 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
"let them kill you and declare jihad against you, but let live anyway, because it's all a big ****ing cultural misunderstanding?
|
Jesus, you must be a censors nightmare!! Don't let them kill you, defend yourself, but the best way to do that is at the airports, in the cities, using intelligence personell, not military. Militaries are designed to attack nationstates. America has billions of dollars worth of redundant equipment. It has been deployed thus far to great effect in two nations, yet terrorism is still as much of a threat now as ever!!!  All I'm saying is that we should impose upon them in any way, including Guantanamo incidentally, as this will only make the problem worse. Of course, big military spending is fantastic for winning votes, lets not be too naive here.
quote:
Read al Qutb and/or al Maududi and form your own judgments
|
Kill Westerners, kill jews, kill men, kill women, kill children, fly planes into buildings etc, and justify in the name of god. From my and your point of view, they believe in some crazy ****, but let them. You want to do something about it? Make them not think that by creating the appropriate conditions. And those conditions do not involve hoodings, and treatment that would literally not be fit for animals!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Jesus, you must be a censors nightmare!! Don't let them kill you, defend yourself, but the best way to do that is at the airports, in the cities, using intelligence personell, not military. Militaries are designed to attack nationstates. America has billions of dollars worth of redundant equipment. It has been deployed thus far to great effect in two nations, yet terrorism is still as much of a threat now as ever!!! All I'm saying is that we should impose upon them in any way, including Guantanamo incidentally, as this will only make the problem worse. Of course, big military spending is fantastic for winning votes, lets not be too naive here.
|
Defensive measures are doomed to eventually fail a certain percent of the time, unless you can also be proactive and take the threat back to it's origin. It's also enormously expensive, and the economic disruption from the security measures is itself a form of successful attack.
quote:
Kill Westerners, kill jews, kill men, kill women, kill children, fly planes into buildings etc, and justify in the name of god. From my and your point of view, they believe in some crazy ****, but let them.
|
That's the typical redneck reaction. Unfortunately, there is a lot more depth and substance to it.
quote:
You want to do something about it? Make them not think that by creating the appropriate conditions. And those conditions do not involve hoodings, and treatment that would literally not be fit for animals! |
I agree we shouldn't have allowed photography of our security measures for handling the *******s. And no, I wouldn't treat animals the way I'd treat these *******s, and for a number of very good reasons. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Defensive measures are doomed to eventually fail a certain percent of the time, unless you can also be proactive and take the threat back to it's origin. It's also enormously expensive, and the economic disruption from the security measures is itself a form of successful attack
|
Assuming a constant attack, which is not the case. In a battle between a single active terrorist cell and the security services of any western nation, I bet on the latter. 9/11 only occured because the CIA cocked up. If you want to root out all terrorists, force won't work, you need peace and love! 
quote:
That's the typical redneck reaction. Unfortunately, there is a lot more depth and substance to it
|
First I'm an Al Qaeda sympathiser, now I'm a redneck???  I'm sure there is more depth and substance to it, there can be as much depth and substance as they want, its their view, they are entitled to it, but we should examine what has caused them to have that view, and it is us ourselves. Theyre not targetting us for some spurious reason fabricated out of thin air you know.
quote:
I agree we shouldn't have allowed photography of our security measures for handling the *******s. And no, I wouldn't treat animals the way I'd treat these *******s, and for a number of very good reasons
|
The more public exposure and outcry abuot Guantanamo bay the better imo. Looking back on this thread, it would appear that the legal loophole in the US constitution allows this in Guantanamo, but not on US soil. My suspicious are thus further heightened.
If you agree that the conditions are not worthy for animals, then we are agreed. We differ because I see them as humans deserving no matter what their crime (and especially since they have not been convicted, nor seemingly will be fairly convicted), whereas you see them as lucky to have their face in one piece already, hence their life is the property of the US govt. 
