War against terror

[breaker44 0]

Gee, which is worse, pissing on the Quran, or blowing up a building? Or two. Hell, it doesnt piss me off that Marylin Manson pisses on bibles, cuz it doesn't hurt me. If you ask me, those who are deeply offended by a wet book need to re-analyze their priorities.

-Breaker Out

[EiZei 0]

4-->

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif[/img]4)]Gee, which is worse, pissing on the Quran, or blowing up a building? Or two. Hell, it doesnt piss me off that Marylin Manson pisses on bibles, cuz it doesn't hurt me. If you ask me, those who are deeply offended by a wet book need to re-analyze their priorities.

-Breaker Out

Yeah, you are right..

The USAF blowing up buildings is indeed far worse than some holy book crap.

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]The USAF blowing up buildings is indeed far worse than some holy book crap.

I'd rather the USAF blow up buildings because I know they are doing it to protect the USA. Its alot better some terrorist walking into some big NYC mall and kill countless people because they hate america.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]The USAF blowing up buildings is indeed far worse than some holy book crap.

I'd rather the USAF blow up buildings because I know they are doing it to protect the USA. Its alot better some terrorist walking into some big NYC mall and kill countless people because they hate america.

Too bad the latter seems to happen much more rarely..

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]The USAF blowing up buildings is indeed far worse than some holy book crap.

I'd rather the USAF blow up buildings because I know they are doing it to protect the USA. Its alot better some terrorist walking into some big NYC mall and kill countless people because they hate america.

And in their view they undoubtedly blew up buildings to protect the Muslim world. The US doesn't hold the sole view of "self-protection." Thats the trouble with Bush's black and white "evil doer" mentality.

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]And in their view they undoubtedly blew up buildings to protect the Muslim world.

Most of the muslim world would disagree with both you and Eizel.

[Nemesis6 0]

I'd just like to comment on one of Miles' posts. I think it was Amnesty International who compared Gitmo to a Gulag. This goes to prove what nutjobs they are. They don't know what's going on there, yet they compare it to a place where millions of people were killed. This goes to show that when Amnesty International aren't hassling people getting off the Metro, they're just plain idiots.

About not having to answer to the U.N. - The U.S. shouldn't have to abide by anything that sham organization says. The U.N. pretty much acts as a proxy for all those badguys trying to de-legitimize Israel and America. I refer you to the Durban conferance. A total sham.

[SFWanabe 0]

Yea I agree that Amnesty International is nothing more than a stupid hippie group.

[EiZei 0]

Yea I agree that Amnesty International is nothing more than a stupid hippie group.

.. the same hippie group rummie himself used reports from to badmouth saddam?

Quote[/b] ]

And in their view they undoubtedly blew up buildings to protect the Muslim world.

Most of the muslim world would disagree with both you and Eizel.

I find your tendency to put word's in other people's mouth rather tedious. It was about the views of the bombers.

[SFWanabe 0]

Yea I agree that Amnesty International is nothing more than a stupid hippie group.

.. the same hippie group rummie himself used reports from to badmouth saddam?

Quote[/b] ]

And in their view they undoubtedly blew up buildings to protect the Muslim world.

Most of the muslim world would disagree with both you and Eizel.

I find your tendency to put word's in other people's mouth rather tedious. It was about the views of the bombers.

Yeas the same hippie group and I dont care much for bush or his lackeys. Also I havent put words in nobody's mouth if you watch the news and read a few books like I have then you will know that 90% of Muslims think that these terrorists have hijacked they're relgion in order to justify they're killing of innocent people. I also knew what you and Akria were trying to say too.

[breaker44 0]

Akira, some might say you think the WTC thing was justified?

Yeah, Ezei, that's exactly what I was implying. Not to mention all the folks (civilians) blown up in Israel, those blown up in Iraq, those blown up in the 'Stan, gee, all civilians, and all by Al-Queda (whatever) forces.

Anyway, torture is justified, in this case, to save the lives of the innocent, I don't give a rat's ass whether some terrorist shit has to be deprived of some priveledge or another. That pecker lost those rights when he took a life. He signed is own warrant, and that's all there is to it.

