WOW! Let's examine your little clip here.
Tyler Durden
"Care to Avoid harming Muslims"?
Your statement was that the US took special care in avoiding harm to Muslims. In this case we have Muslims tortured at Guantanamo and now angry as hell. And you expected...what?
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm : : Despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to : : renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners : : of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have : : returned to terrorism, at times with deadly : : consequences.
Wow! Tortured prisoners signed statements and then went back on their promises? The nerve! Note the incredible linguistic bias. "Returned to terrorism?...That's a laughable statement for people who returned to their own country to fight an invader. And the word "Despite" it's arguable even more hilarious. And of course, your quote of this piece in this context points to your ever-present logic of "They're more evil than we are therefore it's OK if we fuck them over".
: : Additional former detainees have expressed a desire : : to rejoin the fight, be it against U.N. peacekeepers : : in Afghanistan, Americans in Iraq or Russian : : soldiers in Chechnya.
Hum. Muislims helping Muslims to push the US or Russians out of their occupied countries. I've seen worse uses for religion. But more importantly, are you seeing where this is headed? Let's forget differing ideologies and get really, really practical here. If you or I were grabbed in our own country and brought 7000 miles away, and then tortured for 2 years, wouldn't you most likely become convinced that the torturing nation was a great evil that had to be stopped? Even more, what if your life sucked in your own country and you didn't have a lot to live for anyway? The violence sown by Western powers will continue to result in further Septemeber 11ths. Simply increasing the scope or intensity (a la Iraq II) isn't going to make things better. -TD
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG gZPWnxSpOCzn/7t/pyram/Z9ixbExE1haS5OzFBm 4i6xvRLGqBtHJfp8bm6GLFqF6pwABThwj/PjOpaVx
_________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
-- Tyler Durden
Your statement was that the US took special care in avoiding harm to Muslims. In this case we have Muslims tortured at Guantanamo and now angry as hell. And you expected...what?
I expected them to be KEPT in Guantanamo. Furthermore, they were not tortured, though they should have been. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG wCUg52ZJNzaMD0ZPioMTruGISGd3DDwU6jUMELl/ 41LiTXyUsja0zJksTRtCgVaYxSideYIzzbGD/3Qq5
Re: Gitmo And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured? Wow, you are good... or phrased another way, what brand of crack are you smokin' 'cause the rest of us thin it's some really good shit and would like to have some too... ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ <--*-->:and our people, and neither do we." -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + : War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
I expected them to be KEPT in Guantanamo.
Furthermore, they were not tortured, though they should have been.
-- On 20 Oct 2004 at 13:05, Sunder wrote:
Re: Gitmo
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured?
Lots of murderous terrorists have been released from Guatanamo, and in the nearly all cases the most serious of their complaints make it sound like a beach resort, except for the fact that they could not leave. A few have more serious complaints. Either they are lying or, those who say they were well treated apart from being held captive are lying. It is hard to believe that people like Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane (who after release announced his intention to resume terrorist activities and that he would attempt to murder his hosts who lobbied to get him release) are lying to cover up torture by the US army. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Meu5wR4zsEnwQaSoYnwnxQo72h782HS6ulS1SVk4 4T0/nieL1lPNTnXWv1TDyaVzHPZZ4tnKN/PpnAawT
I repeat: And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured? And I add: And you were there and witnessed the attrocities that said prisoners committed in order to be placed in Gitmo? No? to both questions? Then your comment is worthless. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ <--*-->:and our people, and neither do we." -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + : War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
-- On 20 Oct 2004 at 13:05, Sunder wrote:
Re: Gitmo
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured?
Lots of murderous terrorists have been released from Guatanamo, and in the nearly all cases the most serious of their complaints make it sound like a beach resort, except for the fact that they could not leave.
A few have more serious complaints. Either they are lying or, those who say they were well treated apart from being held captive are lying. It is hard to believe that people like Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane (who after release announced his intention to resume terrorist activities and that he would attempt to murder his hosts who lobbied to get him release) are lying to cover up torture by the US army.
-- On 20 Oct 2004 at 21:27, Sunder wrote:
I repeat:
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured?
We know torture did not occur, because lots of people have been released who were and are extremely hostile to the US, and who do not claim torture.
And you were there and witnessed the attrocities that said prisoners committed in order to be placed in Gitmo?
