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.

 

Guantánamo Prisoner Dies After Being Held for Nine Years Without Charge or Trial

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   


Okay, first, this is not a personal attack...
However, in my opinion, you're either very naive or you are
actually with one of the alphabet soup agencies - with just
a job to do (to quote the Genesis song.) That would explain
why it is that you talk, but don't listen. Please, don't try
to defend the indefensible!
Vicky


Not a personal attack, but you address no subject other
than me. Ok, not an attack, because its your opinion.
Still, you did not address the subject matter of the
thread, once, you only address me as the subject.

I must be CIA, or FBI, or whatever. It is funny how often
I have been accused of that. It is usually one of the
first things I am accused of when coming onto a scene
like this.

Me naive?, the entire amount of arguments against me are
things like this last gem of yours.


Please, don't try to defend the indefensible!


If it is so indefensible, how come you can't come up with
the words giving the reasons it is so indefensible. Could
you be just believing something because you are naive, and
not because it has actually good reasons to believe it?

Now for that comment of naive, I have to say you are the
one totally clueless as to my background and sophistication
on these subjects. Until this thread, I have not posted here
for about 5 years. So to give you some idea of my background
knowledge, here are some links to some of my posts back when
I was being awarded the top secret guy of the month etc.
Check out these links and see if my background is that of
an uniformed naive one, or whether it fits better as the
background of a career military officer, with combat experience
and who also served in military intelligence, and who
kept up with that intelligence by subscribing to things
like stratfor and keeping in touch with my old circle
of other naive individuals.

link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

..




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   


Sorry Sparky...the bad guys won. Some folks just don't know it.


Some folks don't know? How about Johnny Canuck don't know.

Johnny Canuck, your total arguments so far add up to zero.
No facts, no arguments, no points, no counter points.

You just state something as a fact and expect me to wilt
away and shut up. I would think that a Canadian would
know better than to treat their southern neighbors this
way. You are a Canadian, right, or is that just another
misguided set of words from your mouth?

The Canadians, one of my favorite topics. The northern
neighbors, to hear them tell it, they just can't stand
Americans, and Canadians give the biggest approval rating of
the entire world, for the UN. Yes, that is right the
Canadians, just love the UN. Canadians at every level
seem to love government. They can't get enough, when
their country government is not enough then they endorse
the UN. The Canadians love state ran health care, and
they love gun control, making it illegal for hunters
to load their gun before they see the deer there, heaven
forbid some idiot Canadian should shoot himself while
deer hunting because he tripped and fell while carrying
a loaded gun.
At a gun club in the Phoenix area we got some Canadians
at times during the Winters, they brought their guns
down and shot with us. They really liked the US attitude
on guns. They were quite envious that we could all
own all sorts of guns without government approval, even
the dreaded pistol. Yes, these Canadians had a definite
envy of American freedom.

When I took my wife to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale,
Arizona, I noticed a number Canadian license plates
in the parking lot. What is wrong here Johnny Canuck,
Canadians coming to the US for Health care, how is
that possible when the Canadian government takes
care of its people from cradle to grave? Why
would a Canadian come down here and pay thousands
for health care? Maybe the Canadian government
measured victory and defeat the same way Johnny
Canuck does. Maybe healthcare is in the US, maybe
gun control is only for Canadians, maybe up is down,
maybe winning is loosing. You never know with a
Canadian.

I was in a bar in Calgary a few years ago, along with
some of my co-workers, and we got to talking with some
Canadians, and the subject of US military adventures
became the subject, and I told them of some of my
exploits while in uniform. I did not know what they
would think of it, I presumed they would not approve,
given all the talk on TV etc. A funny thing happened
though, they could not get enough of my stories. I
could not buy another drink all evening. These Canadians
loved hearing of the fighting. Afterward, one of my
companions, said something like, "gee, I didn't know
you did all those things." The subject had just never
came up between me and my co-workers. I have to admit
the Canadians really loved to hear of these exploits.

