News A Larger Problem and an Old Problem

[The Smoking Man]

oh...sorry...

I just assumed that quotes are at least put in quotes. I don't want him to speak for her...

On another note...
I can't believe she said that,

I've got to admit that I have looked high and low based on the whole 'quote', sentences and phrases and can't find a single reference.

Informal Logic, do you have a link?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

Bush created the American perspective 'If you're not with us, you're against us'.

And that perception is used against terror.

The Smoking Man

So how many of the people in Guantanamo are the defenders of a sovereign nation and how many were defending bin Laden? Perception, my friend.

By looking at Guantanamo's state, most people are able to extrapolate an abundant number and indeed a majority that collude with Bin Laden, so yes, I agree with perception.

The Smoking Man

America sees one foe gathered in Guantanamo when in reality, there are at LEAST three types.

The irony is these foes having conflicts with each other.

 

[The Smoking Man]

And that perception is used against terror.

Not entirely true. He said that of all nations who did not America's actions: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

By looking at Guantanamo's state, most people are able to extrapolate an abundant number and indeed a majority that collude with Bin Laden, so yes, I agree with perception.

And you know that how since there have been no trials?

The irony is these foes having conflicts with each other.

So now you acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other ... So like I said, you have Afghani patriots in cells beside Al Qieda. So do you still maintain that they are all Terrorists or people who wanted to defend their country from invasion as well as terrorists and that nothing has been done to identify who is who?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

And you know that how since there have been no trials?

Perception. Have you forgotten about it?

The Smoking Man

So now you acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other ...

Since when did I or didn't I acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other?! you're getting muddled. My last post to the thread was the first time I commented about different types of terrorist activists disagreeing and conflicting with each other.

The Smoking Man

So do you still maintain that they are all Terrorists or people who wanted to defend their country from invasion as well as terrorists and that nothing has been done to identify who is who?

And how would you know that? Are you inferring there is no terrorism in Guantanamo? that it's all about defending the country?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Perception. Have you forgotten about it?

Perception is great for personal views but it sucks for justice and legality.

That is, in fact why we have courts of law and frown on lynch mobs.

Since when did I or didn't I acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other?! you're getting muddled. My last post to the thread was the first time I commented about different types of terrorist activists disagreeing and conflicting with each other.

Pardon me for quoting you then "The irony is these foes having conflicts with each other." when you replied to my statement that there were at least three groups which include people merely defending the country.

Most people would consider than an agreement when you fail to make a correction but merely extend the thought.

And how would you know that? Are you inferring there is no terrorism in Guantanamo? that it's all about defending the country?

Nothing of the sort. I am stating that nobody knows what is there because there has not been a trial yet.

Knowing what you do of American law, are you going to sit there straight faced and say that America knows who are the terrorists and who isn't? What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

Perception is great for personal views but it sucks for justice and legality.

I see, no more opinions. Has it ever occurred to you that we can infer things and discuss them further? that it doesn't have to be about "justice and legality". This isn't a tribunal.

The Smoking Man

Most people would consider than an agreement when you fail to make a correction but merely extend the thought.

That terrorism is tangible in the country and the irony of these different activists conflicting each other whilst figthing American troops? What have I failed to correct?

The Smoking Man

Knowing what you do of American law, are you going to sit there straight faced and say that America knows who are the terrorists and who isn't?

You're misunderstanding things but since you address the problem, what are the solutions to distinguish terrorists from normal citizens?

The Smoking Man

What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?

No opinions permitted, remember?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I see, no more opinions. Has it ever occurred to you that we can infer things and discuss them further? that it doesn't have to be about "justice and legality". This isn't a tribunal.

No but a prison with inmates should be.

That terrorism is tangible in the country and the irony of these different activists conflicting each other whilst figthing American troops? What have I failed to correct?

A person in the USA who fights back while on his property is considered a good citizen with a second amendment. Do you consider THEM activists? Your bias' are showing.

You're misunderstanding things but since you address the problem, what are the solutions to distinguish terrorists from normal citizens?