Why do you assert that the US must be guilty unless it can be proven innocent by extraordinary evidence, but the detainees must be innocent unless they can be proven guilty by extraordinary evidence? Doubtless there are some innocents in Gautenamo - but the usual reason they are there is for being foreigners in Afghanistan in the middle of a war with no adequate explanation. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG PwxWpHJKrzapMUAE8Xc1hvpY0CWDO780ZY/6zW7b 4b9RBklMS97dzSSANw7jVcZlASDxbNnLMhwLptK+Z
I made no claims, you did, rather I asked you sarcastically to validate your claims, after which you further assumed on top of other mistaken assumptions, that I made claims countering yours, which I did not. Perhaps you should examine your own words. IMHO, you are a misguided armchair general who sees yourself as equal to those scumbags that have risen in power to lead or enslave nations since you seem to constantly say "they should have done X, and not Y" and are constantly seeking to go against with reality with "W should be the case, not X" even though W cannot happen while X does. Yes, that is my unprofessional opinion. And yet, while impotent to achive your views of reality, you insist on sharing it, as if anyone gives a rats ass. It was entertaining, but it's getting old. I doubt that it would be long before you'll be sporting a tin foil hat. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ <--*-->:and our people, and neither do we." -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + : War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
-- On 20 Oct 2004 at 21:27, Sunder wrote:
I repeat:
And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured?
We know torture did not occur, because lots of people have been released who were and are extremely hostile to the US, and who do not claim torture.
And you were there and witnessed the attrocities that said prisoners committed in order to be placed in Gitmo?
Why do you assert that the US must be guilty unless it can be proven innocent by extraordinary evidence, but the detainees must be innocent unless they can be proven guilty by extraordinary evidence?
Doubtless there are some innocents in Gautenamo - but the usual reason they are there is for being foreigners in Afghanistan in the middle of a war with no adequate explanation.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG PwxWpHJKrzapMUAE8Xc1hvpY0CWDO780ZY/6zW7b 4b9RBklMS97dzSSANw7jVcZlASDxbNnLMhwLptK+Z
-- On 21 Oct 2004 at 10:26, Sunder wrote:
IMHO, you are a misguided armchair general who sees yourself as equal to those scumbags that have risen in power to lead or enslave nations since you seem to constantly say "they should have done X, and not Y"
When people are under attack, you cannot tell them to suck it up, which is what you are doing. If we had no government, we might well be doing pogroms against american muslims - and a good thing to. War causes governments, and causes governments to gain power, but the US government was not the aggressor in this war. US government meddling in the middle east was unwise and unnecessary, but it did not provoke, nor does it justify, this war. The intent of a large minority of muslims was to start a holy war between the west and Islam, and the majority of muslims lack the will or courage to stop them, or even criticize them. That was not the intent of Americans, or the American government. They started it, they meant to start it. Americans tried to avoid it, some of them are still trying to avoid it. All Americans are still trying to conduct the war on the smallest possible scale, against the smallest possible subset of Islam, disagreeing only on how small that subset can be. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG YeXgmiDN23gKNejAXLPSgfGxzFPVqFa/9pEDbWNr 41sYVdSvXQCEQniQVEIYWhWw2HjtvpvuHtQ0QXUaI
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:43:16AM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
When people are under attack, you cannot tell them to suck it up, which is what you are doing. If we had no government, we
I'm not under attack. Are you? The Ghengis Khan thing's been a while back.
might well be doing pogroms against american muslims - and a good thing to.
This ways lies much rotting severed heads on stakes, and screaming. We've been there before. No need for a repetition.
War causes governments, and causes governments to gain power, but the US government was not the aggressor in this war. US
Your reality model is rather unique. Given that what your alleged representatives are doing results in massive loss of prestige, you don't want to associate with defectors. That stink's going to cling for a while.
government meddling in the middle east was unwise and unnecessary, but it did not provoke, nor does it justify, this war.
The intent of a large minority of muslims was to start a holy war between the west and Islam, and the majority of muslims
The only war there is was started by ShrubCo, and was tacitly approved by about half of your countrymen. This isn't Nuremberg, but I color your guilty.
lack the will or courage to stop them, or even criticize them. That was not the intent of Americans, or the American government. They started it, they meant to start it. Americans
Ha ha.
tried to avoid it, some of them are still trying to avoid it. All Americans are still trying to conduct the war on the smallest possible scale, against the smallest possible subset of Islam, disagreeing only on how small that subset can be.
Your reality distortion field manages to make bearded fanatics look good. Quite an accomplishment. Herr Reichspropagandaminister would have been proud. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
No you imbecile, I'm telling no one anything, other than you to get a clue. Where did I tell people who are under attack to suck it up? All I did was point out that you weren't there and therefore any comment you care to make about it is bound to be flawed. Please find yourself a clue store and open your wallet - wide. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ <--*-->:and our people, and neither do we." -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + : War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
-- On 21 Oct 2004 at 10:26, Sunder wrote:
IMHO, you are a misguided armchair general who sees yourself as equal to those scumbags that have risen in power to lead or enslave nations since you seem to constantly say "they should have done X, and not Y"
When people are under attack, you cannot tell them to suck it up, which is what you are doing. If we had no government, we might well be doing pogroms against american muslims - and a good thing to.
