It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christina Aguilera music used to make terrorist talk at GITMO

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

You have voted Disturbed Deliverer for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


Yes!




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
What are you talking about?!? The soldiers who abused inmates at Abu Ghraib were court marshaled! And the men and women that blew the whistle on the abusers were rewarded.


Some were, some got off. And no, the men and women who blew the whistle were NOT rewarded. I challenge you to prove that assertion with some links/proof. My understanding of how it went down is a bit different.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
As far as I'm concerned, this is all the more reason to go into Iraq and a lot of other nations to get rid of their tyranical governments.


If you heard the Red Chinese say that about the U.S.A. and Bush, I'd bet a week's salary you'd flip out.


It goes both ways.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   

If you heard the Red Chinese say that about the U.S.A. and Bush, I'd bet a week's salary you'd flip out


Well, first, the Chinese don't have the power to do anything to America.

Second, it's not the same because America isn't massacring its own citizens. Governments where the people have tried to overthrow it on multiple occasions do not have a right to stand.

Plus, the Iraqis were basically asking, or hoping for our intervention after the first Gulf War when they tried to overthrow Saddam. I doubt opinions changed all that much since.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Well, first, the Chinese don't have the power to do anything to America.

Second, it's not the same because America isn't massacring its own citizens. Governments where the people have tried to overthrow it on multiple occasions do not have a right to stand.

Plus, the Iraqis were basically asking, or hoping for our intervention after the first Gulf War when they tried to overthrow Saddam. I doubt opinions changed all that much since.


Not one of the points you made changes the fact that it absolutely is the same.

1. America has been snowed by the media and academia about the rise of China far too long. They are one of the greatest threats to America, next only to Russia. This fairy tale that the cold war (capabilities and machinations) went away overnight with the fall of the Soviet Union is one of the greatest fallacies ever pushed on the USA.

2. We have NO business dictating policy to any soveriegn nation. If you believe that, you don't truly embrace all the glorious rhetoric of this Republic. Can't have it both ways.

3. The people of Iraq, especially after Bush conned them into rising up, did not ask us to invade and occupy their nation. Some wanted us to take Saddam out. More now hate us and our presence with a vengeance b/c of our illegal and deadly intervention.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

1. America has been snowed by the media and academia about the rise of China far too long. They are one of the greatest threats to America, next only to Russia. This fairy tale that the cold war (capabilities and machinations) went away overnight with the fall of the Soviet Union is one of the greatest fallacies ever pushed on the USA.


Sorry, but China is a nation that still lacks the ability to even deploy serious numbers of forces outside their homeland. They don't even have dominance in their region. They are no threat at this time to America.


2. We have NO business dictating policy to any soveriegn nation. If you believe that, you don't truly embrace all the glorious rhetoric of this Republic. Can't have it both ways.


Wrong. First, that's just a naive statement. Whoever has the power can do whatever they want in this world. Second, we beat Iraq in a war. They signed treaties, and they broke them. That alone justifies our intervention in Iraq.


3. The people of Iraq, especially after Bush conned them into rising up, did not ask us to invade and occupy their nation. Some wanted us to take Saddam out. More now hate us and our presence with a vengeance b/c of our illegal and deadly intervention.


When you say illegal, you are basically implying that there are some laws that nations are supposed to follow. Yet, who has the authority to force these laws on any soveriegn nation? Why is the UN any different than America? You're just drawing some arbitrary line in the sand and saying you can't cross this.

And when the people of Iraq tried to overthrow Saddam, do you honestly think they weren't hoping for America to come in and take him out? They were asking for an invasion then. Unless you expect the Iraqi people to send diplomats to us asking for help, then that's about as close as you can get.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
eh, i dont blame him. if forced to listen to crappy pop music from the 90's, i'd crack too.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Sorry, but China is a nation that still lacks the ability to even deploy serious numbers of forces outside their homeland. They don't even have dominance in their region. They are no threat at this time to America.


That sounds precisely like the smoke academia was blowing up our butts over a decade ago.


Don't fall into the same trap that they fell into so long ago. China considered itself the middle kingdom as long as they existed. Meaning they belived they were superior to everyone else in the known world. As technology grew and the industrialized nations embraced it, they fell behind b/c of their ignorance. They got their heads straight and vowed to never go that route again. They are now second only to the U.S. in oil consumption due to their explosive industry. And they are working feverishly to become equal to us militarily. Then there's the whole economic picture to consider. Considering the state of our economy and our being bogged down in Iraq, we're in quite a precarious situation. Never underestimate your opponents' abilities. It will be your/our downfall.


Wrong. First, that's just a naive statement. Whoever has the power can do whatever they want in this world. Second, we beat Iraq in a war. They signed treaties, and they broke them. That alone justifies our intervention in Iraq.