The subsequent trial.

No opinions permitted, remember?

Funny, I was asking if you knew facts.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

A person in the USA who fights back while on his property is considered a good citizen with a second amendment.

I'm discussing terrorist groups fighting American troops, you're interpreting it as the USA fighting back and being good citizens with a second amendmnet.

The subsequent trial.

And that distinguishes a terrorist from a citizen? After it has been killed or blown up? How will trials eradicate martyrs and terrorists of all sorts?

The Smoking Man

Funny, I was asking if you knew facts.

"What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?"

Really?

 

[AKG]

Well, drawing straws is one way of solving the 'lifeboat' problem although a game of chance is hardly a fair option.

When dealing with 'food and water' in a lifeboat scenario it may be more logical to say that the 300 pund man will consume far more than the 6 year old girl so she would be less of a tax on the resources and the 'collective' would survive a lot longer.

The fact is that no matter how the process is decided, all parties are in agreement until they see 'who gets the short straw' or 'why the fat guy get's ousted'.

Then it becomes an enforcement issue with the 'selectee' presenting every logical argument and illogical argument to the contrary.

Your first post to me seemed to have nothing to do with what I said. I responded anyways, and this seems to have nothing to do with either what I initially said or what I said in my response. I haven't said anything in this thread so far about the lifeboat scenario.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm discussing terrorist groups fighting American troops, you're interpreting it as the USA fighting back and being good citizens with a second amendmnet.

No, I am paralleling. Most of the people who fought back in Afghanistan were not terrorists and received no terrorist training. They were an invaded nation fighting back just like an American would if the same thing happened there.

And that distinguishes a terrorist from a citizen? After it has been killed or blown up? How will trials eradicate martyrs and terrorists of all sorts? By looking at Guantanamo's state, most people are able to extrapolate an abundant number and indeed a majority that collude with Bin Laden, so yes, I agree with perception.

Funny, I thought we were discussing the people interred in Camp X-ray. You just declared them Martyrs and terrorists again by 'extrapolation' and you know damn well they have determined as neither legally or in fact.

"What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?"

Really?

Yes, really. Where you live, you have the rule of law don't you or are you saying you would prefer to abandon it completely? Unless you're actually living in France ... Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

 

[BobG]

Well, drawing straws is one way of solving the 'lifeboat' problem although a game of chance is hardly a fair option.

When dealing with 'food and water' in a lifeboat scenario it may be more logical to say that the 300 pund man will consume far more than the 6 year old girl so she would be less of a tax on the resources and the 'collective' would survive a lot longer.

The fact is that no matter how the process is decided, all parties are in agreement until they see 'who gets the short straw' or 'why the fat guy get's ousted'.

Then it becomes an enforcement issue with the 'selectee' presenting every logical argument and illogical argument to the contrary.

Or, if it was 300 pounds of muscle instead of 300 pounds of fat, one could say the 300 pound man will be able to do much more rowing and do a lot more work than the 6 year old girl and toss the girl overboard. Or maybe that idea should be amended to only throw the girl overboard if the girl's mother decided the girl was uneccesary.

The premise that any society's laws would be based solely on moral issues is flawed. Often, customs that increase a society's prospects become 'moral values' - Thou shalt not kill, except if it's in self defense, or if it's someone from a different tribe that has horses or food we could use, or if we feel the person would be a danger to our society, or to discourage others from doing the same thing that guy did, etc.

The value of of certain actions to the community very definitely plays a significant role in defining 'morality' and a person's view of a specific group's morality very much depends on individual perspective.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Your first post to me seemed to have nothing to do with what I said. I responded anyways, and this seems to have nothing to do with either what I initially said or what I said in my response. I haven't said anything in this thread so far about the lifeboat scenario.

That was the point of MY post. If you read through what you said it was all from the point of view of the morality of the decisionmaker and completely omitted the point of view of the person on the receiving end of the decision.

