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.

 

New GITMO policy just released by The White House...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   



Li nk

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your recent letter criticizing our treatment of the terrorist detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington....


It must be true....I found it on the internet



Mod Edit: To provide link to quoted source material.

[edit on 10-7-2005 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
That's a good idea.

We can do the same thing for anti-abortionists. We'll send all the babies born from rape, in poverty, and from underage parents to the anti-abortionist houses.

Why wouldn't they like that?



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Doesn't bullocks like this belong on BTS?



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
Doesn't bullocks like this belong on BTS?


No, crap like this belongs in the trash bin


Way to go Army dude! You have successfully created another "YOUR PARTY SUCKS!" thread. Are you proud?



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Hey, Kid, parodies like this show up all the time. Bush and his administration are constantly made fun of. What is so bad about this one? I can understand this being written by someone who is frustrated with having to walk on eggshells down in Gitmo; they've got to let off some steam once in awhile or tensions get too high.


Army, I thought it was kinda funny. Thanks for the chuckle.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Hey, Kid, parodies like this show up all the time. Bush and his administration are constantly made fun of.


I would have thought it funny if it wernt originally posted in an ATS forum as an attempt at being half serious and half joking. This post was not originally here in BTS.

Tell me a joke and I will laugh. Tell me a lie and I will call you out.


[edit on 7/10/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Pretty funny stuff Army.
Much appreciated.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
That's a good idea.

We can do the same thing for anti-abortionists. We'll send all the babies born from rape, in poverty, and from underage parents to the anti-abortionist houses.

Why wouldn't they like that?


Save your excuses for murdering the most innocent, and trying to compare not murdering them to locking up those who are dangerous murderers and terrorists. Some of us understand the difference.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Save your excuses for murdering the most innocent, and trying to compare not murdering them to locking up those who are dangerous murderers and terrorists. Some of us understand the difference.


Some of us understand the similarities. Notably inviting those people you are fighting for to come and live with you. If you are so sincere in your quest to save innocent fetuses from being killed, why don't you offer to adopt them? How many adopted kids are in your house?



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Fetus; Latin for "unborn baby".

If I am sincere in saying that I wish nobody be murdered, do I have to be responsible for everyone?

How about this; before you kill any children, you first take care of them all. Or is it easier to say, "I'll have no part or responsibility, so kill them as far as I care."

So, if I am unwilling ot unable to adopt all children, you think that is a good reason to murder them? You think that makes you, or any other person, righteous enough to play God? You can tell that because a child is born into a poor home, or no home at all, that he won't grow up to have a rich and rewarding life? Gee, if you can see all that, give me the winning lotto numbers for the next 10 years and I assure you, every dime will go to the children.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
If I am sincere in saying that I wish nobody be murdered, do I have to be responsible for everyone?


Exactly, so....

Just because someone doesn't want people to imprisoned unfairly, they have to be responsible for everyone?

BTW, it must be pretty easy for you to be opposed to abortion, but to have no part or responsibility in stopping it.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Your logic is flawed, Jam, and it is a cop-out. To claim that murder prevents an unhappy life...why stop at prenatal abortion? How about saving a 4 year old from an unpleasant life? How about an 18 year old?

How about saving another couple buildings of people from being murdered, or another soldier from being shot by a POW who was released only to go back to fight?

POW camps are a part of war, murdering the unborn is a sick abomination, and it is only warped logic that would try and compare the two.

I also feel it is hatred that always sides on the notion that we are wrong and anyone who opposes the U.S. is right, no matter their past.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Woah, Mr. Crowne, you seem to be arguing against people who aren't there. And the only reason I defend myself is for your sake.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Your logic is flawed, Jam, and it is a cop-out.

The only comparison I made was between the notion of how a gitmo protestor should exercise their protest and of how an anti-abortionist should exercise their protest. Never did I make a comparison between the instances of detainees at gitmo and abortion.


To claim that murder prevents an unhappy life...why stop at prenatal abortion?

And who made this claim? Surely it wasn't me. I only offered common examples of when a baby is aborted.