It's amazing, none of the "Devil's Island" cases were ever really talked about here, nor was Bataan, nor Saddam's own prisons, but yet, one terrorist starts crying crocodile tears at the US, and the whole world goes on a crusade to villify us.

-Breaker Out

[miles teg 1]

Yea I agree that Amnesty International is nothing more than a stupid hippie group.

.. the same hippie group rummie himself used reports from to badmouth saddam?

Quote[/b] ]

And in their view they undoubtedly blew up buildings to protect the Muslim world.

Most of the muslim world would disagree with both you and Eizel.

I find your tendency to put word's in other people's mouth rather tedious. It was about the views of the bombers.

Yeas the same hippie group and I dont care much for bush or his lackeys. Also I havent put words in nobody's mouth if you watch the news and read a few books like I have then you will know that 90% of Muslims think that these terrorists have hijacked they're relgion in order to justify they're killing of innocent people. I also knew what you and Akria were trying to say too.

Where did you get 90% from out of curiosity? I find that it varies extensively from country to country. But there is most definitely NOT a strong love of the United States in the Middle East. However, because Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya (and a few other Arab networks) have toned down their anti-US rhetoric and tried to have more balanced coverage, perceptions may be slowly changing....maybe but I would not say that 90% of all Muslims believe that terrorists have hijacked their religion. Its more complicated then that. Probably that percentage do not believe in what terrorists did in 9/11 or what they are doing killing fellow Muslims in Iraq. But if you asked if Palistinian sucide bombers were legitimately defending themselves using those tactics, you would probably get a very different answer.

Anyways, I was just curious where you got that 90%.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]I was just curious where you got that 90%.

Because 90% of them follow exactly what the Koran says and the Koran preaches peace.

[miles teg 1]

I'd just like to comment on one of Miles' posts. I think it was Amnesty International who compared Gitmo to a Gulag. This goes to prove what nutjobs they are. They don't know what's going on there, yet they compare it to a place where millions of people were killed. This goes to show that when Amnesty International aren't hassling people getting off the Metro, they're just plain idiots.

About not having to answer to the U.N. - The U.S. shouldn't have to abide by anything that sham organization says. The U.N. pretty much acts as a proxy for all those badguys trying to de-legitimize Israel and America. I refer you to the Durban conferance. A total sham.

Why was the Durban conference a totaly sham? Could you state in a little more detail what was such a sham about it?

Also I agree that the comparison of US terrorist prisons to the Soviet Gulag was indeed a pretty big exaggeration, but the point they were making is that torture is being conducted in these prisons. Even the FBI says so.

So as much as you guys hate Amnesty International, they have for many many years performed a vital service of documenting human rights abuses all over the world and have not been biased towards any country in particular.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]but the point they were making is that torture is being conducted in these prisons. Even the FBI says so.

Just because one FBI memo hints of torture doesnt mean there is any. Also unless you've been sitting in on the questioning then you arent the one to say wheather torture is being put into use or not.

Quote[/b] ]So as much as you guys hate Amnesty International, they have for many many years performed a vital service of documenting human rights abuses all over the world and have not been biased towards any country in particular.

Well this time Amnesty International is being biased against the USA and were using this to voice they're bias views.

[miles teg 1]

Ok so I guess then that the FBI, Amnesty International, and the International Red Cross are all liars and totally biased then eh?

Ok dude. I'm just making an opinon based off of the information that has been forthcoming. So far there hasn't bee much to prove that torture isn't being done. Nobody gets to watch interrogations aside from interrogators, guards, and intelligence officials all of whom have extremely high level passes. Also I'm not saying that all interrogation is torture. But that almost certainly it has been done. From the FBI memo there seems to be a radically different approach between the techniques US military intelligence people use during interrogation and those that the FBI uses.

But like I said, that's just my opinion based on the facts put before me. The only way they can disprove all of this stuff is if they had international observers monitoring the interrogations. How about have some Norwegians or Swedes or some country like that monitor them? Whats the big deal if we're truly doing what we say we're doing to the prisoners?