War causes governments, and causes governments to gain power, but the US government was not the aggressor in this war. US government meddling in the middle east was unwise and unnecessary, but it did not provoke, nor does it justify, this war.
The intent of a large minority of muslims was to start a holy war between the west and Islam, and the majority of muslims lack the will or courage to stop them, or even criticize them. That was not the intent of Americans, or the American government. They started it, they meant to start it. Americans tried to avoid it, some of them are still trying to avoid it. All Americans are still trying to conduct the war on the smallest possible scale, against the smallest possible subset of Islam, disagreeing only on how small that subset can be.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG YeXgmiDN23gKNejAXLPSgfGxzFPVqFa/9pEDbWNr 41sYVdSvXQCEQniQVEIYWhWw2HjtvpvuHtQ0QXUaI
-- On 21 Oct 2004 at 13:41, Sunder wrote:
No you imbecile, I'm telling no one anything, other than you to get a clue. Where did I tell people who are under attack to suck it up?
When you tell us it is horrible to lock up in Gautenamo people who show every sign of trying to kill us , and that we deserve their past efforts to kill us, efforts that some of them promptly resumed on release. We are under attack, and you are telling us to suck it up. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bsIXWc4h29VIJkgExpNjUGgUXb/7oelyrYSTY5hy 4z2stYnmTb7JHw3AHWCBnz9grbOob/owyJwY6xDJS
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
On 21 Oct 2004 at 13:41, Sunder wrote:
No you imbecile, I'm telling no one anything, other than you to get a clue. Where did I tell people who are under attack to suck it up?
When you tell us it is horrible to lock up in Gautenamo people who show every sign of trying to kill us ,
Which is why your great white leader is releasing them?
and that we deserve their past efforts to kill us,
We do.
efforts that some of them promptly resumed on release. We are under attack, and you are telling us to suck it up.
No. We are under attack by those DEFENDING THEMSELVES. We shouldn't be doing anything put putting a bullet into Georgies brain (not that any projectile is likely to find a target consisting entirely of two already deficient cells, but...) and minding our own business. Oh, and cutting off every single nickel of funding to our partners in the mass-murderer olympics - Israel.
--digsig James A. Donald
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
-- James A. Donald wrote:
We are under attack, and you are telling us to suck it up.
J.A. Terranson
No. We are under attack by those DEFENDING THEMSELVES.
All of the terrorists came from countries that were beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help. Saudi Arabia was certainly not under attack. If they were Palestinians, and they hit the Pentagon but not the two towers, then they would be defending themselves. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG TazBQdvcQ8iq915Dug3d8ZVm8QLxZw7X3TzUYyIl 4DkboB4fOyw1vcB2E48rceVjwQYN583Qs6efqDL8Z
Where did I write to you that it's horrible thing to lock people up in Gitmo, or that "we" (whomever that is) deserve to be attacked? Show me the email, with headers that says such a thing. Oh, wait, you can't, because I never wrote such. Let's see, so you've got lots of people questioning your version of various events, and you've got claims that various people wrote things that they did not, and lots of people challenging the accuracy and indeed, truth of your statements. Hmmm... So what is the obvious conclusion there? The whole world must be against you? Nah, you're not important enough to be paranoid. So, what is the obvious conclusion? No, no, 2+2 is not 5, even for extremely large values of 2... Come on, come on, out with it, say it, say it... That's right! *Ding* you're reality challenged. Ah! There, doesn't that feel better? Now, please, go back and take your meds before the nice men in the white coats come to take you to the funny farm. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ <--*-->:and our people, and neither do we." -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + : War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
-- On 21 Oct 2004 at 13:41, Sunder wrote:
No you imbecile, I'm telling no one anything, other than you to get a clue. Where did I tell people who are under attack to suck it up?
When you tell us it is horrible to lock up in Gautenamo people who show every sign of trying to kill us , and that we deserve their past efforts to kill us, efforts that some of them promptly resumed on release. We are under attack, and you are telling us to suck it up.
At 02:20 AM 10/21/2004, James A. Donald wrote:
Doubtless there are some innocents in Gautenamo - but the usual reason they are there is for being foreigners in Afghanistan in the middle of a war with no adequate explanation.
At 09:21 AM 10/22/2004, James A. Donald wrote:
J.A. Terranson
No. We are under attack by those DEFENDING THEMSELVES. All of the terrorists came from countries that were beneficiaries of an immense amount of US help.