I call humanism!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Assuming a constant attack, which is not the case. In a battle between a single active terrorist cell and the security services of any western nation, I bet on the latter. 9/11 only occured because the CIA cocked up. If you want to root out all terrorists, force won't work, you need peace and love!
|
OBVIOUSLY  , there is more than one single active cell. Peace and love are nice, but you have to bring adequate firepower to the party to deal with those who won't deal any other way.
quote:
First I'm an Al Qaeda sympathiser, now I'm a redneck??? |
Your level of understanding of modern Islamic fundamentalism and the Salafist viewpoints espoused by Sayyed al Qutb and Sayyed al Maududi are at that level of sophistication, yes.
quote:
I'm sure there is more depth and substance to it, there can be as much depth and substance as they want, its their view, they are entitled to it, but we should examine what has caused them to have that view, and it is us ourselves. Theyre not targetting us for some spurious reason fabricated out of thin air you know.
|
Your moral depravity, lack of piety, mockery of Allah, holding yourselves up as an equal to Allah, and many others. I don't see you reforming, though.
quote:
The more public exposure and outcry abuot Guantanamo bay the better imo. |
Fine. If Gitmo pains you so much, we can have a backhoe dig a slit trench, bind these mother****ers' hands behind their backs, line 'em up, and have somebody walk the line with a .45, put it to the back of each one's head, pull the trigger, and be done with it. We should be able to dig the trenches in one day, and take care of the prisoner population the next. Then you won't have an ongoing "issue" to piss and moan about, and we can stop wasting time, money and personnel keeping those *******s alive.
quote:
Looking back on this thread, it would appear that the legal loophole in the US constitution allows this in Guantanamo, but not on US soil. My suspicious are thus further heightened.
|
No, it's much simpler than that. Ex parte Quirin provides precedent for both military trial and execution of unlawful combatants on US soil. The reason for the ruling relating to sovereignty and Gitmo was that by ruling on that ground alone, and finding there was no jurisdiction, then the courts could avoid wasting time with a billion secondary issues for the next decade or so. Why decide a whole bunch of complex and often meaningless side issues, when you can decide the entire issue on very clean, simple grounds?
quote:
If you agree that the conditions are not worthy for animals, then we are agreed. We differ because I see them as humans deserving no matter what their crime (and especially since they have not been convicted, nor seemingly will be fairly convicted), whereas you see them as lucky to have their face in one piece already, hence their life is the property of the US govt.
I call humanism! |
I agree that I treat my pets better, although Velociraptor has his own Camp X-ray setup so he doesn't kill the other cats. 
As for the *******s, if you or the French or somebody are so concerned about them, you should have captured them first. We got them, so their asses belong to us and Allah. And we may well send some to Him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
oedo
|
 |
and the revolution
Feb 2000
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Freed prisoner demands $15.87m
By Kathy Gannon in Islamabad
10jul03
FREED after 10 months in an American prison on Guantanamo Bay, 51-year- old Pakistani Mohammed Sanghir is demanding $US10.4 million ($15.87 million) in compensation and damages from the US government, his lawyer says.
Sanghir left Guantanamo Bay in Cuba last November - the first Pakistani released from the prison currently holding about 600 inmates.
He tells of solitary confinement and being caged, and claims he was served alcohol-laced drinks, forbidden by his religion, Islam.
His legal notice was served by Pakistan lawyer Mohammed Ikram Chaudhry in Rawalpindi.
Sanghir's American captors flew him to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and then to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, after freeing him from Guantanamo.
"They said, 'You are
innocent'," Sanghir told The Associated Press at the time of his release. "They didn't say sorry. They just said, 'You can go home'."
Sanghir, who wore a green plastic wristband with his picture, name, age and prison number US9PK000143DP, said his US captors promised him $US2000 ($3050) in compensation when he got off the plane in Pakistan - but that he received only $US100($152)
For two months, he tried to get the rest of his money, he said. In December, he threatened to go to court.
Chaudhry said he had mailed the legal notice to the US embassy in Islamabad yesterday and that it named the US State Department, Defence Department and US Justice Department.
