War against terror

[nSe7eN 0]

I'm sorry, did I just see the words "Guantanamo" and "following international laws" in the same sentence?

Yes, with the word "terrorist" in between.

what about the word "alleged" in between?

Quote[/b] ]

lol i know its funny,again at least they still alive:P

Some people didn’t see al aspects of terror they just watch it in TV, I hope they show you that, then I m going to wait for your new opinion after that , EH

I don't need to watch TV to see all the aspects of terror, I've just basically gone through a divorce

The terror I m talking is not alleged it’s just hard to believe, but some paranoid people believe everything they hear, also you are so fucking funny we talking seriously and you adding something from your private life!

Oh man missed the match!

cya

[Balschoiw 0]

Avon you must have gotten something wrong.

In Gitmo there are no terrorists. Name me one.

In Gitmo there are "illegal combatants", it doesn´t say anywhere that they have terrorists imprisoned there. Apart from that, how many of them have been taken to court ? How many were sentenced because of terrorist acts ?

It´s also interesting to know that more than 200 were released after 2 or more years of harsh Gitmo conditions without any charge. Means they were doing their time there with no legal background and no charge, other than a suspicion.

You surely remeber the stories where people got named "terrorist" in their original countries because the neighbour wanted to have their belongings and such ? Don´t you ?

Now US administration thinks about cutting the number to half by deporting prisoners to their country of origin where they would also be imprisoned or further "questioned". This is the "smart" way of not having to confess that they are inncocent as the countries they will be delivered to, will be the ones who will release them after a while. Get the trick ?

There were no prisoners delivered to Gitmo over the last 6 months as the legal procedures are very much in question, even in the US.

And to nSe7eN:

How many of them were able to talk to their lawyer or even their embassy ?

[theavonlady 2]

Avon you must have gotten something wrong.

In Gitmo there are no terrorists. Name me one.

Obviously you have a list of everyone incarcerated there and the events that lead to their being placed there in the first place.

Please paste it here for our benefit.

[Tovarish 0]

*chuckle* he asks you to name one "terrorist" in Guantanamo and you ask him to provide the names of everyone there. Really, how asinine is that?

Anyways, Bals has made my point much more eloquently than I could with my 3 hours' sleep.

[Akira 0]

Avon you must have gotten something wrong.

In Gitmo there are no terrorists. Name me one.

Obviously you have a list of everyone incarcerated there and the events that lead to their being placed there in the first place.

Please paste it here for our benefit.

You obviously do as well since you so willingly labeled them all "terrorists."

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Obviously you have a list of everyone incarcerated there and the events that lead to their being placed there in the first place.

Do I have to ? You said they were terrorists, not me.

My stupid thinking just tells me that if there are any terrorists, why haven´t they been taken to court ?

Is there no common interest in the US to bring terrorists to justice ?

Or does justice mean to imprison people without charges ?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Obviously you have a list of everyone incarcerated there and the events that lead to their being placed there in the first place.

Do I have to ? You said they were terrorists, not me.

My stupid thinking just tells me that if there are any terrorists, why haven´t they been taken to court ?

Is there no common interest in the US to bring terrorists to justice ?

Or does justice mean to imprison people without charges ?

Where does the GC says that unlawful combatants must be tried or freed?

[Balschoiw 0]

You wanted to say terrorists, right ?

I don´t want to talk about the legal status of "illegal combatants" at all, as this expression was artificially created by the TBA itself to pass all the regular jurisdictional limitations and human rights conventions that are still active, even in the US, if I remember right.

Back to my question:

You say the inmates at Gitmo are terrorists. Fact.

Switch back a page if you can´t remember your own words.

Now I´m still waiting for your prove of that claim.

[theavonlady 2]

You wanted to say terrorists, right ?

I don´t want to talk about the legal status of "illegal combatants" at all, as this expression was artificially created by the TBA itself to pass all the regular jurisdictional limitations and human rights conventions that are still active, even in the US, if I remember right.

I have no problem using the GC's term of "unlawful combatants", if "illegal combatants" makes you itchy because Bush uses it.

So, do you want to talk about the GC's "unlawful combatants"?

Quote[/b] ]Back to my question:

You say the inmates at Gitmo are terrorists. Fact.

Switch back a page if you can´t remember your own words.

