decisions leading up to airstrikes by F18s either.
The one government institution I do place faith in is the military, mainly due to their exemplary professionalism and conduct. I like to think that the men and women pulling the trigger, so to speak, are targeting the actual bad guys and not purposely.going after innocents.
My guess for Eustace is n.n., a.k.a. numbnuts. What's your guess?
Robert Cook is right that most of the people being held at Gitmo are not considered terrorists by the government.
But they're not being held because they are terrorists; they are being held because they are considered enemy combatants who were captured on the battlefield.
I believe that every one of the prisoners held at Gitmo went through what is called a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. You can google it for more information but it's a quasi-judicial hearing where the evidence implicating the individual is presented.
Again, these individuals are not being held on charges of terrorism. They're being held, essentially, as soldiers much like we have done in previous wars.
My guess is that pigeon holing anyone who expresses a contrary view to yours is your idea of an argument, Darrell.
So who are you in real life? Is Darrell just edutcher's milder clone?
Much better, Eustace, to line em on the side of the road and put a bullet in their heads.
I think it's adorable that you think there are rules to warfare.
This kind of brain dead carping makes my butt hurt. I suppose anyone can be excused one time for being drawn in.
Several months back, on the BBC newscast, there was a report about several Syrian youths who had been captured by the security forces during a demonstration. They were killed and the bodies were retuned to the parents. The bodies were bruised. The boys had obviously been tortured to death. For an added touch of horror, their genitals were mutilated. There was that one report, and I have seen nothing since.........I ask the resident liberals: was this a worse offense than anything that happened at Abu Ghraib? Do they think that any member of the Syrian security forces will ever be punished for these crimes? If you describe waterboarding as torture, how do you describe the acts of the Syrian security forces?
they are being held because they are considered enemy combatants who were captured on the battlefield.
Battlefield = anywhere in the world!
Funny the same people that were screaming we can't trust anyone on Benghazi put their full faith and trust with the same exact people.
"The one government institution I do place faith in is the military, mainly due to their exemplary professionalism and conduct. I like to think that the men and women pulling the trigger, so to speak, are targeting the actual bad guys and not purposely.going after innocents."
Your naive faith in the military is touching--its history of wartime atrocities belying your trust--but it's beside the point. It's not the military making the decisions, but the civilian heads of government. To the degree the military is involved in making war decisions and policy, it is the officer corps at the very top...ambitious career-advancing men just as are the politicians in Washington. In any case, it's certainly not the soldiers, who merely carry out the orders. They don't know who the bad guys are; they're just shooting at who they're told to shoot at, or at those who shoot at them, who are probably just people defending their homes and land against the invading Americans. (If a foreign force occupied America, would you be "the bad guy" because you decided to resist the invading force with arms?)
I might just as well say--to no greater point--I don't hold the bank tellers and low-level bank managers responsible for the grand thefts of historic proportions that have been carried out by the big banks that are "too big to fail."
People fighting in civilian clothes used to get a bullet or the noose. Today they gain weight receiving the best treatment of their lives. Go figure.
"People fighting in civilian clothes used to get a bullet or the noose. Today they gain weight receiving the best treatment of their lives. Go figure."
The degree to which people will go to deny the reality of their own nation's complicity in great crimes is tragic.
Your naive faith in the military is touching--its history of wartime atrocities belying your trust-
I can't say I am surprised at your comment as it is consistent with your knee jerk contempt for this country.
You also shown your complete ignorance of the US military and how combat operations are conducted. Well done.
"'They are being held because they are considered enemy combatants who were captured on the battlefield."
"Battlefield = anywhere in the world!"
Also:
"Enemy combatants" = anyone we say is one!
Colonel Angus:
My reply to Darrell at 10:55 a.m. is equally applicable to you.
"Battlefield = anywhere in the world!"
Well, if they're engaged in war against us why does it matter where the action occurs? Are you saying there's a free area where they can attack us with no consequences?
If they choose to have an unlimited battlefield and violate all norms of warfare should we let them?
We captured Germans in WWII throughout Europe and Africa. And held them until the war was over without trials.
Funny the same people that were screaming we can't trust anyone on Benghazi put their full faith and trust with the same exact people.