Do you think that those trips by Congressman to the prisons prove anything? I believe it was a former GITMO guard or an FBI guy that said that those trips were just dog & pony shows with everything set up to make the place look spic n' span and very humanitarian....until the congressmen and senators left.

But anyways, I'm still curious why you think Amnesty International is biased when they have made SCATHING reports about the humanitarian conditions in many countries that are our enemies as well as those who are our allies.

Do you think that its bad that some organization exhists to monitor human rights abuses. I agree that they should not exaggerate things, but do you think its wrong that they voice criticims against the United States if they in fact do have evidence of human rights abuses???

If their is evidence of human rights abuses in our prisons do you think we should just stick our heads in the sand and say "Blalalahalblalha I can't hear you! They are all guilty in there and should be anal raped" and just condem all the prisoners as guilty evil American killing terrorists without ever looking at individual cases or without ever looking at what the rest of the world sees us as being because of these abuses?

Should then an American citizen be given the exact same treatment if someone accuses them of being a terrorist?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SFWanabe 0]

Who said anything about anyone being lairs?! I said that just because one FBI memo(which could have been mis-quoated by the press) hints torture doesnt mean that theres is any torture. I also said that none of us here can make the claim that there is or isnt any torture being conducted but you dont seem to get that.

Quote[/b] ]But like I said, that's just my opinion based on the facts put before me. The only way they can disprove all of this stuff is if they had international observers monitoring the interrogations.

Why should there be? No one has monitored the interrogations by the Israelis of they're captured terrorists or the British interrogation of captured IRA members or Russian interrogations of captured Chechens. I dont see any reason why America should be the first. When all of those countries have has accustaions of brutal torture.

Quote[/b] ]I'm still curious why you think Amnesty International is biased when they have made SCATHING reports about the humanitarian conditions in many countries that are our enemies as well as those who are our allies.

Well I'm sure you didnt know that the woman who made the comment about GITMO has had a long history of being anti-american.

[miles teg 1]

Right it is just one memo.  Normally things like that don't come flooding out of the offices of intelligence agencies. it is also telling that the FBI agency did not deny the validity of the memo. All in all it actually cast the FBI in a very good light oddly enough as suprisingly these agents seemed concerned about human rights issue. 

All I am saying is that the weight of the evidence coupled with the US military even admitting abuses (not to mention the HORRIFIC evidence of the shit they were doing in Abu Graeb) seems to indicate that yes, we torture prisoners.  

Also yes, you are right, nobody usually allows international inspectors, but also more then likely those countries you mentioned did torture prisoners.  The British did some truly horrific things in Northern Ireland (and vice versa so did the IRA).  Likewise in Sierra Leonne I have a friend with first hand knowledge into some of the brutal tactics the British "peacekeepers" were involved with their.   As for Israel..well that goes without saying.  But... I have seen evidence that they've become more professional and sophisticated in handling captured terrorists over the years.  

As for the Russians... lol... the words "Russian military" and "human rights" do not go together.  Nobody knows the true number of Chechnyan civilians that have been murdered there over the years, but from what has leaked out, it looks like the Russians do use very brutal tactics including abduction, torture, and murder.

Now America seems to be just joining the list.  

Its not good to compare America to the rest of the world.  Just because other countries tortured people doesn't mean that America should.  Like it or not, we are currently the #1 superpower in the world and are supposed to be the standardbearers of freedom, democracy, and the champions of human rights.  How can the rest of the world take us seriously with all of the evidence coming forth that we torture people?  

You say that you don't make a claim that there is or isn't any torture but yet you seem to get all upset because I'm claiming that there is.  I mean what do you call Abu Graeb?  What do you call official statements by the Pentagon admitting to abuses at GITMO and at the prisons in Afghanistan?  

Rather then at least creating some kind of interrogation oversight committee to monitor whats going on, the DoD is just sweeping it under the rug and doing dammage control by such things as prohibiting camera phones or any video or picture taking advice into these prisons.  Obviously they are afraid of such incidents becoming public again.