Now I´m still waiting for your prove of that claim.

And I once again ask you where does the GC say that anything has to be proved about captured "unlawful combatants"?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]So, do you want to talk about the GC's "unlawful combatants"?

No, as they are labelled illegal combatants by the TBA, and terrorists by you.

Why should I ?

My question is still unanswered. You can tumble as much as you want.

You said the Gitmo inmates are terrorists.

Now where is your proof ?

Now take your chance and back this up, as you are the one claiming they got imprisoned and held at Gitmo because they are terrorists.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]So, do you want to talk about the GC's "unlawful combatants"?

No, as they are labelled illegal combatants by the TBA, and terrorists by you.

Why should I ?

My question is still unanswered. You can tumble as much as you want.

You said the Gitmo inmates are terrorists.

Now where is your proof ?

Now take your chance and back this up, as you are the one claiming they got imprisoned and held at Gitmo because they are terrorists.

No problem. The inmates in Guantanimo are unlawful combatants.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]And I once again ask you where does the GC say that anything has to be proved about captured "unlawful combatants"?

As in any court trial, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the defense. All we have is the word of TBA to know that all those at GB are "unlawful combatants" and TBA has known to fib before.

But TBA itself has admited that there are Taliban fighters at GB. The Taliban whether you like it or not, is eligible for prisoner of war status under the GC.

Third GC, Article 4:

Quote[/b] ]Art 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Art 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines who is a prisoner of war and therefor a protected person under GCIII. Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces

* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:

o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);

o that of carrying arms openly;

o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

* 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

*

So, even though the US never recognized the Taliban government, their fighters are supposed to be given POW status (which they clearly are not). So, we know that Taliban fighters are at GB, that they are not classified as "terrorists," and that the US is treating illegally as "unlawful combatants."

We also have the knowledge of those that have been released, have stated their innocence before, and after their detainment, were held and classified under the "unlawful combatant" rule, and have given us a clue about the unsanitary and unsafe conditions at GB.

So we also have evidence that the innocent are being held without trial or legal advice.

So it sounds to me like the US are breaking all kinds of laws, some our own, and some international. And your defense of that is?

*It should be noted that under the conditions of the GC, the Iraqi Resistance is also POW status eligible.

[miles teg 1]

It doesn't.  It speaks of POW's...Prisoners of War...last I checked the majority of the prisoners at gitmo were captured during a war.  Only a very very small number were captured in raids in Pakistan and other areas where known terrorists were captured.   Most were just unlucky bastards and a few Taliban captured by the US.  They are POW's, NOT terrorists unless you can prove that they were involved in killing innocent civilians.   Just because some people are fighting your country's troops who invaded their country (or the country they were fighting for) does NOT mean that they are terrorists.  

This, Avon Lady, is where you have some problems understanding the problem with this new category of prisoner that the Bush administration made up.  

Like you, Bush and his administration, overall, think in very black and white terms.  Good guy, bad guy.   Thats it.

As mentioned earlier here they are trying to bypass US and international law.  Even ol' Jose Pedia, the American citizen still being held as a "enemy combatant" for alleged terrorist activities, still has not had formal charges filed against him.  If they don't do so soon, he will be released by court order. In America, you can't simply hold people forever in jail just because you suspect them of a crime or of planning a crime, but have no real proof of it. If the police and the FBI could do that, then most far left political organizations in America would be rounded up and imprisoned...kinda like the Russians did and still do to advocates of freedom and democracy. Maybe we'll create our own Siberian labor camps up in Alaska eh?

If international law is followed Avon Lady, it can work.  In the case of Iraq, especially if you have US soldiers acting as policemen, they can be trained to basically do the police work of collecting evidence (or have trained Iraqi policemen do that).   Likewise in Afghanistan.   To not do so is just negligence and laziness on the part of the country sending in the army to act as a policeforce.

I know you hate Muslims tremendously AL and would love to see the whole lot of them killed off by the US, but fortunately more then half of America isn't too warm and fuzzy about that idea.  What worries me instead is that we increasingly see right wing hawks trying to agitate the situation further by pushing for an invasion of Iran (which is impossible without mandatory conscription or international cooperation).  