The notice demands a reply within four weeks. If there's no compensation, Chaudhry said a lawsuit would be filed in either a US or Pakistani court or both.
Sanghir's legal statement charges maltreatment by his Afghan captors and later by the Americans.
He was captured by warlord Rashid Dostum while trying to flee Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, after the US-led coalition's war on terror began in October 2001.
Sanghir had been in Afghanistan since June 2001, teaching Islam after being sent there by a nonpolitical organisation of Islamic missionaries called Jamaat Tableeghi. The organisation has branches worldwide.
While being held in northern Afghanistan, Sanghir said he was herded into overcrowded prisons and denied food.
Sanghir said he watched while others were buried alive and that hundreds of prisoners died in US bombardments of northern Afghanistan.
When US-led forces gained control of southern Kandahar in Afghanistan, Sanghir and several others were transferred there.
Sanghir's notice says he spent "18 days ... in Kandahar where Americans were in complete charge of the camp. They shaved the head, beard and mustaches of all the prisoners."
It says he and others were not allowed to sleep or pray and were "kept in (an) inhuman environment."
"Others were made to stand in the cold winter outside and asked questions about al-Qaeda, Taliban and Osama bin Laden," it said.
Sanghir was taken to Guantanamo Bay in shackles and held there for about 10 months, the notice said.
He said his cell on Guantanamo Bay was two metres by two metres and 2.1 metres high. He called it a cage "normally available in zoos."
The notice accused US personnel in Guantanamo Bay of adding alcohol - forbidden by Islam - to prisoners' drinks.
Sanghir said he was initially in solitary confinement and not allowed to pray, until a hunger strike by inmates led to a relaxation of the rules.
He said he faced relentless questioning, almost entirely about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network.
Sanghir says he was held for eight days and later for another 16 in a dark, tiny cell with cold air constantly "chilling the body of the inmate" - a punishment for not being able to help investigations.
Sanghir's release proved he knew nothing about bin Laden or al-Qaeda, the notice said.
It claims that for 10 months while in American custody at Guantanamo, Sanghir "suffered mental shock, financial loss, physical victimisation, estrangement and religious victimisation."
He wants $US10 million ($15.26 million) for mental agony and another $US400,000 ($610,220) for debts incurred by his family while he was in jail and damage to his sawmill business, it said. |
http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common...255E401,00.html
100$ for an innocent man being captured in an hell-like place for 10 long months. the US govt hopefully wonīt get away with this.
most of the Guantanamo inmates are innocents being tortured for nothing. they donīt even know, why they have been brought there. and donīt tell me anything as long as you donīt know better. some people here just claim they would be terrorists and all this ****, while these claims donīt have any substance at all.
if Sanghir will get the compensation - and I hope he will - this will becomne a very expensive mess for the US goverment, since hundreds of most likely innocent prisoneers are still captured in Guantanamo spending even more than īonlyī 10 months there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
Have I mentioned recently how much I love you guys?
Dubya's that old geezer from Texas, right?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Your level of understanding of modern Islamic fundamentalism and the Salafist viewpoints espoused by Sayyed al Qutb and Sayyed al Maududi are at that level of sophistication, yes
|
I spent months researching it, and am finishing a book on the topic. I would postulate that my knowledge of Islamic fundamentalism is greater than yours  . Just because one doesnt agree doesnt somehow make them less educated. You seem to be misunderstanding my arguments, perhaps you should actually read my posts before you assume that I am supporting Al Qaeda because I understand them in a relativist manner.