Quit listening to Fox "news" or Limbaugh, or whoever it is feeding you this bunk. I am anything but naive. Do you realize what you just said is pure, ridiculous rhetoric?
No nation has the right to invade another sovereign nation under false pretenses. And just because you have the bigger stick, doesn't give you the right to swing it whenever and at whomever you please. That is foolishness to the extreme. Not to mention evil.


When you say illegal, you are basically implying that there are some laws that nations are supposed to follow. Yet, who has the authority to force these laws on any soveriegn nation? Why is the UN any different than America? You're just drawing some arbitrary line in the sand and saying you can't cross this.


You might wanna look into the Geneva Conventions and all those pesky inernational treaties we've signed.

I don't suppose you realize that according to your reasoning, HITLER had every right to invade Poland, Checkoslovakia & the rest of those nations.


And when the people of Iraq tried to overthrow Saddam, do you honestly think they weren't hoping for America to come in and take him out? They were asking for an invasion then. Unless you expect the Iraqi people to send diplomats to us asking for help, then that's about as close as you can get.


I fought with the 101st Airborne during the Gulf War. After Bush (the first) convinced them to rise up against Saddam and then left their butts hanging in the wind, no, they weren't so hot on us.

I wonder if you could try to explain why it is that the people of Iraq want us to get out now, not later.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
The long story short is that this is THE LEAST of what they are doing over there to get people to 'talk'.

207.44.245.159...

There is a better description of what is going on over there...



"chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."

"sodomized with a chemical light" or having "electrodes attached to his penis to simulate electric torture"



This is being conducted by a country that prides itself on its dedication to justice and equality and freedom.


Pure hypocracy.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vis Mega

This is being conducted by a country that prides itself on its dedication to justice and equality and freedom.


Pure hypocracy.


Yeah, what a farce.

There is nothing in the way this administration is conducting foreign policy that remotely resembles what this nation supposedly stands for.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Don't fall into the same trap that they fell into so long ago. China considered itself the middle kingdom as long as they existed. Meaning they belived they were superior to everyone else in the known world. As technology grew and the industrialized nations embraced it, they fell behind b/c of their ignorance. They got their heads straight and vowed to never go that route again. They are now second only to the U.S. in oil consumption due to their explosive industry. And they are working feverishly to become equal to us militarily. Then there's the whole economic picture to consider. Considering the state of our economy and our being bogged down in Iraq, we're in quite a precarious situation. Never underestimate your opponents' abilities. It will be your/our downfall.


None of that means anything except they're a rising power. I am more aware of China's abilities then you probably are. Military, they are at least 20 years behind at best. It would a take a good 40 years for them to surpass us. One could easily argue America's foreign policy has been heavily focused around containing China.

China is still almost a puppet of ours at this time, and will need a great deal of work to brea free.


Quit listening to Fox "news" or Limbaugh, or whoever it is feeding you this bunk. I am anything but naive. Do you realize what you just said is pure, ridiculous rhetoric? No nation has the right to invade another sovereign nation under false pretenses. And just because you have the bigger stick, doesn't give you the right to swing it whenever and at whomever you please. That is foolishness to the extreme. Not to mention evil.


You can argue the morality if it all you want, but America has the ability and that's all that really matters.

And Iraq did break their agreements after the first Gulf War. That gives us all the pretext we need for an invasion.


You might wanna look into the Geneva Conventions and all those pesky inernational treaties we've signed.


When the rest of the world starts following them to the letter, I'll be concerned when America breaks one of the many tedius and pointless rules we're supposed to follow. The Geneva Convention is so vague that anything you do in a war could be considered a war crime.


I don't suppose you realize that according to your reasoning, HITLER had every right to invade Poland, Checkoslovakia & the rest of those nations.


Hitler had as much right as anyone else. If Hitler didn't go around massacring other races, we wouldn't think of him as evil. Most saw Hitler's actions as simply rebuilding Germany after they were screwed in the first World War.


I fought with the 101st Airborne during the Gulf War. After Bush (the first) convinced them to rise up against Saddam and then left their butts hanging in the wind, no, they weren't so hot on us.


None of that gives you experience on how the Iraq people feel. You weren't having all that much contact with Iraqi people.


I wonder if you could try to explain why it is that the people of Iraq want us to get out now, not later.


No nation likes being occupied by foreign troops. That doesn't mean they hate us. If they really hated us, we'd be getting a lot worse over there. The insurgency is rather small, only 20,000 to 100,000 in a country of over 20 million.

The polls I've seen indicate that the Iraqi people think they will be better off in the future because of our invasion on the whole.


"chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."

"sodomized with a chemical light" or having "electrodes attached to his penis to simulate electric torture"


It's so nice you can believe any statement made bad about the American government. If we were sodomizing people, or shocking them, I'd think there would be some scars on some of those guys we've released.

People have been let inside Guantanamo Bay. They've been unable to complain about much more then the fact that they are being held without a trial.