Are you saying the State Department is conducting combat operations and interrogations?
Holding people without charges in a gulag is American as apple pie and baseball.
Gitmo detainees are being force fed food and Americans are being force fed Kool-Aid.
My reply to Darrell at 10:55 a.m. is equally applicable to you.
Forgive me for not caring what you think.
Cookie,
99 red balloons
couldn't hold the air that's in your head.
You should find your Leftist utopia and live there. Have you considered North Korea? Just think what you can afford there?
"Enemy combatants" = anyone we say is one!"
You need to read about the process.
In any case, who should determine whether they're combatants or not?
We've captured hundreds of thousands - probably millions - of soldiers in war. We brought back more than 200,000 German POWS during WWII.
Was all of that illegal?
You guys on the left make a few good points but get carried away with these extreme examples. These are not a bunch of innocent got herders captured while tending the flock.
I'm quite sure - in fact it's true - that the government has made mistakes with some of these. Since they don't wear uniforms it's hard to determine who they are.
"Holding people without charges in a gulag is American as apple pie and baseball. "
Nations have been permitted to hold enemy soldiers without trials or formal charges forever.
In any case, they were charged with being enemy combatants and were given hearing to determine that.
That's far more than what any other country has ever done with enemy combatants.
And you obviously have no idea what gulag means. The gulag was the Soviet Union's forced labor camps where people were held for simply expressing opposition to their government.
To compare Gitmo with a gulag is risible.
These are not criminals; they are enemy combatants in a war against us.
"'Battlefield = anywhere in the world!'"
"Well, if they're engaged in war against us why does it matter where the action occurs? Are you saying there's a free area where they can attack us with no consequences?"
Well...if we're in their countries, I'd say it's more a matter of our being "engaged in war against (them)," and that we are attacking them.
Do they have no right to defend their countries and homes against an invading force, no right to resist with arms those who are killing their neighbors and loved ones?
"Forgive me for not caring what you think."
I don't expect you to care. I'm just stating a fact, a fact not diminished in the least by your denial of it.
Well...if we're in their countries, I'd say it's more a matter of our being "engaged in war against (them)," and that we are attacking them.
No 9/11 no invasion of Afghanistan.
The Taliban had ample opportunity to avoid this. They refused and made common cause with Al Queda. Next time perhaps they'll choose their friends more carefully.
Cookies knows that they are not from Iraq or Afghanistan. The tears for neighbors and loved one are a phony as he is. I remember the Egyptian accountant telling us that his wife announced one day that he would go to Afghanistan. And she told him he better not come back alive. She told him that hse would cut his throat if he came back alive after they received hero status for him dying there. How could he do that to his family?
. I'm just stating a fact,
You're stating an opinion.
"Well...if we're in their countries, I'd say it's more a matter of our being "engaged in war against (them)," and that we are attacking them."
Please, Robert, they're not defending their countries. They're waging religious war against non-believers. This isn't a war of nationalism; it's a war of theocratic ideology.
In any case, as the story above notes, this was a man from Yemen who went to Afghanistan.
These individuals declared war on us and attacked us. We responded.
Who do you think is causing this war? Us?
They attacked our embassies, our ships and then attacked us and our people using planes.
And our friend Cook thinks we started this conflict.
They're engaged in what they consider a holy war against infidels and non-believers. They kill all who don't follow their brand of Islam. And most of their victims have been Muslims.
But somehow we're to blame.
The US has made some awful and terrible policies over the years. We're not always right.
But we're not always wrong either.
Except for those in the Chomsky-Zinn school of thought.
Cookie and garage would have been surprised and appalled when Napoleon actually fired the cannons at the street mobs coming to kill the soldiers and the government officials as they had done before.
"Please, Robert, they're not defending their countries. They're waging religious war against non-believers. This isn't a war of nationalism; it's a war of theocratic ideology."
How do you know? Of all those who have been killed in these multi-nation conflicts, of all those who have even taken up arms against our invading/attacking forces, how do you know how many of them are religious zealots engaged in furthering their cause and how many are simply nationalists defending against an invading foreign force, fighting back against those killing them and their neighbors, friends, families and loved ones?