There are things that can be done to assure that prisoners aren't tortured but they are not being done.  That is what the rest of the world realizes and that is what greatly disturbes me.  Overall the Pentagon and Bush administration is doing a really shitty job in Public Relations concerning this.  

As for the woman who made that report being anti-American, maybe she is, maybe she isn't, but the report was a leaked report and last I checked the International Red Cross had not endorsed that report.  So its possible she got frustrated with the IRC and leaked her report to the press.  If so, and if indeed she was suspected of exaggerating or outright lying about stuff, well then bad on her.  But the IRC made a statement that they knew about what was going on in Abu Graeb, and they have made more toned down critical reports of GITMO in the past.  

So anyways... I'm just stating my opinion that the weight of the evidence seems to indicate that we are doing some nasty stuff to prisoners that is not in keeping with American values and principles, not to mention international human rights laws that we signed onto.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ](not to mention the HORRIFIC evidence of the shit they were doing in Abu Graeb) seems to indicate that yes, we torture prisoners.

That was not sactioned by the US military or the US government and as you've seen they are being tried but just because that happened doesnt mean we torture our prisoners.

Quote[/b] ]So anyways... I'm just stating my opinion that the weight of the evidence seems to indicate that we are doing some nasty stuff to prisoners that is not in keeping with American values and principles, not to mention international human rights laws that we signed onto.

Also there really isnt that much evidence other than prisoners who cant be trusted saying that they are being tortured.

Quote[/b] ]You say that you don't make a claim that there is or isn't any torture but yet you seem to get all upset because I'm claiming that there is. I mean what do you call Abu Graeb? What do you call official statements by the Pentagon admitting to abuses at GITMO and at the prisons in Afghanistan?

The Pentagon admited that certain US and allied soldiers went against the UCMJ and tortured and/or abused prisoners,but it was not sactioned by the US military or US government.

Quote[/b] ]Rather then at least creating some kind of interrogation oversight committee to monitor whats going on, the DoD is just sweeping it under the rug and doing dammage control by such things as prohibiting camera phones or any video or picture taking advice into these prisons. Obviously they are afraid of such incidents becoming public again.

Maybe or it could also be just good old security. I've been on a number of military base and there certain parts of certain bases where you cant have any sort of camera,cell phone,or pager without prior permission.

[EiZei 0]

So here we have a guy who trusts the word of pentagon/white house more than anti-torture charities..

Quote[/b] ]

Maybe or it could also be just good old security. I've been on a number of military base and there certain parts of certain bases where you cant have any sort of camera,cell phone,or pager without prior permission.

Odd that they suddenly got so concerned with security just after abu ghraib photos came out..

[Sandman214155 0]

Quote[/b] ](not to mention the HORRIFIC evidence of the shit they were doing in Abu Graeb) seems to indicate that yes, we torture prisoners.

That was not sactioned by the US military or the US government and as you've seen they are being tried but just because that happened doesnt mean we torture our prisoners.

though the US might not use torture (I don't know the full story of gitmo, so i won't jump in that debate ). They do let it happen. the US has been known to send prisoners to Egypt, were they use torture, to get intell.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quote

And in their view they undoubtedly blew up buildings to protect the Muslim world.

Most of the muslim world would disagree with both you and Eizel.

And most of the Western world disagreed with the US and their version of "liberating Iraq," and spreading "peace" and "democracy" and "christian values" at the end of a 500lb bomb.

Quote[/b] ]Akira, some might say you think the WTC thing was justified?

Yes, and some would follow it with "Why do you hate America?" And they would be idiots of course for saying it.

No where did I justify the WTC attacks. Of course whenever someone even attempts to bring up any root causes of the WTC attacks, its immediately considered terrorist sympathizing. Heaven forbid we understand why people feel they need to blow themselves up. Heaven forbid we consider for a moment that the US might not be the virginal innocent country almost everything thinks it is.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, torture is justified, in this case, to save the lives of the innocent, I don't give a rat's ass whether some terrorist shit has to be deprived of some priveledge or another.