And in all honesty, anyone who wants to crucify Bush for any of this is really ignorant of our history. People would hardly raise an eyebrow at this type of behavior during any other war. If we were attacked 9/11 style half a century ago, we would have taken far more extreme actions. Think you'd see any Muslims walking around? Yet most of the liberals who complain about Bush would still praise the likes of Lincoln or FDR, who took far more drastic measures.

The people being held in Guantanamo are most likely there for a reason. We keep a few hundred people there. They were found on the battlefield. We're in a war, whether liberals agree/believe in it or not. Our treatment of any POW's is no different then how any other nation would treat them. If you think otherwise, I'd call you naive. Hell, look at the actions taken by the British when dealing with the IRA.

There's nothing special or especially sinister about what America is doing.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Hey Vis, Information Clearing House...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


None of that means anything except they're a rising power. I am more aware of China's abilities then you probably are. Military, they are at least 20 years behind at best. It would a take a good 40 years for them to surpass us. One could easily argue America's foreign policy has been heavily focused around containing China.



Yawn.
It's clear you live a very sheltered life.

What is your military experience, by chance?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Hey Vis, Information Clearing House...


I take it you are not familiar with what a solid source is?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   
You must be joking, if you think that left-wing anti-Bush "information" site is a good sourse then i'm not suprised that your views are so uninformed.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
You must be joking, if you think that left-wing anti-Bush "information" site is a good sourse then i'm not suprised that your views are so uninformed.


Um, please point out to us what information at that site is not credible. I won't hold my breath.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
While you're trying to find something to counter my proposal, I thought I would direct those interested in this little gem from the site you blindly criticize.



Bush administration officials join ranks of tyranny

By Robert Zaller

06/24/05 "The Triangle" - - The American playwright Lillian Hellman titled her memoir of the McCarthy years Scoundrel Time. A memoir of this period in American history might well be called Gestapo Time.

It is now more than a year since the revelations of torture and homicide against prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the showpiece of our efforts to "democratize" Iraq, shocked and outraged the world. Torture and suicide at Guantanamo Bay, the concentration camp aptly described by Amnesty International as the gulag of our times, has been on the record for three years. Foreign nationals, recategorized as enemy combatants by basement bureaucrats, have disappeared down these and other black holes around the globe.

They have been denied legal process, access to counsel, and any contact with the outside world. This has no precedent in the law of nations, or in the practice of any but the most repressive dictatorships. Nor have American citizens themselves been spared this treatment. One, Jose Padilla, remains incarcerated without trial in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Another, Yaser Hamdi, was summarily deported to Saudi Arabia. Two others, Kashan and Zain Afzal, were imprisoned without charge for eight months in Pakistan, interrogated by the FBI, and threatened with deportation to Guantanamo.

This is how fascism comes. It comes through creating legal nonpersons of citizens and noncitizens alike. It comes through violating human rights standards, sanitizing torture, and condoning murder.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...


Let's let the people be the judge.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 03:41 AM
link   

What is your military experience, by chance?


Besides the fact that I like to study military history, nothing. However, being a grunt in the military doesn't give you any credibility when talking about the military capability of China. It's just a useless diversion.


While you're trying to find something to counter my proposal, I thought I would direct those interested in this little gem from the site you blindly criticize.


Blindly? That article seemed pretty biased to me.


It is now more than a year since the revelations of torture and homicide against prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the showpiece of our efforts to "democratize" Iraq, shocked and outraged the world. Torture and suicide at Guantanamo Bay, the concentration camp aptly described by Amnesty International as the gulag of our times, has been on the record for three years. Foreign nationals, recategorized as enemy combatants by basement bureaucrats, have disappeared down these and other black holes around the globe.


What homicide and suicide would they be talking about, exactly? We've had what, 30 deaths in all of the prisons we run in Iraq and Afghanistan total? We have more deaths then that in our own prisons.

Each case is investigated, and those involved, if found responsible, prosecuted. I've heard of no cases of deaths at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, though.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Does anybody here SERIOUSLY believe that even if we DIDN'T have Gitmo and Abu Ghraib(sp?) that the terrorists and insurgents would follow the Geneva Convention if they captured an US soldier? Their goal is to kill Americans. Civilian and military both. We could have them stay in a five star hotel, in a suite, and only ask them polite questions, and only when they weren't tired or stressed out, and they would STILL go against the Convention.

And for the record, from the Geneva Convention........

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;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

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

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

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Where in there does it say anything about people who kill civilians and anyone who disagrees with them?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Does anybody here SERIOUSLY believe that even if we DIDN'T have Gitmo and Abu Ghraib(sp?) that the terrorists and insurgents would follow the Geneva Convention if they captured an US soldier? Their goal is to kill Americans. Civilian and military both. We could have them stay in a five star hotel, in a suite, and only ask them polite questions, and only when they weren't tired or stressed out, and they would STILL go against the Convention.



If there is proof against them, prosecute them. Throw them in prison for life at hard labor. Give them the death penalty for their crimes. Or let them go. We are creating more enemies than is necessary. But hey - that is what problem/reaction/solution is all about.



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join