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.

 

Guantanamo, a confusing situation.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I know you want to twist whatever the U.S. or even Western Civilization has ever done during its entire history into a reason (excuse?) for Islamic terrorism, but it simply doesn't fly.

Nothing could ever justify what these people do against innocent civilians.

And this war will end someday, and then whomever is held at that time by any nation as a POW can be released. It's up to those who started the war -- the violent extemists -- to end it.


You seem not to get the idea that terror is an abstract concept, and humanities age-old struggle against it will never end, just as the struggle against disease or poverty will never end. All one can do is try to make progress in certain areas. And this is not done by invading nations to target a nationless problem.

It's not about justification, either. It's about causes. Just like fighting disease, you have to look at causes and prevention to effectively eradicate a given illness. Like it or not, the reason people point at America is often because America is quite simply the biggest single player on the geopolitical stage. It's actions have consequences, and these are not always good, either for Americans or other people.

If you understood terror as being anything more than a simplistic concept of a bunch of evil, america-hating bad guys killing americans, you would take one step closer to being useful in the "war on terror." The government knows what must be done, but they take counterproductive steps instead, cynically using the public sympathy and confusion in the wake of 9/11 to pursue unrelated and long standing foreign policy goals, which you cheerlead. Justification has nothing to do with making America safer from terror, understanding the causes of it has everything to do with it.

Of course, this isn't to say America is the cause of all terror, but a lot can be done to reduce terror in the long run by examining and changing our policies at home.

-koji K.




posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Army:

The USA (nor any other country BTW), does not need a formal declaration of war to conduct military operations in foriegn countries. The US Congress and Senate gave GW full authority to send troops to fight terrorists. The UN resolutions gave the world body authority to use force to impliment agreements signed by Iraq, the USA, and the UN. That the USA was able to form a coalition to enforce the resolutions, is just what the Left cried for....but now they cry against.


Wow, were you actually HERE when any of this happened? Sheesh. The USA did NOT have UN approval to invade (which a country needs if they bother to ask for it in the first place). The UN resolutions did NOT give authority to use force (it threatened serious consequences and another resolution to deal with any violations (read it, it's 1441)).

Your "Coalition" is a laughable list of countries that could be bullied into agreeing. Onward Pulau! Fight fight, Marshall Islands!

Gitmo is a concentration camp, and the singlemost effective recruiting tool the terrorists have.

"Better to die, Abdullah, because the Americans will probably just imprison you forever as they did to your cousin Mahmood. So if you are wounded, don't let yourself be taken alive."

Does that sound to you like it's going to create any kind of safe environment for U.S. troops? Oops, I meant coalition.

If your enemy imprisoned perpetually and tortured your people when they captured them (or at least that was your perception), would you lay down your arms and surrender when the time came?


As for you people who believe that people can be held indefinitely just because they may have a desire (and a reason) to want to kill Americans, you are undeserving of the freedom you have right now. You deserve to be shipped off to some dictator around the world who desperately needs unquestioning sheep like you, who are so incredibly self-centered that they have absolutely no perspective on anything else except their own fear and paranoia.

If terrorists hate you for your freedoms (which is a laughable assumption), then you don't have to worry, they won't hate you for long. Those freedoms are shrinking.



jako



[edit on 2-8-2005 by Jakomo]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Why are they in Cuba? Because the US didn’t want to give them Constitutional rights.

They are in Cuba because it's a military base that is much easier
to house prisoners in and to secure. No one wants them in Kansas
or in Los Angeles or in THEIR BACK YARDS.

Also - they aren't Americans therefore they have NO Constitutional
'rights'.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
The Red Cross visited Guantanamo and issued a report claiming that the activities going on there were "tantamount to torture."


Then the Red Cross is either full of anti-American Eurocentrics
or they are idiots.

Here's the 'torturous' meals they have -
www.house.gov...

Gee, really malnurished, eh?

They get great food. Better than many Americans get.

They get it prepared for them. I have to prepare my family's meals.
No chef here except for me.

They get the best medical care. Better than many Americans get.
Medical care and medicines, free of charge.

