Guantanamo Bay Escapes

Wolff

No my whole defence is if the US were to shut Guantanamo tomorrow and give everyone a nice big cheque and not abuse any poor Muslim "Suspects"

You'd still find something to crib about America - but would say nothing about the same and much worse treatment in their own state run muslim countries.

Hobbes

You'd still find something to crib about America - but would say nothing about the same and much worse treatment in their own state run muslim countries.

Oh I see, so your post is a personal attack at me rather then the world in general?

You have gone from saying its thier fault because the country they live in is as bad or worse of what the US is currently doing.

However its shown that there are people in Gitmo from Western countries which aren't muslim states. (nicely skipped over by yourself).

Your now saying that we shouldn't be complaining because if it was fixed we would just find something else to complain about?

sovtek

Wolff wrote:

No my whole defence is if the US were to shut Guantanamo tomorrow and give everyone a nice big cheque and not abuse any poor Muslim "Suspects"

You'd still find something to crib about America - but would say nothing about the same and much worse treatment in their own state run muslim countries.

If the American government didn't give me something to crib about then I would start putting more energy into what Yemen and all do to their people. One of those cribbings would be about American support for those countries.
I don't see the former happening anytime soon.

Wolff

are you the only other person posting on the forum Hobbes...???

I didnt think so I address my posts to everybody unless I mention you by name

Now calm down Ill put your rattle back in the pram - oh sorry I meant your AK 47

Wolff

Sovtek...so you are saying you are interested only in America shortcomings and every other countries mis deeds are not important because America practices double standards

Name me a country that doesnt

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

are you the only other person posting on the forum Hobbes...???

Oh ok so you are referring to the opinions of certain posters instead of just me as a basis as to why torture, illegal detention without rights or being charged is perfectly fine for the US to do.

I think I am going to have to stop taking you seriously at this point.

ISAW

Wolff wrote:

Sovtek...so you are saying you are interested only in America shortcomings and every other countries mis deeds are not important because America practices double standards

Name me a country that doesnt

I state it again two wrongs do not make a right

"Everyione else is doing it" is neither true nor is it an excuse even if it was true.

it is clear where the double standards are but it is not for others to prove a negative either and to be put onto the back foot by your claim that others are "just as bad". Thats is just what is called "shifting the burden" of proof.

ISAW

Wolff wrote:

No my whole defence is if the US were to shut Guantanamo tomorrow and give everyone a nice big cheque and not abuse any poor Muslim "Suspects"

You'd still find something to crib about America - but would say nothing about the same and much worse treatment in their own state run muslim countries.

a rather paltry defence.

1. It is based on accepting thqat wrong is being done and that human rights are being abused in Gitmo i.e. it isnt a defence at all but a guilty plea.

2. It suggests that detainees are from state run fundamentalist countries - an unproven assertion.

3. It is based on conjecture about other accusations which have nothing to do with the case.Put it this way, if I was to go into court and claim that my client is not guilty of murder because he killed a mafia boss and the mafia dont like him and anyway even if he was guilty werent the mafia killing people in the state next door... How far do you think that assists teh client?

Finally on point three you would be wrong. Organisations like Amnesty International who are not keen on the abuse of human rights in Gitmo also opposed Saddam (when the Us supported hiim) and Pinochet (when the US supported him) and other dictators the Us supported. they also opposed distators the US opposed. The point is not about politics and whether people just want to attack the US behaviour. You are missing the BIg Picture which is - ther is such a thing as Universal Human rights which should be respected by everyone whether ot not the US likes or hates those people.

Wolff

I never said it was fine for America to do anything !

I said it all has to be taken in context.....one more question if a lot of these prisoners who have been incarcerated for more than 4 years presumbably they were detained in Afghanistan - so what were they doing there in the first place

Yemen and Saudi Arabia are a long way from Afghanistan as is France ,Britain Canada etc as you mentioned earlier.

Most of the people detained in Guantanamo were caught in Afghanistan Right ? -- Why were they there ?

was it Holidays ? Dont think so not much to see as the Taliban blew most of the historical bits up

were they Setting up business - wouldnt say so as the Taliban ground everything down into the ground

Were they backpackers ? In Afghanistan...are you nuts !