You expressed doubt if you had covered all aspects in your "rant" and I agreed and expanded. "This was a bit of a rant that's coming off the top of my head, I might have missed something."

To illustrate the point, I reintroduced the concept of the lifeboat, a common theoretical framework in institutions of higher learning for the discussion of moral issues in ethics and philosophy and already in use on this thread.

Your concept of 'good and bad decisions' based in paragraph 4 tends to change when the decision is actually made. Hence the lifeboat situation. People tend to agree with 'drawing straws' for instance because they compute the odds in their heads and see a slim chance of them being on the end of a wrong decision. Regardless of who it is that is selected, mentally they can not rationalize their fate to chance.

In a parallel discussion here, we are discussing the fate of the Guantanamo detainees for instance who are subject to the moral decision of an external force that has ruled that law shall not be used to determine guilt because they have established an alternate morality based on 'battlefield decisions' and yet although hostilities have ended, the Geneva Conventions have not been applied.

I see a kneejerk morality being applied outside of the agreed framework in Human Rights, UN and US law and the attempt of a previously 'moral' people attempting to enforce means that seem to have no ends.

It is the simple application of 'means' because there is no process of enforcing the morality on a superior military force operating outside of all known moral structures.

Indeed, a false moral structure has been created for this specific event to which the people of the United States are now seemingly in agreement.

However, ask any of them if they would like to be held in Maximum security conditions without charge for 4 years enduring 'interrogation' and psychological breakdown techniques.

You will note that the only two Americans caught up in this were charged in American Criminal courts, tried and sentenced while the rest have been left in legal limbo.

Hence there is a perception that this 'new morality' this 'new means' is being used against people perceived not to be covered by the constitution or human rights issues because of their point of origin and citizenship.

Justice is no longer blind ... It seems to check if you wear a turban first or or have an American birth certificate.

Where is this morality of which you speak and who are the custodians?

It certainly does not seem that society is trying to achieve higher ideals which you describe but backsliding into something heinous.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Or, if it was 300 pounds of muscle instead of 300 pounds of fat, one could say the 300 pound man will be able to do much more rowing and do a lot more work than the 6 year old girl and toss the girl overboard. Or maybe that idea should be amended to only throw the girl overboard if the girl's mother decided the girl was uneccesary.

The premise that any society's laws would be based solely on moral issues is flawed. Often, customs that increase a society's prospects become 'moral values' - Thou shalt not kill, except if it's in self defense, or if it's someone from a different tribe that has horses or food we could use, or if we feel the person would be a danger to our society, or to discourage others from doing the same thing that guy did, etc.

The value of of certain actions to the community very definitely plays a significant role in defining 'morality' and a person's view of a specific group's morality very much depends on individual perspective.

Bravo.

Hence we have the conflicting values of differing societies and religions.

Are we to presume that a person who likes the comfort of being brought up by Imam with Shariah law rally WANTS democracy?

Judging by the activities of the Iraqi government subject to the legislation enacted so far, there does seem to be a discrepancy between 'American style democracy' and 'Iraqi democracy'.

There seems to be a 'contradictory morality' that has them currently negotiating with the Iranians ... which I applaud. Maybe this hybrid can bridge the massive moral gap and eventually lead to understanding between two extremes.

 

[AKG]

That was the point of MY post. If you read through what you said it was all from the point of view of the morality of the decisionmaker and completely omitted the point of view of the person on the receiving end of the decision.

When you make moral decisions, I don't think you can omit the point of view of the other people. Most people have feelings, and don't like hurting others. Most people are also aware that if they hurt others, others may try to respond in kind. So any smart moral decision must take into account the views of others' in some respect. My rant was short, and like I said, I didn't cover every possible aspect of morality, obvious facts like the above were naturally omitted. I was trying to give a general appraoch to morality that was more sensible, not to explain every little obvious detail.

Anyways, I have nothing to say in regards to the rest of your post. Are you just trying to get your post count up or something?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

No, I am paralleling. Most of the people who fought back in Afghanistan were not terrorists and received no terrorist training.