James - Many, perhaps most, of the POWs at Gitmo weren't foreigners, they were Afghans. Many of the POWs at Gitmo probably were Al-Qaeda or other organized paramilitary groups. But many of them were described by the US propagandists as "Taliban fighters" - the military arm of the local central government who were "legitimate" to the extent that any group of warlords who are the current king of the hill are legitimate, and not too many months before the invasion, the US government was giving those same Taliban $43million because they were so helpful in our War on Drugs. And sure, they're a nasty bunch, but so are many of the anti-communist military juntas the US supported over the years. It wasn't like the US didn't know the Taliban were tolerating anti-American terrorist groups at the time - Clinton's Pentagon had bombed some of the camps in ~97 as well as the Sudan medical factory in response to bin Laden's bombing of the US embassies in Africa. Also, perhaps you don't realize this, but many countries with central governments do allow foreigners to stay there, whether as immigrants, tourists, guestworkers, businessmen, students, or attendees of terrorist training camps like the School of the Americas or the Osama bin Laden gang. Countries without effective central governments are usually more flexible about such things, and cultures that are tribally organized with colonialist-drawn boundaries are also less likely to be picky about it, though they may be more picky about whose tribal land you're in. ---- Bill Stewart bill.stewart@pobox.com
-- On 22 Oct 2004 at 11:12, Bill Stewart wrote:
James - Many, perhaps most, of the POWs at Gitmo weren't foreigners, they were Afghans. Many of the POWs at Gitmo probably were Al-Qaeda or other organized paramilitary groups. But many of them were described by the US propagandists as "Taliban fighters" - the military arm of the local central government who were "legitimate" to the extent that any group of warlords who are the current king of the hill are legitimate,
Firstly, much of the Taliban is Pakistani, not Afghan. Secondly, if the Taliban were legitimate, their enemies may lock them up for the duration of the war as POWs, Since some elements of the Taliban have not laid down their arms, Taliban prisoners may held for the duration, as POWs, even if they fought in a manner equivalent to fighting in uniform. The Taliban were illegitimate, not on legal grounds, but because they were evil. If someone was in the Taliban, then those threatened by the Taliban have a strong case for locking him up, just as we locked up nazis. Thirdly a government that systematically depopulates large areas of the territory it supposedly rules is not as legitimate as warlords with genuine local roots and traditional authority, who for the most part came to power through religious or military leadership in a spontaneous revolution against tyranny. No one in the Northern alliance ever controlled territory though ethnic cleansing. I can easily imagine circumstances where ethnic cleansing is a legitimate response to an intransigent enemy with strong roots in the local population - but the fact that the Taliban used such measures shows they did not have strong roots in the local population. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG CDUSjXr1dmDzlVeda1332HqM96GZ31CTX2n8IhAm 4Cc7h7PYP1ZhoxEDC8UNo32CFcXQrpBdEEegTPYZ1
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
The Taliban were illegitimate, not on legal grounds, but because they were evil.
Using this line of "reasoning", Shrub is ripe for that overdue case of high velocity lead poisoning.
If someone was in the Taliban, then those threatened by the Taliban have a strong case for locking him up, just as we locked up nazis. Thirdly a government that systematically depopulates large areas of the territory it supposedly rules is not as legitimate as warlords with genuine local roots and traditional authority, who for the most part came to power through religious or military leadership in a spontaneous revolution against tyranny.
And if the local warlords are also participating in a vast depopulation, then what?
No one in the Northern alliance ever controlled territory though ethnic cleansing.
I can easily imagine circumstances where ethnic cleansing is a legitimate response to an intransigent enemy with strong roots in the local population - but the fact that the Taliban used such measures shows they did not have strong roots in the local population.
You don't see a circular problem here? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
-- James A. Donald:
The Taliban were illegitimate, not on legal grounds, but because they were evil.
J.A. Terranson
Using this line of "reasoning", Shrub is ripe for that overdue case of high velocity lead poisoning.
Doubtless he is, but to suggest that he is comparably evil to the taliban casts doubt on your sanity. James A. Donald:
Thirdly a government that systematically depopulates large areas of the territory it supposedly rules is not as legitimate as warlords with genuine local roots and traditional authority, who for the most part came to power through religious or military leadership in a spontaneous revolution against tyranny.
J.A. Terranson
And if the local warlords are also participating in a vast depopulation, then what?
But the "Warlords" are not. Under the Taliban, huge numbers of people fled Afghanistan, under the Northern alliance, they returned. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG qMEkoNR+blkRZmztAFF4sDeSBoKW6Qe4JhwStmV 4j0SHTtKdNY/S/nI2Tmj5ngKX5y1hL7JFg7xma9t5
participants (6)
-
Bill Stewart -
Eugen Leitl -
J.A. Terranson -
James A. Donald -
Sunder -
Tyler Durden