It all makes me wonder, how come everything in the news
and media, even Johnny Canuck who can't even acknowledge
the US won against Al Qaeda in that episode. I wonder
if the Canadians have an inferiority complex, because
they have not got up the gumption to really attend a
major fight for the last 50 years. Do they feel so
inferior that they even have to say that the US lost
this war, in order to maintain their own feeling of
self worth.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee


Sorry Sparky...the bad guys won. Some folks just don't know it.


Some folks don't know? How about Johnny Canuck don't know.

Johnny Canuck, your total arguments so far add up to zero.
No facts, no arguments, no points, no counter points.

Some folks see what they wanna see, and there's no convincing them otherwise. I'm obviously not going to change your mind, so why bother being just another Keyboard Kommando? Far too many of those pajamahadeen here anyway.

Like they say "No sense trying to teach a pig to fly...it wastes your time and annoys the pig"

Happy Trails.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorCee
 


Way to take the moral high ground and abstain from personal attacks, after you were the one to complain about them in the first place.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee


Not a personal attack, but you address no subject other
than me. Ok, not an attack, because its your opinion.
Still, you did not address the subject matter of the
thread, once, you only address me as the subject.

I must be CIA, or FBI, or whatever.



If it is so indefensible, how come you can't come up with
the words giving the reasons it is so indefensible.


Check out these links and see if my background is that of
an uniformed naive one, or whether it fits better as the
background of a career military officer, with combat experience
and who also served in military intelligence, and who
kept up with that intelligence by subscribing to things
like stratfor and keeping in touch with my old circle
of other naive individuals.

link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

..

I am glad you realise that my statement was still not a personal attack! CIA would be my guess, or NSA or even possibly Gestapo - oops, Homeland Security... (You do know that the word Gestapo translates roughly to Homeland Security, don't you?)
As for my only argument being 'don't defend the indefensible', other people before have given facts that you won't accept - so meh.
I couldn't care less about your background on ATS, it's irrelevant to the real world, but what you've said about career military, that great oxymoron military intelligence etc fits exactly what I expected. It's in your interests to portray the victims at Gitmo as terrorists, of course, so you will continue to do so.
I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt by saying you might be naive. The other option - a deliberate crazy deceiver, is something I would have thought you'd find much less desirable, but apparently not.
Vicky



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
MajorCee (IA????
) has accused me of being light on facts - hence, a couple of links...

Guantanamo

David Hicks on Gitmo

Vicky



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Okay, Vicky you say:


but what you've said about career military, that great oxymoron military intelligence etc fits exactly what I expected. It's in your interests to portray the victims at Gitmo as terrorists, of course, so you will continue to do so.


So now tell us about your vast wide ranging experience in the world.
How many armchair battles have you commanded? Don't tell,
me you attended college and there was this left wing professor
that told you all about the wrong doings of the CIA etc. Tell me
about your background and real world experience. I would love
to know the background of someone who can presume that
prisoners in Gitmo are victims. I can hardly wait.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Miss Vicky said,


I am glad you realise that my statement was still not
a personal attack! CIA would be my guess, or NSA or even
possibly Gestapo - oops, Homeland Security... (You do
know that the word Gestapo translates roughly to Homeland
Security, don't you?) As for my only argument being
'don't defend the indefensible', other people before
have given facts that you won't accept - so meh.
0I couldn't care less about your background on ATS,
it's irrelevant to the real world, but what you've said
about career military, that great oxymoron military
intelligence etc fits exactly what I expected. It's
in your interests to portray the victims at Gitmo as
terrorists, of course, so you will continue to do so.
I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt by
saying you might be naive. The other option - a deliberate
crazy deceiver, is something I would have thought you'd
find much less desirable, but apparently not.
Vicky