How about saving another couple buildings of people from being murdered, or another soldier from being shot by a POW who was released only to go back to fight?

All I ask for is proof that they are in fact a POW, and I'll be the first to support, or rather, not oppose, their detention.



POW camps are a part of war, murdering the unborn is a sick abomination, and it is only warped logic that would try and compare the two.

You seem to be the only one here trying to equate the two acts. I never did.



I also feel it is hatred that always sides on the notion that we are wrong and anyone who opposes the U.S. is right, no matter their past.

Who is "we"? What is there to hate Mr. Crowne? There is no hate towards the US government, and frankly I don't need to defend my patriotism for you.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
They are NOT POW's, they are detainees. To be a POW, one must be a member of a recognised governments military forces. These TERRORISTS do not belong to, nor do they fight for, any recognised government. As such, they are not POW's, and do not fall under any Geneva, Leige, Hague, or international Red Cross agreements.

They were/are very bad people that want YOU dead. They don't care that YOU don't care. They don't care for your political views, religeous affiliations, sexual preference, genetic make-up, hair color, shoe size, brainiac or idiot....they want to kill you because Allah said to. That's the reality, that's what we are dealing with, that's the whole enchilada.

Obviously, you do not appreciate humor when it is directed towards your twisted political stance. So be it...I don't care. I thought it was very funny, and wanted to share with all. Don't like it? Fine, simply say so. Do not equate murderous islamic fanatics, with murderous Planned Parenthood fanatics.....

....wait, I guess you can.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Army
They are NOT POW's, they are detainees. To be a POW, one must be a member of a recognised governments military forces. These TERRORISTS do not belong to, nor do they fight for, any recognised government. As such, they are not POW's, and do not fall under any Geneva, Leige, Hague, or international Red Cross agreements.


Hey, whatever you want to call them, it's all semantics as far as I'm concerned. But, as your title says, "Prove it with truth." That's all I'm saying, and I don't think it's too much to ask.

To tell you the truth though, it was funny the first time I heard someone utter similar phrases to the effect of inviting strangers to live with you. But, the funny part, was that they were serious! I guess that's what ruined the joke for me. Plus, I take politics somewhat seriously. I tried to offer some sarcasm of my own, but, alas, it ended up provoking outrage and almost derailed your thread. I apologize. But I still would have said it again.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
That's the main problem Jamuhn, what you call semantics, is actual truth and fact of the matter.

The jailed people in Gitmo are not POW's, regardless of how the left wishes to portray their plight. The are also NOT US citizens, hence to NOT fall under the rights inumerated by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. THAT is not semantics either.

So, not being POW's, they are not priveledge to any rights, and do not have limited access to international groups that would be given to recognised Soldiers of a beligerent country.

They are BAD people, captured in battle....which is why they are at Gitmo! But leftists "feel their pain", and want the US military to treat them like small children that were caught fibbing about taking an extra cookie....

...hence the deep meaning behind my original post....

...which is also why I wondered why it got moved to BST from AST.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Some of them are bad people captured in battle.

Some are people who don't even know why they were kidnapped from their country of origin and stuck into Gitmo and camps like it.

Some are people who were fighting for a just cause in their own eyes, insurgents in Iraq that genuenly are fighting against the US because they don't take it that the US invaded their country and setup a puppet goverment there.

Some are in fact american citizens that do have constitutional rights.

And what you say about them having no rights when their not US citizens. There is such a thing as human rights ya know. I wonder how you would like it if you were kidnapped by North Korea or some other nation that thinks your spouting way to much propaganda against them, swifted away to a location you don't even know where it is, being tortured and such.

Heck, I wouldn't mind hearing how you talked after you took a week or 2 holiday at Gitmo itself and got the full experience of it over there.

Its still human beings were dealing with and just because "terrorists" do inhuman acts, it doesn't mean they aren't humans anymore. If they did these inhuman acts, they can be trialed and punished under the rule of LAW, not under the rule of whoever has the most and biggest guns and torture camps all over the world.




top topics



 
0

log in

join