I believe they are also hoping for another September 11th type attack so that they can justify further invasions in the Middle East (and the startup of the draft), as well as suspending the constitution to round up Muslims in America.  This worries me alot because, while I'm not Muslim, I am an advocate for the Islamic community where I live and I was born in Iran.  It would not surprise me if I was put into a detention camp or deported.  

This is not unprecedented either.   During WWII, the US Constitution was effectively suspended when the US rounded up and imprisoned thousands of Japanese Americans simply out of fear that they would commit terrorist attacks.  

I think it is highly likely that this would occur again, but what is unknown is how the half  of the American public that oppose the war in Iraq, would react, whether anyone would come to the defense of Muslim American citizens, and whether or not this would militarize liberals in this country.

This is precisely the reason that I believe that the right to bear arms and form militias was written into the constitution.

It is primarily to defend against a tyrannical government.  It was not to form federally controlled National Guard units who are basically just Reservists that also do disaster relief and riot control in their states.   For this reason I am not against these civilian militia groups as long as they operate within the law and do not engage in illegal activities.   Their purpose should be first and foremost to defend against federal tyranny in the event of a constitutional crisis.

Fear of others does horrible things to people and to entire societies.  

Like Master Yoda said... Fear turns to Hatred.    

Its very true... and a sad fact of human nature.

But fear and hatred I believe can also be overcome with forgiveness and mercy.  

I believe the 3 main judaistic religions mention something about that eh?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Akira 0]

Speak of the devil.

Quote[/b] ]Pentagon Seeks to Transfer More Detainees From Base in Cuba

By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: March 11, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 10 - The Pentagon is seeking to enlist help from the State Department and other agencies in a plan to cut by more than half the population at its detention facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in part by transferring hundreds of suspectedterrorists to prisons in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen, according to senior administration officials.

The transfers would be similar to the renditions, or transfers of captives to other countries, carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency, but are subject to stricter approval within the government, and face potential opposition from the C.I.A. as well as the State and Justice Departments, the officials said.

Administration officials say those agencies have resisted some previous handovers, out of concern that transferring the prisoners to foreign governments could harm American security or subject the prisoners to mistreatment.

A Feb. 5 memorandum from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld calls for broader interagency support for the plan, starting with efforts to work out a significant transfer of prisoners to Afghanistan, the officials said. The proposal is part of a Pentagon effort to cut a Guantánamo population that stands at about 540 detainees by releasing some outright and by transferring others for continued detention elsewhere.

The proposal comes as the Bush administration reviews the future of the naval base at Guantánamo as a detention center, after court decisions and shifts in public opinion have raised legal and political questions about the use of the facility.

The White House first embraced using Guantánamo as a holding place for terrorism suspects taken in Afghanistan, in part because the base was seen as beyond the jurisdiction of United States law. But recent court rulings have held that prisoners there may challenge their detentions in federal court.

Indeed, the Pentagon has halted, for the last six months, the flow of new terrorism suspects into the prison, Defense Department officials said. In January, a senior American official said in an interview that most prisoners at Guantánamo no longer had any intelligence value and were not being regularly interrogated.

The proposed transfers would represent a major acceleration of Pentagon efforts that have transferred 65 prisoners from Guantánamo to foreign countries. The population at Guantánamo includes more than 100 prisoners each from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a senior administration official said, and the United States might need to provide money or other logistical support to make possible a large-scale transfer to any of those nations.

Defense Department officials said that the adverse court rulings had contributed to their determination to reduce the population at Guantánamo, in part by persuading other countries to bear some of the burden of detaining terrorism suspects.

Under the administration's approach, the State Department is responsible for negotiating agreements in which receiving countries agree "to detain, investigate, and/or prosecute" the prisoners and to treat them humanely.

"Our top choice would be to win the war on terrorism and declare an end to it and repatriate everybody," a senior Defense Department official said in an interview. "The next best solution would be to work with the home governments of the detainees in order to get them to take the necessary steps to mitigate the threat these individuals pose."

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that future transfers into Guantánamo remained a "possibility," but made clear that the court decisions and the burdens of detaining prisoners at the American facility had made it seem less attractive to administration policymakers than before.

"It's fair to say that the calculus now is different than it was before, because the legal landscape has changed and those are factors that might be considered," a senior Defense Department official said.

Full story can be read here.