Fair enough, I accept this comment but I still fail to agree with you.

The Smoking Man

They were an invaded nation fighting back just like an American would if the same thing happened there.

Wrong. The Americans, and I keep reiterating this, would not blow themselves up! you persist on stating that these terrorists "defend" their country. They are committing terrorism in the name of their religion. Perverted ideologies cannot be seen as defending the country.

The Smoking Man

Funny, I thought we were discussing the people interred in Camp X-ray. You just declared them Martyrs and terrorists again by 'extrapolation' and you know damn well they have determined as neither legally or in fact.

Damn right, I declare all of those who collude with Bin Laden as martyrs and terrorists.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's interesting that the day after the big London bombings that caused around 50 deaths, the so-called insurgents in Iraq set off bombs that killed hundreds of Iraqis, not foreigners. Talking about "legitimate resistance" ignores that the bulk of the bombings these days target Iraqis, and not even members of the government, but just random civiians. That is - I say this carefully - just Evil.

 

[alexandra]

Damn right, I declare all of those who collude with Bin Laden as martyrs and terrorists.

I don't know if you are aware of any of the facts concerning David Hicks, an Australian who has been illegally incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for about 3.5 years now. Here's an extract you may find interesting:

David Hicks, an Adelaide man, was captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in early December 2001 while traveling with Taliban soldiers who were defending their territory from the Northern Alliance. David's father, Terry, said his son seemed unaware of the September 11 attacks and extremely doubtful of their authenticity when they spoke on a mobile phone a few days after the American bombing campaign had begun.

...

David has not been charged with any crime in Australia. He has not been charged with any crime in Afghanistan. He is detained without charge, without trial and without access to family or consular assistance.
More: http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/documents/whyfairgo.htm

Hicks was very probably not even AWARE of the September 11 attacks - he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time!

Hicks is not the only one who is innocent. Here is information about another Gitmo detainee:

"My name is Les Thomas and I'm the brother of Jack Thomas, most often referred to as "Jihad Jack" by the press. Jack is facing 55 years in jail on trumped up terror charges with the government using tainted evidence that was obtained when Jack was imprisoned without charge in Pakistan for five months in 2003 where he was held incommunicado without access to a lawyer and tortured both physically and psychologically by a range of international agencies. Jack's torture has been independently confirmed by two separate psychiatric evaluations. " Reference: http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/main.htm#olderitems

And here's some information about Hicks' torture:

According to David Hicks' conversations with his father, he was abused by both Northern Alliance and U.S. soldiers. Even after incidents of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the Australian Government has consistently accepted U.S. assurances that David Hicks and another Australian at Guantanamo Bay, Mamdouh Habib, have been treated in accordance with international law.

On August 5, 2004 David Hicks filed an affidavit (SMH) declaring that he had been tortured, abused and ill-treated during his detention by US military authorities, and that he saw and heard similar treatment inflicted on other detainees. The affidavit was made public on December 10, 2004. US military authorities are investigating the claims.

Reference and more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

For those interested in finding out more about this topic, the homepage of "Fair Go For David Hicks" is http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/main.htm

 

[Art]

It's interesting that the day after the big London bombings that caused around 50 deaths, the so-called insurgents in Iraq set off bombs that killed hundreds of Iraqis, not foreigners. Talking about "legitimate resistance" ignores that the bulk of the bombings these days target Iraqis, and not even members of the government, but just random civiians. That is - I say this carefully - just Evil.

I fully agree. But I would go further and say the killing of civilians either deliberately or recklessly even if committed in pursuit of an overt military aim is evil.
I also believe it is important in Iraq to distinguish between 'terrorist' combatants committing evil acts in an attempt to provoke a civil war and genuine insurgents who are fighting against an army of occupation. Similarly I am sure the vast majority of the occupying forces are decent people but certain events suggest there are evil people amongst them too who should be rooted out and punished. It is good to see Britain once again showing the US the way in observing morals and the rule of law by indicting several of her own troops on war crimes chages. Sadly I suspect the example will be wasted on the Bush administration.