Oh now I remember a small terrorist organisation - Al Queda were based there, had something to do with planes and embassy bombings etc - they wanted an islamic world with islamic morals and strict adherence to islamic rules - like the Taliban - a lot of these guys went to afghanistan to join up with al queda or with the taliban to fight the americans and therefore wanted the same thing

They thought they could win against the americans in a a holy war

How dumb was that

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

one more question if a lot of these prisoners who have been incarcerated for more than 4 years presumbably they were detained in Afghanistan - so what were they doing there in the first place

Where? Afganistan? So now your saying by being in Afganistan your automatically a terrorist as well now?

While I haven't read all reports some I am aware of.
- Some of the brits went over for a wedding.
- A large number of people were just rounded up and handed over to the US troops and claimed they were Taliban to get the $2000-$25,000 reward.

Most of the people detained in Guantanamo were caught in Afghanistan Right ?

How would you know, considering a large number of the people the US is refusing to give out information on them?

Your excuses for people being in Gitmo are getting worse.

RedPlanet

So, according to Wolff any "foreigner" in Afghanistan was a terrorist.
Guilty until proven Innocent.

Does anybody know if the RedCross has had access to the cadavers of these 3?
Why should we believe the US version that these deaths occured in tandem?
They've shown their willingness to lie about everything else.

Wolff

Ah yeah the British lads went for a wedding in the middle of a warzone

as you would.....I seem to recall them going to the wedding in Pakistan but they must have gotten lost and ended up in Afghanistan oh no they were trying to arrange humanitarian aid and were captured by the northern alliance

Please.....


so if no one know how many or who is in guantanamo how do you know they are not terrorists

How do you know who is innocent and who isint

I think your arguements suffer from the same lack of information.

As Ive said before I think Gauntanamo is wrong but the people in there and the people out here with the same fundalmentalist beliefs need to be stopped using whatever methods nessecary.

bonkey

Wolff wrote:

emm no not saying that - saying they are probably better off in Guantanamo if they were child soldiers however unsatisfactory that is

Ah. I see. So we're back to the old "its not the worst, so you're wrong to complain" line of reasoning.

and the fact noboby seems to care they were child soldiers in the first place

What do you mean nobody seems to care?

Lets assume you're right. I don't believe you are, but for the sake of argument, lets assume there is no doubt but that these were - to a child - all child soldiers.

If I say (or anyone says) the conditions they are being held under in Guantanamo are not acceptable, how does that equate to me not caring that they were child soldiers? More importantly, in a discussion about Guantanamo, how does me making a comment about Guantanamo somehow give rise to a conclusion on a completely different topic?

Are we supposed to wax lyrical about everything tangentially related in order to make a point? Is the criticism of the conditions of Guantanamo - the point I'd be trying to make - somehow invalidated because I didn't make a load of other points at the same point on topics we're not discussing?

a misplaced sense of outrage - outrage they are locked up in Guantanamo but no outrage they were asked to die for Allah

Why don't you start a thread on the plight of children in Afghanistan and see who sides where before deciding what it is we think based no our wish to remain on-topic in a thread which doesn't address that point.

Or can I assume that because you haven't already started such a thread, you don't care about the plight of these kids at all ? THis would, incidentally, be the conclusion I should reach if I were to use your logic.

So which is it? You don't care, or your logic is flawed?

jc

InFront

It is very easy for people in the west to downplay the significance of these terrible suicides as PR. If the prisoners were being held in an agreeable prison and the prison was publicly accountable, then such suicides could be dismissed. But this is not the case, and we must entertain the possibility, dare I say probability, that these men killed themselves out of sheer desperation. Not to win a political debacle, but to highlight their suffering.

Incarceration without trial has occured in Ireland, although to less serious a degree, in the past. But what if, in the recent troubles, the British givernment built a Guantanamo under, say, John Major, on an island in the North sea, and used it to house people suspected of knowing about republican activities, depriving them of visitors and human rights? What if British troops were known to be putting the human dignity of these Catholic, republican suspects into jeoprady? There would be uproar. Do these prisoners deserve less uproar because they come from the 'wrong country' or believe in the 'wrong' religion?

While we cannot say the prisoners definitely killed themselves for reason of fear or desperation, we have to hold it as possible, and cannot brush it aside as propoganda.
All of these Guantanamo prisoners have unwittingly become heroes to the Islamic extremists. But such anti American feeling is being perpetuated by the very existence of these secret prisons, not three tragic suicides.