Go figure. The Pentagon wants to transfer prisoners to countries where no legal aid would be available, the US courts would not be able to intervene, and abuses and torture are common. Well I'm sure that is perfectly legal and wouldn't violate any human rights or anything. Nice one US of A. Democracy and Justice are antiquated notions anyhoo...

[nSe7eN 0]

Certainly there some innocent prisoners there, but not all of them, saying *alleged* going too deep just as it seems, so the war on terror was alleged, the reasons for that war is also alleged, and more than that September 11 was also *alleged* in your opinion?

Since those prisoners been captured for * alleged* accusations!

Some one fighting those *terrorists* asking to name 1 terrorist in there, what about Abu Zubaydah a field commander for bin laden, or what about other many terrorists been captured during the war there, or in Pakistan or in any other countries, all of those people is innocents in your opinion?

Even if so you cant free them until you make sure they really innocent, you dealing with terrorists here and not a thief’s, if those people released without making sure if they really involved in terrorist activities or not , they going to be active again and launching attacks in other countries than the US!

Also some of them have been assigned to a military defense counsel, in other words someone defending them!

Giving Guantanamo as example, was just to say for USSRsniper there is other ways to deal with those terrorists than killing them, in some places like Guantanamo at least they have the chance to stay alive until they been released if they innocent and not just been killed and tortured, even if that was against the international law, the same law that helps some dictatorship to survive sometimes, until someone posted a comment never meant to be serious to start all of this argument!

Terror is just like a divorce story in his opinion!

The thing that fucked everything up in the first place was not taking some threats seriously!

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

Certainly there some innocent prisoners there, but not all of them, saying *alleged* going too deep just as it seems, so the war on terror was alleged, the reasons for that war is also alleged, and more than that September 11 was also *alleged* in your opinion?

Since those prisoners been captured for * alleged* accusations!

What??? Who said anything about terrorist attacks being alleged. You are making a straw-man arguement by putting forth a made up statement and attributing it to those who do not agree with you.

Terrorism is most certainly a major problem. However there are intelligent ways to deal with this problem other then "Kill 'em all!"

Quote[/b] ]

Some one fighting those *terrorists* asking to name 1 terrorist in there, what about Abu Zubaydah a field commander for bin laden, or what about other many terrorists been captured during the war there, or in Pakistan or in any other countries, all of those people is innocents in your opinion?

Again, you are making a straw-man arguement. Nobody made this statement. Also many of these high level prisoners who are KNOWN TERRORISTS are moved around between prisons in various countries. For many of them, it is not known where they are. For these KNOWN terrorists that you speak of there is a tremendous amount of evidence against them.

The gitmo prisoners we are speaking of are those Taliban and alleged Al-Qaeda soldiers who were picked up or handed over to American forces...with often little or no information known about them other then that the people who handed them over said that they were terrorists, or they were Arabs who were arrested in Afghanistan or Pakistan, again, often with little or no evidence except someone's accusations.

Is it right to hold these people until they die? Do you know the truth about these men? Are you so all-knowing that you know their hearts and minds?

Quote[/b] ]

Even if so you cant free them until you make sure they really innocent, you dealing with terrorists here and not a thief’s, if those people released without making sure if they really involved in terrorist activities or not , they going to be active again and launching attacks in other countries than the US!

Ok, what are terrorists? Murderers of innocent people correct? I don't know where you are from, but in America EVEN SUSPECTED MURDERERS recieve a trial by jury. And if the evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt...guess what...the suspected murderer GOES FREE. It is not a perfect system, but it also protects innocent people from being jailed. To hold anyone in prison forever based on only an accusation and no evidence goes against everything America stands for.

Quote[/b] ]

Also some of them have been assigned to a military defense counsel, in other words someone defending them!

True..but very few. It is also not a very fair system as often the outcome is predetermined. The military defense counsel who defends these prisoners is risking their career also if they actually win. But that never happens. You only have to look at who is making the decisions of guilt or innocense (a military tribunal) to see that it is not exactly unbiased. In fact it is riddled with heavy bias and political pressure to find these men guilty regardless of facts. There was one brave Marine defense council who complained of this problem on national TV (I believe it was the TODAY show on NBC). I imagine he was disciplined for doing this.

