E6Hotel

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Nov. 05 2002,21:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ohh... how I wish I could agree with you, but I can't - at least not yet. Â To me it seems to be going very much as they expected it, maybe even better. Â And the US is already making the same mistake made in Vietnam - that of underestimating the enemy's numbers. Â But like in Vietnam, this enemy where's no uniform and defies traditional counting methods.<span id='postcolor'> The primary mistakes the U.S. military made in Vietnam were (1) trying to win an unconventional war w/ primarily conventional tactics (attrition warfare) and (2) failure to take the war to the enemy. So far, we have not repeated these blunders. OBL's dream was to unite all Muslims in "Jihad" against the West. So far, that hasn't happened either. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Nov. 05 2002,21:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You see, the world is full of suffering people. Â The good news is that only a small minority of them will ever pursue violent means to combat that suffering. Â The bad news is that the US believes the violent minority to be a finite number and that by eliminating that minority they will solve the problem. That 6 enemy got offed today may provide a certain feel good factor, but you may be deceiving yourself to think that you've even begun to dent their real numbers or the real problem.<span id='postcolor'> We are under no illusions, and have a long, probably never-ending fight ahead of us -- similar to "Whack-A-Mole" on a global scale. It should also be noted that flying airplanes into our buildings and bombing our ships/embassies will not make us want to resolve "the real problem," i.e., whatever excuse is used to justify terrorism. "Eliminating that minority" has never been our objective; we're out to destroy AQ's ability to function. Big difference. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Nov. 05 2002,04:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If so isn't it problematic that US officially engages in killing people without getting them at least handed out and tried in court?<span id='postcolor'> Not in the least. They wanted a global war* and now they've got one -- it just isn't going how they expected. Combatants on the battlefield don't get trials, they get killed. Spread the word: If you're AQ you're fair game. *"We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it." -- OBL, 23 February 1998 Hypothetically of course, if I were a drinker, I can neither confirm nor deny that I'd raise a theoretical beer to toast the Predator operator who may or may not have pulled the alleged trigger on this prick-twister. As for arrests and trials, the FBI tried to work with the Yemeni authorities after the Cole bombing but weren't even allowed to interrogate suspects. Hardly an environment conducive to law enforcement. We'll take 'em alive when we can (e.g. Binalshibh), but dead's okay, too. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Nov. 05 2002,04:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find this suspect - especially because they were wanted by FBI.<span id='postcolor'> I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but what do you mean by this? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Nov. 05 2002,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Funny how the officials are able to say that radio comms and explosives were found in the car. Check the picture. Even here in germany it takes some days to examine such a burnt car. In Yemen they seem to have higly skilled personel. Killing on suspect again. There was no proof . The whole reasons for shooting the car were based on specualtions.<span id='postcolor'> You're SPECULATING that we're speculating. Oh, the humanity. Let me make sure I have this straight: U.S. officials say that they're responsible for the killing. You readily accept this as fact and begin blasting those evil American cowboys. However, U.S. officials ALSO say that al-Harethi was the top AQ operative in Yemen and one of the masterminds behind the Cole attack. Furthermore, YEMENI authorities say that the car contained explosives and that the car occupants were AQ. These fairly relevant little nuggets of info get written off as "speculation." Do I detect a double standard here?   </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Nov. 05 2002,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Imagine this happen in the US or here in Europe.<span id='postcolor'> I don't have to imagine, I watched it happen. Multiplied by 500. Against civilians. You'll have to forgive me if I don't shed a tear for this individual, who as a martyr is no doubt happily oppressing his 72 virgins in Paradise as we speak. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Nov. 05 2002,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US are making themselves a hard time. If you do actions like this, you won´t improve your picture in foreign countries.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe so. But you know what? I'll bet al-Harethi won't be planning any more attacks. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N.o.R.S.u @ Nov. 01 2002,15:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like posted before the military should not use any marketing ways to get more recruits, it's just agains't morals in my opinion.<span id='postcolor'> Marketing is necessary for an all-volunteer force. The other option is conscription, which is much more immoral IMHO. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Oct. 31 2002,13:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey, anyone know what those two small green squares are that are wrapped in the plastic? Â They look like candy or something.<span id='postcolor'> Chewing gum. (As everyone knows, a pre-requisite for all American military personnel.) Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Papageorge @ Oct. 31 2002,0301)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">THough the famous Bar in there I used to drive by all the time. It's in Southern Cali by the Family Fun Center lol.<span id='postcolor'> Are you talking about the one out on Vista Way near Escondido? I might be wrong but I think that's the bar from "Heartbreak Ridge." Supposedly "Charlie's" house from "Top Gun" is in an Oceanside neighborhood, though. I can't watch "Top Gun" without thinking of an old Bobcat Goldthwait routine where he calls it a two-hour recruiting poster: "Hey man, when do I get to fly the jets?" "After you finish painting the other side of the ship." Or something to that effect. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AKM74 @ Oct. 28 2002,20:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There was an interview with general Oliver North  (very respected general in US) on ABC 3 days ago. 10 hours before the storm.<span id='postcolor'> Just nitpicking, but North was a Lieutenant Colonel. As for being well-respected, I suppose that depends on who you ask. On a tangent, this hurts the "knock-out gas on airplanes to disable hijackers" idea, huh? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Oct. 28 2002,19:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And a Marine can't even put on a band-aid without the help of the Navy Corpsman!