Hobbes

Wolff wrote:

Ah yeah the British lads went for a wedding in the middle of a warzone

Well it wasn't a warzone when they went there.

as you would.....I seem to recall them going to the wedding in Pakistan but they must have gotten lost and ended up in Afghanistan

Which is actually quite possible as Pakistan has no real border control between the two countries.

oh no they were trying to arrange humanitarian aid and were captured by the northern alliance

Are you sure your not talking about different people?

so if no one know how many or who is in guantanamo how do you know they are not terrorists

How do you know who is innocent and who isint

Well for starters the 100's already released as innocent after years being detained.

In this reality we have this thing of called "Innocent until proven guilty".

Victor

Odd the way the camp commander is calling this an "attack on America"

Sand wrote:

A Garda Superintendant can simply state that they have intelligence that youre a terrorist, and thats it. You are not allowed to see or challenge that intelligence.

However the Judges can challenge the evidence and don't necessarily take it at face value.

Victor

ISAW wrote:

Wrong! I spoke out against Saddam when Rumsfeld shook his hand and the US sold him weapons!

The USA never sold weapons to Iraq until approximately 2003/2004. They sold weapons to Egypt and Israel to that those countries could sell their Soviet-made stocks to Iraq and Saudi Arabia (who sold on to the mujahideen, the Taliban's predecessors).

I assured him that we would like to end the Guantanamo. We'd like it to be empty.

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

So even GW is now predicting the closure of Guantanamo. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060609-2.html

He's as much pointing to it's political awkwardness as a genuine desire to not hold people in such a manner.

Hagar

Has anybody here yet acknowledged that one of the men who hanged himdself was due to be released?
Why would the US release a dangerous terrorist?
The fact that they were about to would indicate that he was no danger to anyone, wouldn't it?

It seems that there are 141 men designated as "innocent" but who are not released because the US have nowhere to send them. How about sending them home? Couldn't they hitch a ride on one of the empty returning rendition flights?

Link to BBC News Story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm

Sand

Christ, this is going to be a long one....

अधिनायक:

The Special Criminal Court is not a good analogy for Guantanamo Bay. The SCC is a non-jury court established to deal with terrorists.

Victor:

However the Judges can challenge the evidence and don't necessarily take it at face value.

Its not perfect but it works. Prisoners in Gitmo are locked up on the basis of intelligence which can be of dubious quality. The SCC can convict you of terrorism on the basis of intelligence which can be of dubious quality. In both cases, you cannot examine or challenge the evidence against you. In both cases your rights are removed from you, due to the nature of the crime suspected. Would it really make any difference if Gitmo went through the motions, convicted them all as terrorists on the basis of the CIAs word of honour, sentenced to life with the possibility of sentence review should it come to pass they provide info and/or demonstrate that they really werent terrorists?

Using the same approach, I can assert that Hitler and is antics weren't really sich a big deal as German democracy seems to have survived it all just fine.

Only it wouldnt be a good analogy as Hitler overthrew German democracy to enact his program, where as Irish democracy was perfectly compatible with the SCC.

Of course, this would all be contingent on showing that today's terrorists are somehow different ot the terrorists of the past.

Better communications, easier global travel, easier access to greater destructive capability from biological and chemical weapons (not even considering fears of nuclear weapon security in the old Soviet empire) and of course easier distribution of training and idealogical material. Anarchists of the late 1800s early 1900s could assassinate a few politicians. Palestinians in the 1970s could highjack a few planes. It is widely expected that the West will lose a city to modern terrorism.

You seem to be saying there's no problem with not giving these people fair trials because they could be found guilty via unfair trials anyway.

Im saying that we Irish should know, better than most, that extraordinary measures must be taken to defeat terrorist groups. The SCC was one extraordinary measure, Gitmo is another. The SCC would have its critics, Gitmo has its critics. The SCC was vital in the fight against terrorism in Ireland, Gitmo is vital in holding terrorist suspects and keeping them out of circulation.

Is it internment? Yes, but again - Ireland successfully employed internment to destroy the old anti-treaty IRA south of the border, and indeed went to the extent of tit for tat executions of prisoners. It was bitter and hardly humane - but it successfuly defended Irish democracy from those who would have destroyed it. If only Weimar Germany had been strong enough to employ permament internment on a few groups I can think of.

So if their behaviour was (fully or partly) sinister,

3 simultaneous suicides. Its blatantly pre-meditated. For what purpose is debateable, but I think its fair to say they were attempting a PR coup. A successful one at that.

Are you suggesting there are no more innocents in GUantanamo? Or perhaps that the only reasons innoncents would still be there are basically of their own choosing?