Quote[/b] ]

Giving Guantanamo as example, was just to say for USSRsniper there is other ways to deal with those terrorists than killing them, in some places like Guantanamo at least they have the chance to stay alive until they been released if they innocent and not just been killed and tortured, even if that was against the international law, the same law that helps some dictatorship to survive sometimes, until someone posted a comment never meant to be serious to start all of this argument!

Terror is just like a divorce story in his opinion!

The thing that fucked everything up in the first place was not taking some threats seriously!

A divorce??? A divorce from what? Also what threats are you referring to? Al-Qaeda threats? Its easy to have 20/20 hindsight and say, "Oh, we should have done this, this, and this." But fixing problems inherent within the US intelligence community is VERY VERY VERY difficult. Trust me, I know from speaking to individuals in these agencies, that their culture REFUSES to change and they continue to follow very very short-sighted methods of fighting terrorism without much of a plan. There are individuals within these agencies who are doing a great job. But the culture of many of these agencies needs some serious overhaul.

Your USSR Sniper example may be good enough for Russians, but Americans are not Russians. The brutal suppression of Chechnya only has worked to suppress terrorism there because Russia controls all the media there, and journalists who try to bypass the Russian military often are killed in Chechnya. Also the borders are much more difficult to get through and most of the foreign fighters have left to go fight in Iraq.

Another HUGE difference between Russia's war against terrorism and America's war against terrorism, is that Chechnya is RIGHT ON RUSSIA'S BORDER!!!

Iraq is not on America's border. Afghanistan was rightly invaded because we had loads of evidence that Osama Bin Laden had masterminded the attack...and the Taliban refused to hand him over. Futhermore, everyone, even the Iranians, thought the Taliban were psychos. We also had fairly good European support for the Afghanistan operation and it was carried out very smartly using the Northern Alliance (Afghans) to liberate themselves with American support. Nevertheless, captured Taliban prisoners should not be considered terrorists simply because they were fighting US troops.

At any rate, we can not just go invading in every country that has suspected terrorists in it. 1. We can't afford it. 2. The EU and the rest of the world would eventually move to stop us. and 3. The American public would not stand for it.

You might want to ask yourself why President Putin isn't invading Saudi Arabia, the country where most of the Chechnyan rebel funding comes from.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[FireflyPL 0]

It doesn't.  It speaks of POW's...Prisoners of War...last I checked the majority of the prisoners at gitmo were captured during a war.  Only a very very small number were captured in raids in Pakistan and other areas where known terrorists were captured.   Most were just unlucky bastards and a few Taliban captured by the US.  They are POW's, NOT terrorists unless you can prove that they were involved in killing innocent civilians.   Just because some people are fighting your country's troops who invaded their country (or the country they were fighting for) does NOT mean that they are terrorists.  

No, Miles. Check GC again. It says

Quote[/b] ]

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I think that men at Guantanamo are people who didn't fulfill

(a)- definatelly some

(b) - most of deteines

© - sometimes they didnt fulfill this

(d) - that's for sure

So they can't be treated as prisoners in terms of GC. They are unlawfull combatants and they have no POW rights. Thats why they can be called terrorists.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think that men at Guantanamo are people who didn't fulfill

(a)- definatelly some

(b) - most of deteines

© - sometimes they didnt fulfill this

(d) - that's for sure

So they can't be treated as prisoners in terms of GC. They are unlawfull combatants and they have no POW rights. Thats why they can be called terrorists.

In case you missed it, by me...a few posts up

Quote[/b] ]So, even though the US never recognized the Taliban government, their fighters are supposed to be given POW status (which they clearly are not). So, we know that Taliban fighters are at GB, that they are not classified as "terrorists," and that the US is treating illegally as "unlawful combatants."

We also have the knowledge of those that have been released, have stated their innocence before, and after their detainment, were held and classified under the "unlawful combatant" rule, and have given us a clue about the unsanitary and unsafe conditions at GB.

So we also have evidence that the innocent are being held without trial or legal advice.

So it sounds to me like the US are breaking all kinds of laws, some our own, and some international. And your defense of that is?

We do know that there are Taliban fighters and other non Al Queda prisoners there. We don't know that any of them are terrorists. Simple.

[denoir 0]

Go figure. The Pentagon wants to transfer prisoners to countries where no legal aid would be available, the US courts would not be able to intervene, and abuses and torture are common. Well I'm sure that is perfectly legal and wouldn't violate any human rights or anything. Nice one US of A. Democracy and Justice are antiquated notions anyhoo...