You can't know and you don't know. It merely comforts you to accept the lie that we're the good guys and all those fighting us are bad guys.
'twas ever thus. When a military commander at Gitmo can assert that prisoners who commit suicide are "engaged in asymmetric warfare" against the United States, only the willfully blind won't see that we're in a world where Humpty Dumpty's rhetorical logic prevails and that lies have vanquished truth.
"If he can drone whoever catches his eye in you-name-it-stan and keep the legal justification for it secret because, you know, it wouldn't do for the bad guys to learn what we're thinking and all, he can do it here.
If he can keep whoever gets picked up in this war on an abstraction without charging them and hold them forever and never reveal one stinking detail about why each of them is being held then he can do it to his domestic enemies as well. And he, or one of his successors, will do."
Regardless of whatever other agenda
Eustace might have, this is well said and (as history teaches us over and over and over)undeniably true.
how do you know how many of them are religious zealots engaged in furthering their cause
Well the Taliban is nothing more than a group of religious zealots who institute the brutality of Sharia law whenever they plant roots. Remember the Pakistani teenage girl they shot in the face for having the effrontry to advocate for women's education? There are your so called innocent freedom fighters.
Oh I'm sure there are some non Taliban fighters in the ranks but the majority of soldiers in the Wehrmacht were not Nazis either. Nevertheless, lack of affiliation with the party or religious sect doesn't diminish their culpability for fighting alongside their brutal ally.
To recap: Muslims.
"If he can drone whoever catches his eye in you-name-it-stan and keep the legal justification for it secret because, you know, it wouldn't do for the bad guys to learn what we're thinking and all, he can do it here.
If he can keep whoever gets picked up in this war on an abstraction without charging them and hold them forever and never reveal one stinking detail about why each of them is being held then he can do it to his domestic enemies as well. And he, or one of his successors, will do."
Regardless of whatever other agenda
Eustace might have, this is well said and (as history teaches us over and over and over)undeniably true.
Ah, Cooktard and Bitchtits united in their love of terorists and hatred of America.
Bitchtits Mahal could definitly use a hunger strike.
Unsure about the obesity status of Cookie.
While he may be a human being, he is also an enemy non-combatant. He fought for the losing side. He wanted to kill our soldiers. He didn't wear a uniform while doing it.
Legally, we can hold him until hostilities cease. He should ask his compatriots to surrender if he wants to be free.
Sucks to be him.
Regardless of whatever other agenda Eustace might have, this is well said and (as history teaches us over and over and over)undeniably true.
Abraham Lincoln did more damage to the Constitution than any other President and oversaw the killing and maiming of a couple hundred thousand Americans, yet, history teaches us he was the greatest President ever.
The greatest threat to Muslim people is radical Islam.
It's not us, Garage.
We've been spending large amounts of our treasure trying to help the Muslim people fight off these radicals. Helping them build governments, schools, hospitals, and so on.
We're not the bad guys here.
And Cook, if you're not aware of what is motivating these people I suggest you try reading the statements that they make. They are quite explicit about what drives them.
It's not the evil US government lying to us. It's their own words.
Ah, Cooktard and Bitchtits united in their love of terorists and hatred of America.
Don't you have to change your handle for this bit of cock sucking?
I'm not sure what your point is, Angus. Once more for the slow kids...
The greatest threat to Muslim people is radical Islam.
The problem is its getting more difficult to see any distinction between 'moderate' vs 'radical'. Egypt ousted Mubarak and replaced the ruling class with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Looks like when given the opportunity to chose moderate over radical, radical carries the day.
"The problem is its getting more difficult to see any distinction between 'moderate' vs 'radical'"
There's more than one billion Muslims around the world.
Lots of different sects, views, practices.
But it's a good point.
We've given lots of aid, assistance, funding, training, to Muslim countries. Trying to help them develop their economies.
We're not attacking Muslims as garage suggests.
We don't want this war, as Cook suggests. We'd be quite happy to bring out troops home and stop having to do all of this.
We've given lots of aid, assistance, funding, training, to Muslim countries. Trying to help them develop their economies.