<span id='postcolor'> <Navy Doc> "Sucking chest wound? Here's some Motrin." <Navy Doc> J/K. Well, almost. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 20 2002,10:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, until you provide some proof.. have you heard the term "Innocent until proven guilty?"<span id='postcolor'> See the top of page four. Again. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Oct. 20 2002,0703)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can you recall any war crime that USMC or other American troops have committed war crimes while under command of their CO's? (My Lai doesn't count, because they were disobeying orders. AQ is ORDERED to commit war crimes). Denoir, if you so desire to kill US troops, why don't you move to Iraq? You might get a single shot off before they wax you.<span id='postcolor'> Easy, Turbo. He was just trying to make a point. Any way you cut it My Lai was a war crime, probably the lowest point in U.S. history. There's no justifying it, but we can learn from it so that it doesn't happen again. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Oct. 19 2002,14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some countries(not pointing any fingers) can remember the past mighty quickly when it suits them. Al Queda terrorists, but of course the Mujihoudin(bad spelling) where little angels.<span id='postcolor'> Do you not see a difference between flying civilian airliners into civilian buildings and driving out an invading army? While the Mujahadeen were never considered "little angels," we did have common objectives. It's safe to say our paths diverged after '89. Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 19 2002,13:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am just questioning how much improvement we have done by our neocolonial interventions in the country. I'm not sad a bit for the Taliban, but the price to remove them was high and the situation that we have left there is not good.<span id='postcolor'> It's a work in progress. "Rome wasn't built in a day" and all that. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Oct. 19 2002,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We will see if you still support it when its your brother or best friend that is sitting caged someplace, without a chance to a trial, without being accused, without contact with his family and without any rights what so ever.<span id='postcolor'> I can think of about 3,000 people that didn't get trials, either. Sorry if this seems cold-hearted, but I'll save my sympathy for them and not the people that killed them (directly or indirectly). Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 19 2002,08:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or are you trying to say that muslims/Afgani are all religious fanatics?<span id='postcolor'> No, just AQ and the Taliban. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 19 2002,08:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or is it just your view on enemy soldiers.<span id='postcolor'> No, just AQ and the Taliban. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 19 2002,08:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it is then I know what to do with captured US Marines if I ever find myself in a war against the US. A quick execution by a shot through the back of the head will prevent them from continuing their murderous actitivies.<span id='postcolor'> I'd recommend Kryptonite bullets. Can't be too careful. We, however, will continue to obey the GC w/ respect to lawful combatants. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 19 2002,08:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides, fair is fair, if I was captured they would put me in one of their concentration camps.<span id='postcolor'> Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to provide one instance where the U.S. has failed to treat captured soldiers (which by definition excludes AQ and the Taliban) in accordance w/ the GC. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 19 2002,08:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One thing also that you seem to miss: you attacked them, you were the agressor. They were only defending their country and government. The Taliban never did anything against the US.<span id='postcolor'> Well, we disagree. The only thing they were defending was the ability to terrorize their countrymen. Some "government." Honestly, I'm at a loss as to how you can say the Taliban was innocent. They were gracious hosts to AQ and refused to cooperate in apprehending them even after 9/11. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 19 2002,08:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just because Bush thinks that guilt by association (with the enemy of the US) is a valid excuse for attacking a country doesn't make it right in any way.<span id='postcolor'> "enemy of the US?" Don't kid yourself. They're the enemy of everyone in the world who doesn't want militant "Islamic" rule. Some people just haven't realized that yet. (And before someone tries the "racist" thing again, the quotation marks above are meant to show that I don't consider AQ & Co. to be true Muslims.) Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Oct. 18 2002,23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even terrorists have rights though; right to a trial. Besides, they are innocent until proven guilty.<span id='postcolor'> You're absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see these foreign national Talibans escorted directly back to their nations of origin and released. One or two might be prosecuted, although I doubt it. The majority would then be free to resume their religious activities (i.e. killing infidels, subjugating women, blah blah blah). Best of all, we could sleep well knowing that even though the savage, brainwashed bastards would gladly slit our collective throat if they could, we didn't bruise our delicate sensibilities by daring to prioritize whose rights should take precedence. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Oct. 18 2002,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I doubt any of the men detained have actually comitted acts of Terror against the US.<span id='postcolor'> I've got to believe you're referring to the Taliban detainees (unless you're saying that we should've waited for the AQ detainees to carry out attacks before rolling them up?). Even if they didn't directly commit the acts, they were fighting alongside those who did. Considering how they terrorized the Afghani population I find it very difficult to give a damn either way. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Oct. 18 2002,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They certainly arent the ones that hijacked the planes...<span id='postcolor'> It wasn't for lack of trying, assuming that Binalshibh is now gracing Gitmo with his presence. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (eatmyshorts @ Oct. 19 2002,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Would someone please explain to me exactly what an "unlawfull combatant" really is? Is it perhaps someone who fights without belonging to a military force recognised by his enemies? Is it someone who fights without the approval of his enemies? Is it a soldier with a criminalrecord? Or will it just be the standard term for prisoner of war, used by the USA from now on forward?(Quite convenient actually!<span id='postcolor'> "Unlawful combatant" is a term first used by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942. It's equivalent to "detainee," the term used for a captured combatant who does not meet the requirements to be treated as a prisoner of war. "Irregular" troops such as volunteers or militia members (e.g. Taliban) must be treated as prisoners of war under the Convention if: -- They have a responsible commander. -- They openly carry arms. -- They have a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance. -- They must be conducting military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "Prisoner of war" will continue to be used when applicable. On a related note, you do realize that if the detainees were classified as POW's they could be held until hostilities end? How would you like to be a prisoner until the war on terror was over? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Oct. 18 2002,20:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they are not soldiers, then what justification for their arrest in a foreign land is there?<span id='postcolor'> Being terrorists? Of course, the term is "detained," not "arrested." Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Oct. 18 2002,19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">E6Hotel, when was that post from? 1/20/02? The reason I asked these questions is because they are holding a guy with Swedish citizenship. He has been allowed ONE visitation by diplomats since he ended up there. He has still not been charged with anything, neither has anyone else.<span id='postcolor'> Sorry man, just answering the question. I'm not Miss Cleo. Â </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Oct. 18 2002,19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He sent a letter to his family 9 months ago, it arrived a couple of days ago.<span id='postcolor'> There's the answer to question #1. Â Semper Fi Edit: Jeez my cutting & pasting is getting sloppy. Note to self: Ingest more caffeine.

2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Oct. 18 2002,162)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">- How many think they have been allowed visitations by the Red Cross or diplomats from their homelands?<span id='postcolor'> "A group of British diplomats was at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Saturday to inspect conditions of three detainees who say they are British. The U.S. military also allowed a Red Cross team to visit the facilities and interview detainees this week. The Red Cross has said its report will be confidential, shared only with U.S. officials. Brig. Gen. Mike Lehnert, the head of a task force in charge of the detention mission, said both groups were being given ``full access'' and that Red Cross officials are being allowed to interview detainees in ``full privacy.''" NCTimes Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Oct. 18 2002,06:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good on Nth Korea! This really makes the USA look like the fools they are. They wont go after Nth Korea as there isnt enough oil there and they are not a threat to Israel. <span id='postcolor'> Reading one of this kid's posts is like masturbating with a cheese grater -- mildly entertaining, but mostly painful. Can we get a "rolls eyes" smiley? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Oct. 18 2002,01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And how much does the US spend on it's defense budget, including nukes? A little more the Korea, I'm sure. But it's OK, because noone in the US lives in poverty, right? And the US has a wonderful public health system that doesn't need any extra funding... Please, don't point the finger at other countries for squandering much needed money on weapons...basically every country in the world is guilty of that.<span id='postcolor'> Are you sure you want to compare North Korean "poverty" and U.S. "poverty"? I'll be the first person to say that $ spent on Star Wars stuff could be put to better use domestically, but you can't seriously think that our military spending is depriving our citizens to the extent that North Koreans are experiencing. Do you think it's "funny," too? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex[uSMC] @ Oct. 18 2002,0208)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The best estimate of the total budget in FY2003 is 2,079.9 Billion dollars.<span id='postcolor'> $38k of that is mine, all mine, baby! (Before taxes, claro.) Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 17 2002,22:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, nice answer ...except for that it doesn't really hold up. The treaty was signed in 1994 with Clinton so blaming it on Bush's stupid 'axis of evil' doesn't really work.<span id='postcolor'> ...and the 37,000 American soldiers in South Korea are there to prevent the North Koreans from invading (again). Other than those two little factoids, nice answer. Edit: I wonder how long it will take the North Korean government to ask for "economic incentives" (i.e. payoffs) to halt their program? Semper Fi

Well, so much for the AK-74 nonsense. "The witness came to police and said he saw a man shouldering a weapon -- he identified it an AK-74, an automatic assault rifle -- and about the van. But under questioning Wednesday night, the witness admitted that he had not been in the parking garage at the time of the shooting, but instead was inside the Home Depot, CNN has learned." Smoking crack? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 17 2002,19:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you think that hitting something at 100 m is an achievement then I would give you the advice to try to pursuade the military you are in to replace their slingshots with firearms <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault(CAN) @ Oct. 17 2002,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well good for you. <span id='postcolor'> I ain't sayin' nuthin. Heh. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Oct. 17 2002,16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A funny thing North Korea did is come out and boast that they are building a A bomb.<span id='postcolor'> "Ha ha" funny, or "Starving North Koreans flee to China or South Korea on lonely and desperate journeys to secure food, money or medicine for their dying families back home while children are orphaned when their parents die of starvation and women and young girls are sold into prostitution by those who traffic in human misery while their pathetic government blows its resources trying to build nukes" funny? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chill @ Oct. 17 2002,16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This really has made the US look like the biggest fools!!<span id='postcolor'> Gullible, maybe. And you are aware it was American intel that figured this out, right? Semper Fi