What I'm worried about is that this is a world-wide trend. A terror law was just passed in the UK that is quite worrying:

Terror law row explained [bBC]

In effect the proposal would allow arrests of British citizens, without justifying why and with no specific time limits on detention. The arrest warrent would be issued by politicians rather than judges. In the final version however, after opposition from the House of Lords they accepted that a judge must issue the arrest warrents. In addition a 12 month expiration clause has been set on the law.

The whole law is still a blatant violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and will probably be challanged on an EU level, but that debate has been alarmingly silent.

What worries me the most, that the only thing in the way of a Stasi-like law was the non-elected House of Lords part of the UK parliament. It's quite worrying when the most essential civil liberties are protected by a very thin layer of politicians, who you normally can't trust anyway.

[nSe7eN 0]

Didn’t read all your post though!

But what I said is so clear, it was as follow again!

Saying that everyone in Guantanamo been detained for alleged accusations (How Do You Know That), is just like saying all the reason that brought them there is also alleged, including the war on terror and September 11, and I didn’t claim that anyone said that anyhow, said “going too deep just as it seemsâ€, and about the divorce story, saying that his divorce is worst than terror in serious argument is not responsible, and you quoted my comment followed by things unrelated to it, including your private opinions about agencies and governmental polices!

Nothing in it can be described as “straw-man argumentâ€, you just misunderstood it!

[QBA69 1]

Aslan Maskhadov is DEAD!

Thats how you need to treat terrorists

First of all - Aslan Maskhadov was not a terrorist. He was an elected president of Chechnya. And the most important thing is that he was the last and only chance for a peaceful end to the war in Chechnya.

At least some people from outside Russia can understand it - here is an article from today's Washington Post.

And I'm not surprised of the Russian way of thinking and dealing with any armed conflicts - the rule "shoot first, ask later" has always been the one and only way of solving some problems with people who have the different culture, religion, language or even a way of thinking.

[miles teg 1]

Didn’t read all your post though!

But what I said is so clear, it was as follow again!

Saying that everyone in Guantanamo been detained for alleged accusations (How Do You Know That), is just like saying all the reason that brought them there is also alleged, including the war on terror and September 11, and I didn’t claim that anyone said that anyhow, said “going too deep just as it seemsâ€, and about the divorce story, saying that his divorce is worst than terror in serious argument is not responsible, and you quoted my comment followed by things unrelated to it, including your private opinions about agencies and governmental polices!

Nothing in it can be described as “straw-man argumentâ€, you just misunderstood it!  

Sorry, I misunderstood you, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say by those statements.

It don't understand your arguement about the word "alleged." or what point you are trying to make.

As far as any of us know, all of the prisoners held in Guantanomo Bay are either suspected Al-Qaeda or suspected Taliban prisoners. What is in question is whether most of the people there are guilty or innocent of any crime of terrorism or whethey they are some type of prisoner of war.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the 9/11 attacks were alleged terrorist attacks or not, unless you believe the CIA did it like some of the wacko conspiracy theorists believe.

The personal comments I made are related as they have to do with the issue of US vs Russian policies on dealing with suspected terrorists.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[FireflyPL 0]

Aslan Maskhadov is DEAD!

Thats how you need to treat terrorists

First of all - Aslan Maskhadov was not a terrorist. He was an elected president of Chechnya. And the most important thing is that he was the last and only chance for a peaceful end to the war in Chechnya.

At least some people from outside Russia can understand it - here is an article from today's Washington Post.

And I'm not surprised of the Russian way of thinking and dealing with any armed conflicts - the rule "shoot first, ask later" has always been the one and only way of solving some problems with people who have the different culture, religion, language or even a way of thinking.

Just as I thought. You are from Poland, and the fact is, that this way of thinking is charactristic to rusofobic and prochechen Poles. The best example are those madmen from PiS party etc. I know this way of thinking, that everybody is good who fights Russia, but it's insane way of thinking. Weak Russia is much more dangerous than strong Russia. If its weak then there may be less control over nuclear weapons thus would be more dangerous than if its strong and can control its arsenal.