 

[DM]

Alexandra

I don't know if you are aware of any of the facts concerning David Hicks, an Australian who has been illegally incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for about 3.5 years now.

I understand your point. Very unfortunately these cases do indeed occur. I truly condemn all of those who incarcerate the likes of David Hicks without credible corroboration. Thanks for the references by the way.

 

[Art]

I don't know if you are aware of any of the facts concerning David Hicks, an Australian who has been illegally incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for about 3.5 years now. Here's an extract you may find interestingicks was very probably not even AWARE of the September 11 attacks - he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time!

Hicks is not the only one who is innocent. Here is information about another Gitmo detainee:And here's some information about Hicks' torture:For those interested in finding out more about this topic, the homepage of "Fair Go For David Hicks" is http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/main.htm

According to David Hicks' conversations with his father, he was abused by both Northern Alliance and U.S. soldiers. Even after incidents of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the Australian Government has consistently accepted U.S. assurances that David Hicks and another Australian at Guantanamo Bay, Mamdouh Habib, have been treated in accordance with international law.

Which is obviously self-contradictory because the fact he is being held there at all is in breach of international law.

 

[SOS2008]

I've got to admit that I have looked high and low based on the whole 'quote', sentences and phrases and can't find a single reference.

Informal Logic, do you have a link?

TSM - I posted this with a link in a thread (before you started participating in PF). Without resources of how to find my original post now, I did some googling again and though various web sites make more direct reference, I found this from a reliable source:

Rice told Biden that although there were some "bad decisions," the end result is the measuring stick to use against the administration's decisions.

"I know enough about history to stand back and recognize that you judge decisions not in the moment, but how it all adds up," she said. "It's how Iraq turns out that ultimately matters."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/rice.confirmation/

Close "enough for government work" and in view of apparent unavailability of full transcripts, and debate regarding edited transcripts of The Condi Rice Secretary of State-Designate Hearings:

NYT Editorial Board: Anyone who watched the delicate rinse cycle applied to Condoleezza Rice by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, despite a jab here and there, could be forgiven for thinking that the future secretary of state was a newcomer to the Bush administration. With a few exceptions, the hearing was political theater.

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/opinion/19wed1.html&OP=56c151d2Q2Fw.cUwQ60Q25YuDQ25Q25ftwt007w0Q24wQ24mwQ25GQ7ErQ7EQ25rwQ24m.cQ60Q24qQ51f3i

Suffice to say, and I quote a remark by Senator Boxer: "Rice‘s loyalty to the mission of selling the Iraq war overwhelmed her respect for the truth."

 

[The Smoking Man]

Close "enough for government work" and in view of apparent unavailability of full transcripts, and debate regarding edited transcripts of The Condi Rice Secretary of State-Designate Hearings:

I think most people around here took exception to the fact that the original post when it says they were QUOTING Rice however what seems to have happened then is a very liberal 'paraphrase'.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Fair enough, I accept this comment but I still fail to agree with you.

Wrong. The Americans, and I keep reiterating this, would not blow themselves up! you persist on stating that these terrorists "defend" their country. They are committing terrorism in the name of their religion. Perverted ideologies cannot be seen as defending the country.

Damn right, I declare all of those who collude with Bin Laden as martyrs and terrorists.

Huh?

We're talking about the people interred in Guantanamo bay, right?

What do they have to do with suicide bombers?

Some of the stories have stated that these people just returned fire when fired upon. They didn't even know who they were firing back against because the force failed to identify itself.

I think alexandra has proved to you the exact type of person who is interred there along with the 'legitimate' terrorists.

You say they are all 'suicide bombers' and yet the flaw in that theory is that ... they are all alive. These people were merely caught returning fire or being in close proximity to those who did.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

We're talking about the people interred in Guantanamo bay, right?

What do they have to do with suicide bombers?