They are housed. A roof over their heads, electricity and indoor plumbing.

Their cells were built so that all were facing MECCA. Gee ... that's really
insensitive of us huh? Build the prison made perfect for their religion
and so that all would know exactly where to bow down to five times a day.

They are provided copies of their Quran. Gee ... how nice of American
tax payers to foot the bill to provide the terrorists copies of their holy
book.

Prayer mats, prayer hats, a Muslim chaplain and a 'call to prayers' issued
over the loud speaker five times a day ... yep .. more torture.

These terrorists declared war on America. They declared that they will
fight to the death to destroy America. They struck us first, and again
and again (WTC 1993, USS COLE, 9/11, etc.) They don't deserve
ANYTHING except to die, and yet we pamper them in GITMO.

There is NOTHING confusing about GITMO. It houses the worst
humanity has to offer. They are pampered, when they should just
be shot and dumped in the ocean to feed the sharks.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Just this:

Prison Abuse Decisions Came from the Top!

AND

A Question:

WHY are NONE of these Prison Camps on AMERICAN SOIL?

[edit on 2/8/05 by Souljah]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
You know...

If these insurgents/combatants/term du jour had actually been charged with crimes, it'd be one thing.

Most of them haven't.

That's perhaps the bigger problem here.

And when, oh when, are we going to get past the notion that "Well THEY want to hurt Americans so it's OK to hurt them back!". Are we seriously living with the misguided notion that it's perfectly ok to continue a cycle of abuse?



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
The USA did NOT have UN approval to invade (which a country needs if they bother to ask for it in the first place).

Um ... no. A nation needs no 'approval' from the UN to invade
another nation and/or defend itself from others. This is just silly.
Did Al-Quida ask UN approval before it attacked us? Nope. We
need NO PERMISSION FROM ANYONE to defend America or our
interests.

And as far as going to the UN to ask permission to defend ourselves
that's a joke! France and other security council members were being
paid off by SADDAM with billions of dollars to cast 'NO' votes for a war.
So you think the corrupt Security Council would vote to go to war with a
country that was putting billions into their pockets? yeah right!


Your "Coalition" is a laughable list of countries

Why 'laughable'? Because the nations that were corrupted and taking
bribes from Saddam (France, Germany, Russia) refused to join? Because
Old Europe isn't on the list due to their corruption? That's a joke.
Here's a list of the Coalition of the Willing. Laugh at them if you will,
but THEY were not corrupted by Saddam! THEY aren't in trouble with
the Oil for Food UN scandal.

USA, United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Netherlands,
Australia, Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand, Denmark, Honduras, El Salvador,
Dominican Republic, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Mongolia, Azerbaijan,
Portugal, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Philippines,
Albania, Georgia, New Zealand, Moldova, Macedonia, Estonia,
Canada, Kazakhstan


Gitmo is a concentration camp, and the singlemost
effective recruiting tool the terrorists have.

The terrorists were recruiting people and attacking BEFORE Gitmo
was created. They would continue even after Gitmo was closed.
GITMO does it's job and hopefully will continue to do so dispite the
whines from the extreme left to appease the terrorists. Have no
false notions!! Closing GITMO would just embolden the terrorists.


If your enemy imprisoned perpetually and tortured your people
when they captured them (or at least that was your perception), would
you lay down your arms and surrender when the time came?

That's exactly what the terrorists do. They behead female care workers
who volunteer their time to help the poor in muslim countries. They
capture civilians and behead them on film. They blow up unarmed children
and civilians. They shoot captured military personel in the heads.
They are evil and they do not follow any rules of engagement.

GITMO is a paradise and they are taken care of extremely well.
Better than they deserve.



[edit on 8/2/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
when are we going to get past the notion that "Well THEY
want to hurt Americans so it's OK to hurt them back


Check my previous post Tinkleflower. The terrorists are
PAMPERED at GITMO. Look at what I wrote. They are
NOT being hurt. I wouldn't mind if they were, but they
are not.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
A Question:
WHY are NONE of these Prison Camps on AMERICAN SOIL?