And yes, Maschadov and other chechen warlords are terrorists and mobsters, who try to gain control over this ruin Russian province. That's right province not country, as Chechnya has never been formaly independent and was recognised only by 2 countries in the world (AFAIR Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).

[denoir 0]

As far as any of us know, all of the prisoners held in Guantanomo Bay are either suspected Al-Qaeda or suspected Taliban prisoners.  

A comment about that:

In the late 1990s the Taleban set up military training camps in Afghanistan for Islamist fighters. Most were only interested in fighting in their home countries - to overthrow their local governments. They had nothing to do with the attacks on the US or were in any way interested in international terrorist operations. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and follower of Sayyid Qutb, financed some of the camps in exchange to allow them to recruit volunteers from these camps for attacks on the U.S. Only a small percentage of the people there were in any way connected to bin Laden. There was no big organization. And Bin Laden was not the one who planned terrorist attacks - others came to him for financing and logistics. None of the attacks attributed to bin Laden were under his supervision or control. He was basically a terrorist venture capitalist. People would come to him with plans and if he liked them, he would help with finances and getting recruits.

Prosecutors for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings believed bin Laden organised them and wanted to convict him in absentia by showing that he headed a criminal organisation. Jamal al-Fadl, a former associate of bin Laden, described such an organisation to them, which the investigators called al-Qaeda. While bin Laden apparently aided the attacks he had no organisation through which he could command and control them; al-Fadl seems to have told investigators what they wanted to hear in return for money and witness protection. Similarly, while bin Laden provided funds and volunteers to carry out the September 11, 2001 attacks, they were actually planned by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Bin Laden and his associates never used the term "Al Qaeda" until after the WTC attacks.

The war in Afghanistan removed bin Laden's main source of recruits, but the U.S. military and the Northern Alliance also captured and killed many people in the Taleban camps that had nothing to do with him. Al-Qaeda could not be found because it never really existed. It never was a "global terror network" as it was imagined.

Islamist terrorists are connected only by ideology and not by an organisation that can be cut off at its root. The only thing the "War on Terror" has achieved is to promote bin Ladens ideology around the world. The radical islamists don't mind. It gives them the publicity they seek - and without havning to actually operate a wast organization.

The arrests of various groups of suspected terrorists in the U.S. following the September 11 attacks failed to find any substantive evidence, but did show a lot of imagination of the part of investigators. Similarly, in the U.K., hundreds of arrests under new terrorism laws have resulted in only 3 convictions of Islamists, all for fundraising. If anything that should show how important the "innocent until provent guilty" rule is.

So the people locked up in Guantanamo Bay are most likely Arab islamists, not in any way connected to bin Laden or simply people being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[QBA69 1]

I know this way of thinking, that everybody is good who fights Russia, but it's insane way of thinking. Weak Russia is much more dangerous than strong Russia. If its weak then there may be less control over nuclear weapons thus would be more dangerous than if its strong and can control its arsenal.

And yes, Maschadov and other chechen warlords are terrorists and mobsters, who try to gain control over this ruin Russian province. That's right province not country, as Chechnya has never been formaly independent and was recognised only by 2 countries in the world (AFAIR Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).

First, I'm not gonna discuss with you about who I'm am and who I'm not. But I'm glad that there are people who share my point of view in some other countries like USA or UK.

Second, show me where I said that "everybody is good who fights Russia"? You said that - not me. Btw, I give a fuck if Russia is strong or weak. I'm neither an ally nor an adversary of Russia. And one more thing, do you really think that Russia would be weaken if Chechens would get some freedom? Could you explain this to me?

Third, Chechnya is a republic of the Russian Federation - not a province. And I've never said it's a country. And the point is that Chechens are fighting against Russians for their own country for more than 200 years. But Russians don't even want to give some autonomy for their region. Can you tell me why, wise guy?

Fourth, if you call Maskhadov terrorist I'd call Putin the terrorist no 1 in Russia. I don't see any difference between these two politicians. And I'd never call Aslan Maskhadov a terrorist since he had never accepted terror as a solution of Chechen war for independence. Btw, was Yasser Arafat a terrorist either?

Fifth, tell me - who has ruined this "province" and other North Caucasus regions?

And the last thing - can you tell me what makes Maskhadov and other Chechens are perceived as terrorists and the most dangerous threat to Russia? After 9/11 it's very easy to accuse someone to be a terrorist, isn't it?