The problem with your examples, Guantanamo especially, is that it barely addresses the current issues, despite some terrorism being present nonetheless. I speak of terrorism as in general, in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

The Smoking Man

Some of the stories have stated that these people just returned fire when fired upon. They didn't even know who they were firing back against because the force failed to identify itself.

You once wrote in this thread that my bias was beginning to show, I'm also beginning to understand yours. You're attempting to intertwine Guantanamo with other countries such as Afghanistan and juxtapose, only you have failed, conflict situations.

The Smoking Man

You say they are all 'suicide bombers' and yet the flaw in that theory is that ... they are all alive. These people were merely caught returning fire or being in close proximity to those who did.

Not flawed anymore.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The problem with your examples, Guantanamo especially, is that it barely addresses the current issues, despite some terrorism being present nonetheless. I speak of terrorism as in general, in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

I do too. When innocent hostages are taken, I speak out against it. When people are picked up on the streets of Bahgdad and held without trial in an undisclosed location, I think it is terrible. I think it is the same with Afghanistan too.

The problem is, you have failed to acknowledge that the Guantanamo Prisoners are the first and longest held hostages of the war.

What do you call criminal incarceration with no charges but plenty of torture?

What do you call extrordinary rendition? Let's look at how it is used: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Not content with that, let's look at how you have violated sovereign Italian territory, kidnapped a person there and moved them internationally to a state that participates in torture. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aCibZ90.8k1Y

So how DO you define terrorism?

You once wrote in this thread that my bias was beginning to show, I'm also beginning to understand yours. You're attempting to intertwine Guantanamo with other countries such as Afghanistan and juxtapose, only you have failed, conflict situations.

Then perhaps you can explain to us just who those people are in Guantanamo?

Each person interred there without benefit of http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm is an excuse for the rest of the Middle East to distrust the USA and their actions in the area.

They state that they are there to bring about democracy and the rule of 'fair' laws into the area and yet Guantanamo Bay is being used to circumvent all those laws and the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of PoWs.

Does the statement of international and American law convince you of my 'bias' or your refusal to acknowledge that none of these prisoners have faced a judge or jury in 3.5 years of intenment betray yours?

Nobody here has ever stated that there should be a general release of prisoners from Guantanamo. They have all stated that trials should occur.

In the USA, you are unable to hold a prisoner for longer than 72 hours without charge.

These people, including Hicks, have been held as detainees as a result of the Afghan invasion for 3.5 years.

So, how have I failed to 'juxtapose' two things that by their very nature are direct results of one another?

Not flawed anymore.

No, still very flawed.

 

[DM]

QUOTES - The Smoking Man

The problem is, you have failed to acknowledge that the Guantanamo Prisoners are the first and longest held hostages of the war.

I have made it perfectly clear that I condemn what has happened with those hostages.

What do you call criminal incarceration with no charges but plenty of torture?

Again, made it clear.

So how DO you define terrorism?

This question could be an interesting topic of discussion. It is very much based on perception.

Then perhaps you can explain to us just who those people are in Guantanamo?

No, you tell me, what are they to you? you have argued that there isn't terrorism in Guantanamo.

Does the statement of international and American law convince you of my 'bias' or your refusal to acknowledge that none of these prisoners have faced a judge or jury in 3.5 years of intenment betray yours?

And you think I advocate such actions? how many times do I have to reiterate that I do not support the above incarcerations?

These people, including Hicks, have been held as detainees as a result of the Afghan invasion for 3.5 years.

And again, I'll just make it more unequivocal for you; I'm not a devotee of what has happened to the likes of Hicks, I condemn these unjustices!

So, how have I failed to 'juxtapose' two things that by their very nature are direct results of one another?

Iraq and Afghanistan are much more rife with terrorism. You simply cannot argue with that. It's a fact. Unjust trials and incarcerations is a flawed statement. There are more racist killings on behalf of the US troops than incarcerations and trials. Have you forgotten that?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I have made it perfectly clear that I condemn what has happened with those hostages.

Again, made it clear.