It is becoming increasingly clear the Guantanamo bay is an exploitation of a legal loophole... hence they do it on Cuban soil, not US soil, so apparently the constitution doesn't apply. They declare these people "unlawful combatants", even though they give no evidence of that, except reports of the general manner of capture that cannot be corroborated. They justify incarceration and conditions that are easily classified as torture for the sake of international/homeland security. They exploit legal loopholes to do this, but they cannot get away from the fact that these men are human beings first and thus deserving of all human rights affordable to them, until they are found guilty of a crime... yet thus far they havent been charged. When they are, they will face an unfair trial and a high possibility of the death penalty. They are presumed guilty before innocent, and that is unnacceptable. These men represent little or no tactical threat, and cannot be deemed otherwise without evidence. No-one is deserving of this treatment. If America cannot keep prisoners in a reasonable condition, or keep and try them fairly without compromising national security, then they shouldnt keep them. These men, assuming they are terrorists, represent a tiny fraction of all the people who would blow themselves up, they are merely minnows compared to the big fish the US should be after. It is looking increasingly like these men are sacrificial lambs to satisfy a national blood lust. Millions of dollars are being spent, yet no increase in national security has been achieved, in fact the opposite (way to piss people off), however, though it, and the wars fought are counter-productive in any war on terror, they are good for a war against the democrats.
These mens humanity should be held in the highest regard like all other prisoners in modern Western societies, they should be assumed innocent before guilty, and kept in conditions no worse than prisoners in a comparable conditions. No legal status is no excuse. A convention like Geneva regarding the treatment of prisoners shouldn't be followed only by the letter, but by the spirit, one presumably signs such a thing because one believes in the concept, not the legal structure of such a document.
In the meantime, I think the men there should be repatriated to their homes and families, and America should get over its obsession with terrorists and the flawed notions of how they deal with them. Military action will simply fail in this respect. Fishing is a completely different sport to hammering in a nail. The US militarism is best at hammering in nails, if you want to fish, you use a rod and net (intelligence). A degree more moral and cultural relativism wouldn't hurt, and, in general, more respect for the rights of prisoners would be nice (i.e. no death penalty). Rant over.
quote:
What's indefensible? How would you detain and secure a bunch of *******s who think dying while attempting to kill you is a ticket to paradise and 72 virgins?
|
Last edited by Whaleboy on 22-07-2003 at 17:09
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
I dont like the connotations of that, but they are human, and it serves no useful purpose to demonise them, except to further entrench our position, and support fallacies of post-post modernist Western "reasoning", used in our governments to justify our behaviour. Sure we dont like what they do, but lets keep things rational, not emotional BS like revenge, pride and patriotism. |
Where do you read something of "revenge, pride and patriotism" in my post?
Humanism is for me the one of the most important ideas - why is it wrong to demand that others follow this idea? Especially when I get the impression that a certain group of fundamentalists behave towards their enemies (as well as, btw, towards a lot of their own people) without the humanism you call for? Donīt they demonize "the west" in general? Donīt they call for revenge (for whatever)?
I only demand that they act within certain limits, nonone says they cannot have their own religion, culture, or whatever.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
That looks like double standarts too me, esp. when you demand a certain behaviour from the western side.
|
Not at all, its called cultural relativism. Put simply, its about accepting the limits of ones own views, and the illogical nature of imposing them on others. It means that I can be libertarian, despising dictatorships, yet against us forcefully overthrowing them. It allows me to hold a view, and to support that view, but not support the imposition of that view on others.
I demand a certain behaviour from us because we like to think we are more civilised, more developed etc, and in any case, sociologically speaking, we are in a better position to do that, being more libertarian and all.
I do not accept their right to kill anyone of course, and in a position I would DEFEND myself (in terms of national security, use intelligence etc), but I do not think it is right to impose our cultural and moral views on them in order to make them change, even if such an endeavor were to work (which it hasnt and wont), it would be illogical.
Their view of people as infidels is no different to Bush's view of the people at Guantanamo as "bad people", in terms of validity for each person.
I'm not saying we should agree with them, far from it, I'm saying that (intellectually speaking) they have a different view that is as valid as ours. Ideally we leave each other alone, but just because elements of their society decide to attack us does not deny their right to that view, from either us, or any kind of "objective" context.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-07-2003 06:47
. They are an anethema to me, but that wouldn't give me the excuse to go and bomb them!!
Attachment: 
The real world sucks!!!
|