Im countering allegations that they had no hope. If they are innocent, they can take heart from the fact that 300 have been released. The only people who have no hope in Gitmo are those who are terrorists. They will never leave for obvious reasons. In that enviroment, the best means a fanatic has of "dying for the cause" is to commit suicide for good PR. He will never leave to blow up that resteraunt he was hoping for so this is the next best thing. Maybe hell get 36 virgins...

One is entitled to a fair trial.

Not if youre accused of terrorism in Ireland. Then the definition of "fair" changes quite dramatically.

Is it just me, or do these two lines of reasoning conflict? Its wrong to complain about Gitmo either because its not the worst, or because there's something less bad we should complain about instead.

It comes down to this; Would you accept the SCC was a neccessary evil to defeat the Provos? If not, I respectfully disagree as if a gang of Limerick hoodlums can force state witnessess to withdraw their testimoney, then the Provos can inteference with juries and witnessess easily. If you do, then perhaps it might be fair to extend the same reasoning to the US and Gitmo.

And about trials - lets face it, the ICC was rescued from the humiliating prospect of Milosevic being found innocent of genocide by his death in custody. There was a slowly dawning realisation that Milosevic, despite clearly leading the Serbian ethnic cleansing might not be convicted because the prosecution couldnt specifically pin him down. All smoke, no fire. Do you really think if Al-Zarqawi had been captured alive last week, and the soldiers had forgotten to read him his rights or they didnt have a court order to go into the house that he should be released on a technicality? Just to demonstrate what a great and fair system democracy is?

most other prisions normally give you the common courtesy of actually charging you of a crime.

No they dont.

Hobbes:

Well in fairness the only reason its not a death camp is because the US administration haven't been able to get approval to put the gas chamber into the camp.

Why bother when they can just give them ropes?

Well, its about as funny as your joke.

Hobbes:

I can tell you now if I was jailed and being charged I would dam sure want evidence of the crimes I committed.

Then dont join up with a SF Dail Justice spokesman campaign team and drive around late at night in fake gardai uniforms and punishment beating gear in the back of your van. Only in Ireland eh?

Hobbes:

However the Taliban were the reconised rulers of Afganistan (by 3 countries, US being one of them) so capture of those forces would fall under the P.O.W. laws (even if they don't have a fixed uniform).

Yeah and the Nazis were the recognised rulers of Germany. Start a petition...

Gandalf:

The US has lost this war on terror the minute they opened the Gitmo Concentration Camp, they changed their values exactly to what the extremists wanted. Predicatable.

Much as Ireland lost its war against the IRA the moment it employed internment and the SCC.....oh wait

Does it not occur to you that prehaps they commited simultaneous suicide to draw attention to the hideous conditions in Gitmo?

Youd first have to demonstrate that conditions are hideous in Gitmo. Im skeptical given the initial reports of death marches on which 40% died have been proven to be....exaggerations of daily exercise routines. Id imagine between the forced feeding of hunger strikers and the psychological breaking of non-cooperative prisoners it can be quite an unpleasant experience. But for co-operative prisoners it can be at worst restrictive, or even almost Disneyland.

Hobbes:

btw some of the children released have detailed torture done on them. Good thing the US never signed up to "Declaration of the Rights of the Child".

Yeah, those bastards.

InFront:

It is very easy for people in the west to downplay the significance of these terrible suicides as PR. If the prisoners were being held in an agreeable prison and the prison was publicly accountable, then such suicides could be dismissed. But this is not the case, and we must entertain the possibility, dare I say probability, that these men killed themselves out of sheer desperation. Not to win a political debacle, but to highlight their suffering.

Actually if these suicides had occured in an ordinary prison, and were non-simultaneous (i.e. not blatantly premeditated) then it would be fair to assume it was to highlight their suffering. A premeditated 3 way suicide in a globally controversial jail holding terrorists and terrorist suspects? Other motivations come into play.

Its not like Bobby Sands hunger strike was because he was bored of four walls and no view and had given up hope of ever getting out. It was a (successful) PR attempt.

tallus

What has Bobby Sands got to do with Gitmo ? It's a poor comparison in my opinion, different times and different situation. the Hblock thing had a goal other than "pr" but you neglected to mention that. They were hungerstriking for political status wether you agree it or not, or you simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Sand

What has Bobby Sands got to do with Gitmo ? It's a poor comparison in my opinion, different times and different situation. the Hblock thing had a goal other than "pr" but you neglected to mention that. They were hungerstriking for political status wether you agree it or not, or you simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Not to go too far of the point (Sands was an example, not the topic) you want PR because you have an agenda...

tallus

No point in having an agenda if you die trying to achieve it , but that's just my opinion.
I suppose it's a measure of the amount desperation someone feels if they are willing to die for it without knowing if it will achieve it's aims.