I suggest you re-read your post #65:

Funny, I thought we were discussing the people interred in Camp X-ray. You just declared them Martyrs and terrorists again by 'extrapolation' and you know damn well they have determined as neither legally or in fact.

Damn right, I declare all of those who collude with Bin Laden as martyrs and terrorists.

Then, you were informed of the presence of Hicks.

No, you tell me, what are they to you? you have argued that there isn't terrorism in Guantanamo.

Now I'll call you a liar.

And you think I advocate such actions? how many times do I have to reiterate that I do not support the above incarcerations?

Again, I refer you to your post #65.

And again, I'll just make it more unequivocal for you; I'm not a devotee of what has happened to the likes of Hicks, I condemn these unjustices!

Again, I refer you to your post #65.

Iraq and Afghanistan are much more rife with terrorism. You simply cannot argue with that. It's a fact. Unjust trials and incarcerations is a flawed statement. There are more racist killings on behalf of the US troops than incarcerations and trials. Have you forgotten that?

Tell me DM, how many people would you kill if your father, brother or son was being held in a foreign prison with absolutely no sign of him being removed.

How many collaberators and troops would YOU take out? How many of your family would sign up to a terrorist cell with you?

The trouble with you, DM is that you see no 'cause and effect' when it comes to US actions because to you, like most people in the USA, fail to see your catalog of errors as anything but a series of things that have caused you to say 'oooops' while most of the people there see them as staws stacking up on their camel's backs.

Yeah, all the people like Hicks have relatives too... and guess where they are.

Sure they are the people helping Al Qieda ... can you think why?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The problem is, you have failed to acknowledge that the Guantanamo Prisoners are the first and longest held hostages of the war.

I have made it perfectly clear that I condemn what has happened with those hostages.

LOL ... Aren't 'hostages' held by criminals, DM?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

LOL ... Aren't 'hostages' held by criminals, DM?

Great equivocation. Since you addressed "trials", I assumed these hostages were being held by criminals that would happen to be dubbed Americans by you.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

The trouble with you, DM is that you see no 'cause and effect' when it comes to US actions because to you, like most people in the USA, fail to see your catalog of errors as anything but a series of things that have caused you to say 'oooops' while most of the people there see them as staws stacking up on their camel's backs.

Is that right? the biggest trouble with you is that you relentlessly fail to see the number of innocents brutally tortured and killed by Al-Qaeda. Some of which happen to be reporters. Now tell me, Mister, just where is this "cause and effect"? catalog of errors? I don't even advocate what the Americans did in the first place. Now tell me you're not ignoring what I thought you read over and over again.

The Smoking Man

Yeah, all the people like Hicks have relatives too... and guess where they are.

To many others, the same applies.

The Smoking Man

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Terrific ideology.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

May i interfere?

Terrorism isn't just Al Qaeda's fault, terrorism was caused by extremetism and other forms of such similarities..

americans can be therrorists, because come to people in their own places and threat their lives, innocents die and a new terrorism form arise...

Moreover it was a problem ever since humans exist, the mere thought of forcing ur conviction on others, is terrorism, but how to do it is the only difference, dicatators are terrorists, cause they force their own beliefs and policies...Gettin involved in a war to convince people with ur believe and win the fight physically is terrorism, and this is worse than invading a place for just food and water...

Terrorism is the language of rigid stiff minded people who get more power to force their ideology...

Every father beating his children to force them doing things they don't believe in is a terrorist...

It's nothing new, and Al Qaeda aren't the only ones.

 

[SOS2008]

So now the Bush administration no longer uses the term "war on terror." Now it is the "war on Islamic radicalism." Yes, a crusade by "Christian radicalism" is so much better. It wouldn't be in part due to the UN's desire to have a global definition of terrorism (which would include state terrorism) by any chance?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Terrific ideology.

Worked for the US when they supported Saddam and he was fighting Iran.

Didn't even seem to mind at the time he was using gas on the Kurds and Iranians either.

That only became a problem later ...

Sort of like stinger missiles and OBL