Despite the dubious moral justification the US has to torture others, you missed the entire discussion that not everyone at Gitmo or other US prisons are terrorists. Or even combatants lawful or otherwise.

So what you are advocating is the torture of innocents as well as guilty? Gee. And you argued how the US can't compare to Nazi Germany? Well we've seemed to have learned some lessons from them.

Quote[/b] ]It's amazing, none of the "Devil's Island" cases were ever really talked about here, nor was Bataan, nor Saddam's own prisons, but yet, one terrorist starts crying crocodile tears at the US, and the whole world goes on a crusade to villify us.

Ah yes. Dubious moral justification. "Well they did it, so why can't we?" Perhaps you should stop and think about the slippery slope that leads down?

What the hell does Devils Island, Bataan, or even what Saddam did have anything to do with us? I thought the US was suppose to be above that? I thought it was suppose to be a "shining beacon" for the world? Since when does it give us the right to act like every other totalitarian or fascist regime? Is that what you want of the US? To go down the road of 1930s Germany, Communist Russia, and Rome?

Quote[/b] ]That was not sactioned by the US military or the US government and as you've seen they are being tried but just because that happened doesnt mean we torture our prisoners.

Well the FBI seem to think it is justified. Not to mention memos that suggest higher up directly knew about the techniques being used. But never mind all that. What about the numerous witness accounts, some by members of the military present, and some by innocent people later set free? What about the pictures not at Abu but other locales including Gitmo?

Quote[/b] ]Also there really isnt that much evidence other than prisoners who cant be trusted saying that they are being tortured.

What about guards?

Quote[/b] ]though the US might not use torture (I don't know the full story of gitmo, so i won't jump in that debate ). They do let it happen. the US has been known to send prisoners to Egypt, were they use torture, to get intell.

Exactly. Why were those 13 CIA officers ordered arrested?

People like to forget the Rendition Program as well. When the US doesn't feel like torturing their own suspects (or for legal reasons) they simple whisk them off to a country that does allow it.

[Nemesis6 0]

Why was it a sham you ask? Well, I meant both it and the U.N.

Let me start off by giving you a big clue - "Zionism is Racism" Ring any bells? That was a U.N. resolution, or more specifically, Resolution 3379. Read on - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7382

You really just have to read the first paragraph written in bold letters.

This is what I mean when I say that the U.N. is pretty much a proxy for anti-Israel and anti-America sentiments. As I once said: You really should look at that powerpoint presentation if you get a chance to do so. In my political viewpoint: The U.N. has kind of... well, I'll put it this way:

"Next up, we have values! Values everybo--- I see 100! Do I hear 150?? 150, anybo--- 150 it is! Do I hear 200? 200 anybody? I see 200!... going once, going twice... Sold to the man with the turban!! May Allah be with you, Sir! Next up, we have principles! Starting at 200..."

That's really how I see it. An absurd auction where the very things they stand for are sold to the highest bidder.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]Let me start off by giving you a big clue - "Zionism is Racism" Ring any bells? That was a U.N. resolution, or more specifically, Resolution 3379. Read on - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7382

You really just have to read the first paragraph written in bold letters.

It got passed because of the soviet's intense dislike of Israel at the time. Anyways, that resolution is 30 years old and was revoked 15 years ago with a greater majority than ever before (resolution 4686).

I kind of try to refrain from reading articles that use words eurosocialist and islamofascist in the first paragraph and I hardly see how this drivel is relevant to the topic in the first place.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Let me start off by giving you a big clue - "Zionism is Racism" Ring any bells? That was a U.N. resolution, or more specifically, Resolution 3379. Read on - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7382

You really just have to read the first paragraph written in bold letters.

It got passed because of the soviet's intense dislike of Israel at the time.

Voting record

Sponsored by: (25) Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates.

Voted yes: (72) The 25 sponsoring nations above, and additionally 47 nations: Albania, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, People's Republic of China, Congo, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Săo Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Voted no: (35) Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay.

Abstaining: (32) Argentina, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Burma, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Zaire, Zambia.