अधिनायक

Sand wrote:

Its not perfect but it works. Prisoners in Gitmo are locked up on the basis of intelligence which can be of dubious quality. The SCC can convict you of terrorism on the basis of intelligence which can be of dubious quality. In both cases, you cannot examine or challenge the evidence against you. In both cases your rights are removed from you, due to the nature of the crime suspected. Would it really make any difference if Gitmo went through the motions, convicted them all as terrorists on the basis of the CIAs word of honour, sentenced to life with the possibility of sentence review should it come to pass they provide info and/or demonstrate that they really werent terrorists?

Yes it would make a huge difference if the detainees in Gitmo had actually been charged with any crimes, had lawyers to defend them and were tried by civilian judiciary. Can you see no benefit to a justice system? Do you believe police should be allowed to lock people up directly seeing as they always claim to know who did it.

Your argument is premised on the SCC being necessarily harsh but effective and that Gitmo is somehow similar. But there is no comparison betwen the two and there is no proof that the SCC was effective or that its unorthodox methods had a net positive effect give the various miscarriages of justice and encouragement to republicans to feel victimised that they provided.

The non-military judges in the SCC can request to see the secret evidence on which police accuse people of IRA membership. It has been uncommon for them to convict on this basis alone. Their verdicts are subject to appeal.

Essentially your argument seems to be that the only way to preserve our freedoms is to remove them. The desired end justifies the bloody means. This is the same argument used by the terrorists. It's a fantastic way to recruit more support for terrorists and to make criminal acts appear to be acts of war.

I was arrested under the prevention of terrorism act in 1989 in a port in the UK and held without charge for 2 days. I honestly believe it was because I had shaggy long red hair and looked like the cop imagined an Irish terrorist might look. I presume that most of the inmates in Guantanamo have been arrested based on the lengths of their beards.

Wolff

I reply to Hobbs - from the guardian

the three amigos

so looks like they went slap bang into the middle of the warzone...like you do when you are on holidays

also turns out the british themselves handed them over to the americans and no money was involved as bounties to the Northern Alliance...another myth dispelled

also a lot of the current detainees cant be released as their own countries dont want them back




Rasul, 26, Ahmed, 22, and Iqbal, 22, were boyhood friends from the Midlands town of Tipton. In Septem ber 2001 they travelled to Pakistan ahead of the marriage Iqbal's parents had arranged for him to a woman in Faisalabad. Ahmed was to be best man; Rasul hoped to do a computer course after the wedding.

The three were in no sense fundamentalists: their brand of Islam, they say, was never that of the Taliban. But like many young Muslims in Pakistan they crossed the border into Afghanistan in October 2001, as it became clear that, in the wake of the 11 September attacks on America, one of the poorest countries in the world was about to be attacked. They had no intention of joining the fighting, they insist, but only of giving humanitarian aid. In England, none of them was rich, but in Asia, the little money they had could go a long way. For a short time they used the savings accumulated for their trip to buy food and medical supplies for Afghan villagers.

But in Taliban-led Afghanistan one aspect of their appearance made them dangerously visible - they had no beards. Travelling through a bombed landscape, they tried to escape in a taxi. But instead of reaching safety they were driven further into danger - to the city of Kunduz, which was promptly surrounded and bombarded by Dostum's troops. Aware that a bloodbath was imminent, they tried to leave on a convoy of trucks but their own vehicle was shelled, killing almost everyone on board. 'We were trapped,' says Iqbal. 'There was nothing we could do but give ourselves up. They took our money, our shoes, all our warm clothes, and put us in lines.'

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm not entirely sure I see the correlation between a statistical claim of some 50% innocence with the subsequent clause in the same sentence about a lack of proof.

NTM

Yeah I agree. they should be assumed 100 per cent innocent of any criminal charges until evidence is apparent. Indeed some of them have already been released without charge.

ISAW

Wolff wrote:

I never said it was fine for America to do anything !

You stated to paraphrase "but others are doing bad things as well"
1. the arguement isnt about others it is about the US.
2. If they are also doing it then so are the US

I said it all has to be taken in context.....