Well Miss Vicky let me just say back to you,

I am glad you realise that my statement is not a personal
attack, Terrorist operative or suporter would be my guess
as to who you are, or maybe communist, or anarchist, or
even possibly socialist, (You do know that the nazis were
socialists, don't you?) As for my only argument being
what they are, other people before me have given facts
that you won't accept - so tough shevick.
I couldn't care less about Miss Vicky's Statements on ATS,
it's irrelevant to the real world, but what you've said
about your own career, that really is nothing, a big
zero, since as far as we know you don't even have a
career, actually you could be on food stamps, this fits with
exactly what I expected. It's in your interests to show
terrorists as victimns at Gitmo, of course, so you will
continue to do so. I was prepared to give you the benefit
of the doubt by thinking you might have a real point to
make. The other option - a deliberate crazy deceiver, is
something I would have thought you'd find much less
desirable, but apparently not.
MajorCee

=====================================

See how easy this was Miss Vicky. I did not have to put
up one fact, just as you put up not one fact. All I had
to do was take your direct quote and just change a few little
items that made it apply to you instead of me and now I have
condemned you by using the same words you used on me. This
is all you did, put up a rant of someone removed from reality,
and now you get the same words back. If you can declare
all these things true about me, well, I can declare them
true about you. I don't need facts either. I can use your
methods, as long as you understand this is just my
opinion, and not a personal attack. See how well this
works.

If you insist on putting up a bunch of pointless drivel
with no logical development to it, so be it. I can do
the same thing. How do you like it? If you want to make
a real point, stop trying to make your points by saying
I am an idiot and actually demonstrate through example
of what I said that it is idiotic, otherwise I will
use the same unsubstantiated BS right back at you.

What is ironic here is that people who assume the
terrorists at Gitmo are victims, also assume that
an American voicing his opinion here is someone working
with Satan. If you have the sophistication to think
that a prisoner at Guantanimo can be right, you should
also have the sophistication to know that career military
officer with actual world experience might also have
picked up on some knowledge along the way. You don't
seem to have that sophistication, and just write me
off as "military intelligence", an oxymoron.

Since you can do that, I guess I can lay some similar
popular verbage on you, so here goes:

You have went from the ironic to the moronic.

You would not know the truth if it hit you in the face

In the battle of wits you are unarmed

You just don't know what you are talking about

These are all similar to saying military intelligence
is an oxymoron. Like I said, if you just want to
exchange cleaver little sayings, I can do that
with the best of them. I did not go there until you
did, now you can enjoy the benefits of being on the
receiving end of this. Fun isn't it?

edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Vicky,

Now to get back on point and get away from meaningless
sayings with nothing to substantiate them,
I noticed that you site as a resource of your information
on the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo in one of
your links a certain David Hicks. Also I noticed that
this site has its versions up in several different
languages, definitely a multilengual effort, something
that some big dollars are behind, not some individual
getting out his message. The only thing identifying
the source is "information from middle east".
In your sophisticated opinion, do you think that
maybe someone in the middle east may have the
motivation to put up some lying propoganda? Do you
think that is possible? You do have the sophistication
to to believe that the US is guilty here, but do you
have the sophistication to think that a source from
the middle east might also have motive to lie? Are
you completely naive, or just in training to become
naive.

This may surprise you but David Hicks does not qualify
as a choir boy according this link he trained with
Al Qaeda and was caputured in Afghanistan, an odd
location for an Australian:
en.wikipedia.org...

Now going even further:

I have to say, David Hicks is not a good candidate to be
a witness against the US. How do you think Charles Manson
would be in describing his detention? Do you think you
would get a true picture of his prisoner life? Is that
your measuring stick? I have seen interviews of him.
He says he is a good guy.


If you look at what David Hicks says about his torture in
the hands of the US, I have to say it just does not ring
true. I am speaking from first hand knowledge of US
thinking and policy on POW issues. I have actually had
POW training as part of my military training. I have
sat through the classes, often given by our experts on
and ex POWs. The training was extensive, when you actually
get from those who did actual POW interegation and who
were actually interogated by enemy interogators, then
you get a whole other picture than your armchair reading
of a middle east propoganda site, which is what you give
as a reference.

So I looked over quickly David Hicks comments just to see
how good of a liar he is. Not too good, was my impression.