GITMO is in a section of CUBA that is leased by America and
has been for many many years. It's as American as you can
get without building the prison here in CONUS (continental
United States).

None of us would want that here. None of us want those
terrorists housed next to our homes, our schools, our places
of business. Those are the idiots who want to destroy our
country and kill us all. Why would we want to bring them
here - closer to the thing they want to destroy?? Nope.
No thanks.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
None of us would want that here. None of us want those
terrorists housed next to our homes, our schools, our places
of business. Those are the idiots who want to destroy our
country and kill us all. Why would we want to bring them
here - closer to the thing they want to destroy?? Nope.
No thanks.

Well its HARDLY Accessible to all the Humanitarian and Red Cross Inspectors also, huh?

How Convenient...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Check my previous post Tinkleflower. The terrorists are
PAMPERED at GITMO. Look at what I wrote. They are
NOT being hurt. I wouldn't mind if they were, but they
are not.



Exactly who are you talking about? The hundreds who have not been charged with any crime at all?

It's very, very easy to sit in our ivory towers and make blanket statements like yours above....but the point remains. These inmates have not been charged as terrorists, and they have not been labelled as terrorists by any official body. And before anyone yells "They're not citizens, they're not entitled to any rights" - pure and utter twaddle. Even though it's overlooked, an inmate still has rights under various international/US laws, regardless of his citizenship.

As for them being hurt - sorry, but I think it would be terribly naive to think that everything at Gitmo is hunky-dory. Sure, you can choose not to believe the lawyers (and these are American lawyers too), the Red Cross, the various other bodies who've tried to complain about allegations of abuse - but I think it's misguided to do so.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by koji_K
The Red Cross visited Guantanamo and issued a report claiming that the activities going on there were "tantamount to torture."


Then the Red Cross is either full of anti-American Eurocentrics
or they are idiots.

Here's the 'torturous' meals they have -
www.house.gov...

Gee, really malnurished, eh?

They get great food. Better than many Americans get.

They get it prepared for them. I have to prepare my family's meals.
No chef here except for me.

...

There is NOTHING confusing about GITMO. It houses the worst
humanity has to offer. They are pampered, when they should just
be shot and dumped in the ocean to feed the sharks.





You really think all this stuff means there isn't any torture? They have food and plumbing? The cells face Mecca, you say? Wow. No torture there then.

Good thing the Red Cross, which has experience at this sort of thing, has slightly better logicians at their disposal.

Pampered. If you consider being stuck in Camp X-Ray as being "pampered," you could probably use a taste of such luxury yourself. You either live a life of severe deprivation and pain, or you just have no idea what you are talking about. If Gitmo is so unconfusing, if it really has the "worst humanity has to offer," why not just try them and be done with it?

I'm not saying Gitmo is as bad as the concentration camps were, but you know one method those camps were sold to the German people? They were told, in many instances, that they were holiday camps. Reading your post, I can see the gullibility of todays Americans is little better.

-koji K.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 2-8-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   


Um ... no. A nation needs no 'approval' from the UN to invade
another nation and/or defend itself from others. This is just silly.
Did Al-Quida ask UN approval before it attacked us? Nope. We
need NO PERMISSION FROM ANYONE to defend America or our
interests.


I agree, if a country attacks us then we should defend ourselves from that country.

However

Ummm, call it silly.. But at what point did Al-Quida become Iraq? ohh I remember.. When Bush said so.. Well that clears everything up. But wait... almost all of the terrorist that attacked us on 9/11 was Saudi.. And Al-Quida was known to be primarily in the mountains and outlying areas of Afghanistan.

As for the abuse at the prisons.

Sadly that was inevitable.. Just read Stanly Milgram's study on obedience and authority combined with Zimbardo's Prison study www.dushkin.com...

The environment created by the US incarceration of without ever charging of a crime for an indefinite period of time was destined to degrade into an issue of human rights abuse, physical abuse, and torture by it's very inception.

For those who think it is a holiday spot, quoting meal lists published by www.house.gov, are painfully misled and blind to human nature.