No it does NOT! See 1 above.

one more question if a lot of these prisoners who have been incarcerated for more than 4 years presumbably they were detained in Afghanistan - so what were they doing there in the first place

I dont know! which means you assume innocence. Maybe they were farming goats. Maybe they were going to a funeral like the Birmingham six or Guildford Four. Maybe they were having breakfast like the Maguire seven. "sll people in Afghanistan in 2002 must have been a terrorist2 isnt a strong argument really is it?

>Yemen and Saudi Arabia are a long way from Afghanistan as is France ,Britain Canada etc as you mentioned earlier.

I have no idea what you mean by this statement

Most of the people detained in Guantanamo were caught in Afghanistan Right ?

Were they? I have no idea? care to elucidate?

-- Why were they there ?

I suppose to be trite maybe because they wer Afghans who actually lived there in Afghanistan.

was it Holidays ? Dont think so not much to see as the Taliban blew most of the historical bits up

I think you should research this and you migh find that some were farmers and some were sold for bounty to US troops with the claim that they were terrorists. You know J'accuse! Ever heard of it? Ever heard of the Dreyfuss Case?

were they Setting up business - wouldnt say so as the Taliban ground everything down into the ground

I thnk I can see where your argument is going. Is this a version of the "bomb a couontry flat" argument or the "support a dictatorship which destroys a country" argument. According to this arguemtn one can then invade arrest and detain anyone left in the country since they should have left when you were bombing it flat or when your sponsored dictatorship was killing the people.

Were they backpackers ? In Afghanistan...are you nuts !

So now you are claiming that no westerner even backpackers are in Afghanistan, to which I say "tree falling in the woods, terr falling in the woods, tree falling in the woods"
How do you know?

Oh now I remember a small terrorist organisation - Al Queda were based there, had something to do with planes and embassy bombings etc - they wanted an islamic world with islamic morals and strict adherence to islamic rules -

Would this be the Osama Bin Laden led Al Queda? The Osama which the US sponsored in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Just as they sponsored the MuJIHADeen? Does your memory go back that far? Or did you only come in when Rocky IV was screened?

like the Taliban - a lot of these guys went to afghanistan to join up with al queda or with the taliban to fight the americans and therefore wanted the same thing

Yes it seeems you forgot the earlier bit. thats the bit where fundamentalists structures were enabled and supported by the US.

They thought they could win against the americans in a a holy war

You sound a bit like Dubya with his "crusade" speech on 9/13. Do you understand that the main goal of the fundies is to unite the Muslim world first and not to attack the west?

ISAW

Wolff wrote:

Ah yeah the British lads went for a wedding in the middle of a warzone

as you would.....I seem to recall them going to the wedding in Pakistan but they must have gotten lost and ended up in Afghanistan oh no they were trying to arrange humanitarian aid and were captured by the northern alliance
...

How do you know who is innocent and who isint

I think your arguements suffer from the same lack of information.

It seems you do not understand the principle of assumed INNOCENT until guilt is PROVEN BY EVIDENCE.

You remind me of the old type of arguement ina rape case of "she was wearing a short skiry your honour. if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck"

You cant say Gitmo ioos wrong and then also justify rounding up innocent people into concentration camps.

Wolff

are you drunk ?

Stark

Wolff wrote:

How do you know who is innocent and who isint

A little thing we call a court case.

Something which the detainees in Guantanamo haven't received.

Wolff

I dont care if ducks want to go around in miniskirts

what i do care about is the blatant anti american stuff that goes on around here and the constant stating of half truths and lies

Yes Osama benefited from the CIA - took their money when he decided hed had enough of his fathers money

Yes the Mujhadeen took the money as well but they would since they were fighting the russians and the Mujhadeen were not the Taliban

The americans supported Ho Chi Minh during the second world war as well or can you not remember back that far either

The americans always support those when it suits their own interest....

Hell they even supported those damn commies as well before they fell out with them.

I dont see your point - its a well known fact that most foreigners in Afghanistan at the time of the war were there as guests of Al queda - they werent there goat farming or having a look around - they were there for no good reason and you know it.

The Americans know guantanamo is not legal or right in an ideal world but the gloves have come off and the world we live in and the type of war they are involved in demands harsh treatment.

Answer me one question - would you rather be an american soldier captured by the taliban or a taliban soldier captured by the americans.....