And a fat lot of good its done. A prosperous society is a free society. The less shackles imposed by government or religion means greater economic freedom.
Look at the 'rich' nations and they are the ones that cherish freedom, rule of law and property rights. Take Egypt for example whose main source of revenue was tourism and the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded in screwing up that no brainer source of income.
A column today on this topic at Guardian UK by Glenn Greenwald, for those few here who are not apologists for the United States Torture and Terror regime and are not, therefore, willfully self-blinded to the facts of life.
On the indirectly related matter, alluded to by Colonel Anxious, that "a prosperous society is a free society,", here is a blunt precis of our present world:
OBEY
Sorry...here's the correct link to OBEY
No sympathy for hunger strikers. Eat your damn food or don't whine about how skinny you are. And next time, don't be an effing terrorist.
The mistake that both Bush and Obama are making is not proceeding directly to summary military tribunals with consequences for all held at Gitmo.It leaves an open wwound for flies and maggots to pick at.
Persons found in civilian clothes in a war zone with weapons are insurgents-and may be summarily treated as such by an any military force they encounter.Sort of discourages people from trying to blend into the civilian populations. Oh and wearing the uniform of the enemy is basically saying I am committing suicide.
But our enlightened people here don't like those provisions of the Geneva and Hague conventions.
The mistake that both Bush and Obama are making is not proceeding directly to summary military tribunals with consequences for all held at Gitmo.It leaves an open wwound for flies and maggots to pick at.
Persons found in civilian clothes in a war zone with weapons are insurgents-and may be summarily treated as such by an any military force they encounter.Sort of discourages people from trying to blend into the civilian populations. Oh and wearing the uniform of the enemy is basically saying I am committing suicide.
But our enlightened people here don't like those provisions of the Geneva and Hague conventions.
No they are not 'passports'. They are Terrorist we, for some reason, won't line them up against a wall and have them shot.
See in most other countries, if you are caught with gun and no uniform behind the lines THEY WOULD HAVE SUMMARYLY SHOT YOU.
We play 'nice' and just jail you till the war is over. When Al Quada surrenders you will be freed.
Of course some of us don't place bombs at sporting events either.
You have to love NYT's timing. On 9-11-01 they published a piece by Bill Ayers saying he regretted not bombing more. Later that day...
On 4-15-13, they publish a piece by a Gitmo detainee bemoaning the treatment of terrorists. Later that day, ....
The US can deal with foreign policy problems with hostile states one of four general ways:
1. We can ignore the issue (Syria, Rwanda)
2. We can attempt to isolate the problem with sanctions and enforced embargoes (North Korea, Iran, Iraq generally between 1991-2000)
3. We can bomb the troublemakers (Iraq intermittently between 1991-2000, Yemen, Bosnia, Libya)
4. We can invade (Iraq 2001, Afghanistan)
Whichever one we do, we get complaints that the wrong thing is being done, and we should do something else. It's an issue for us, because we are affected by the media coverage, and some politicians care about what the media tells people to care about.
However, this, combined with the tendency of the anti-American left to focus most of their ire on the US, leads to more global conflicts and suffering. The US is currently conducting military operations under rules of engagement that are more sensitive to civilian casualties than anyone at any point in history.
"Eustace Chilke said...
The fate of children Obama murders as collateral damage in his "everyone on this plot of ground is a militant" drone campaign is kinder than indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay. The place will be remembered as infamously in history as Devil's Island. "
Yes, it would be far kinder to shoot them and that is something we can both agree on.
"The fate of children Obama murders as collateral damage in his "everyone on this plot of ground is a militant" drone campaign is kinder than indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay. The place will be remembered as infamously in history as Devil's Island. "
Yeah! Devil's Island! Right!
Warm balmy temperatures. Unlimited time for reading. Playing soccer or other games. Having meals delivered.
Those evil damn Americans and their Waldorf Salad!
"A column today on this topic at Guardian UK by Glenn Greenwald, for those few here who are not apologists for the United States Torture and Terror regime and are not, therefore, willfully self-blinded to the facts of life."
How do you know when you've become a complete asshole?
You quote Glenn Greenwald.
Ed,
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Post a Comment