There is a problem and a serious one at that, that will be continually debated with little resolution. In the mean time the powers that be will contue to use the fog to hide their abuse of power.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
or you just have no idea what you are talking about.

Nope. I know exactly what I'm talking about. These are
terrorists. They are not sweet little old ladies who knit
and make chicken noodle soup. They deserve to be there.


if it really has the "worst humanity has to offer,"
why not just try them and be done with it?


Excellent idea! Shoot 'em and drop 'em in the ocean
for shark food. It would make life a whole lot easier
and the world would be better off without them. However
the government seems to think they can get intelligence
information from them to stop future attacks and they
also feel that they shouldn't 'shoot fish in a barrel' as
the saying goes. Looks like we are 'too good for that'.
Oh well.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
The more I think the more I see Guantanamo as an interesting experiment.

The US can practicaly invade any country in the word. And after defeating It they install puppet (read democratic) government. But there is always as would our estinguished member Syrian Sister say la ressistance. So the "democratic " government has a problem containing this guerillas (because the country is ruined and institutions are not finctioning properly) and ask US to help them. So US quickly slap them with "terrorist", "insurgents", "enemy combatant", "illegal combatant" or some other SCI-FI eloquent word and ship them to Guantanamo. Occupied country doesn't have to wory about the nor American people, because they are non-US cityzen, non POW, terrorists, not on US soil etc. This is an ultimate solution for all ressistance movements in this world.


IMO this is also a sociological experiment where the Goverment wants to see how far can the population be pushed before they condone such action (like torture is OK etc.). How long can keep the general public in fear and in darkness and how long would populus support them and international community tolerate them.

Just my oppinion.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
FlyersFan:

Um ... no. A nation needs no 'approval' from the UN to invade
another nation and/or defend itself from others. This is just silly.
Did Al-Quida ask UN approval before it attacked us? Nope.


Al Qaeda is not a nation. And to wage a legally sanctioned war (according to the United Nations), you must receive an okay from the Security Council. It's what stops Uzbekistan from rolling over Kazakhstan, knowing that if they invade, the United Nations (the closest thing we have to a world government) will disagree and take military action against the invading force. It's a deterrent.


And as far as going to the UN to ask permission to defend ourselves
that's a joke!


DEFEND YOURSELVES FROM WHAT?! An Iraqi army that was SO SCARY that it was successfully rolled over in 2 days by less than 200,000 troops? An Iraqi army with no air force? No Navy? A toothless Iraqi dictator with NO WMDs at all and no means to deliver them anyway?

I'd love to hear you explain to me how attacking a Third World country with one of the world's weakest militaries is "defending yourselves". Unless you figure that the "eventually they maybe possibly could've gotten the capacity to take us out so we'll take em out now" approach is valid, because it's not, it smacks of cowardice and paranoia.

As to your "Shoot them and throw them into the ocean, we're better off without them" comment:

If it was so clear that they were terrorists, and worthy of a guilty verdict, you would figure that over the last 3 years the US government would have CHARGED SOMEONE in Guantanomo of a crime. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you figure they would want to get a quick guilty plea and get the person serving his time as soon as possible?

If Tim McVeigh were around right now and they caught him after a bombing, would they ship him to Gitmo and keep him in an outdoor cage in an orange jumpsuit, with no access to a lawyer or to his family or to the outside world indefinitely?


And omigod I gotta love the "proof" that Gitmo is cool. The US government press release, a totally uncorroborated apparent "menu" of what they feed the inmates.

Wow, if it's like a cross between a Best Western and Cancun, why not allow, oh, say, anybody in the foreign or American press to walk around freely and report back to us (and to the American voters and taxpayers who foot the bill) about what is happening?

Oh, national security, you say? Things that are going on in there are vitally important to national security and showing what goes on might jeopardize American military and national interests? Doesn't that sound perfectly logical until you spend maybe 10 seconds thinking it through.

If what goes on inside a prison camp to uncharged foreign nationals in Cuba is so important to your national security that you, the voting public, must never be allowed to know, then there is a serious disconnect between what your "democratic" government thinks is good for you and what actually is.


j



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
You have voted Jakomo for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join