Here are some of his false steps:

His words:

David Hicks: I was beaten by US forces the first time I saw them and
realized straight away that torture was going to be a reality,

How did he meet US forces in a way that they beat him? Sounds
like he met them in battle. Guys in battle have a way about
them, they often beat, maim or kill the opposing individuals.
This is what happens in war. This should come as no surprise.
I fully expected it whenever I had to encounter the enemy.
Now upon encounting them, if they beat me, I would look at it
as battle, but David Hicks looks at it as "realized straight
away that torture was going to be a reality". This is nothing
but phoney baloney fabrication.

This above just does not make any sense, anyone going into
battle knows it is not going to be pretty. At the same time
he is not going to jump to the conclusion that torture was
going to be the order of the day. Anyone in battle would
have just chalked it up to being in battle. This is just
too contrived an explanation to me to ring true.

Next he says things that counterdict himself within seconds.
He says:


In Guantanamo torture was driven by anger and frustration.
It seemed like a mad fruitless quest to pin crimes on detainees,
to extract false confessions, and produce so-called intelligence
of value. The guards were desensitized and detainees de-humanized.
Soldiers were not allowed to engage us in conversation. They were
told to address us by number only and not by name. They were
constantly drilled with propaganda about how much we supposedly
hated them and wanted them dead and how much they needed to hate
us. On occasion, when some groups of soldiers jogged around
the camp perimeters I heard them sing lyrics such as, 'you
hate us and we hate you.' One time in the privacy of Camp Echo
a male soldier broke down when we were alone repeating, "what
have I become??" after having arrived from an interrogation of
a detainee in another camp.

See the conflict, at one minute torture was driven by anger
and frustration, and the next minute, Soldiers were not
allowed to engage us in conversation. I guess they had
to be quiet while they beat him.

Next he said, "They (soldiers) were constantly drilled with
propaganda about how much we supposedly hated them and wanted
them dead and how much they needed to hate us."

Can he explain to how he got that information? Were the
prisoners given audience to the instructions that the
soldiers had? This would be a major screw up for our
people letting the prisoners know what our priorities
were. Actually our strategy is to keep them in the dark
or at best give them false impressions as to what to
expect, and this nitwit thinks he had knowledge of
how our guards and soldiers were instructed. Outright
BS is what this is. If he were told that the guards
were given instruction about how the prisoners hated
them, you can be sure it was a ploy the interogators
were using. Interogators can make all sorts of
pronouncements, There does not have to be any fact
in them, interogators could be using them to set up a more
friendly response. He could say "we know all you
people all want to kill us, and we want to kill you",
and He be doing this as part of some ploy to get the
prisoner to give some information just to show that
the prisoner does not really hate him. He might be
the bad cop, who gets interupted by the good cop,
who says to the prisoner, " don't listen to bad
cop, I know you guys are really sterling examples
of humanity and believe me I am going to get you
out of here if you just give us a few tidbits of
information, to show us how good and honest you
are". To presume that anything David Hicks believes
is factual or if Hicks himself actually believes it
is a very iffy proposition.

I know our policy on interogation and resistance to it,
having gone through the training.

Some facts I have encountered through actual conversation
with former POW and interegators is that the US soldiers
actually have been tortured as a matter of course in
number of wars. On the other hand US interegators took
a different ploy on getting information. US tactics
use deception and bluff, and this was something to expect
from an enemy also, but you only got this from them
if they were civilized, and many of our enemies were
not very civilized.

Our enemies often really did use physical torture, and in
the extreme, to the point of broken bones and even death.

Our interrogators would use mental pressure, and anguish.
We might have a couple prisoners waiting to be interrogated,
setting beside each other waiting to go into the interrogation
chamber. Guards come out and take the first prisoner in.
This first prisoner is actually a plant, not a real prisoner.
Then you hear from the interrogation room, some beating and
screaming and this goes on for awhile. Then the first
prisoner is taken out on a stretcher. Then the second
prisoner is taken in and interrogated. This is just one
of many tricks that can be used without actual physical
torture. There are many more. We were instructed on
them and we actually went through the training, put into
detention for days and called in and interrogated, night
and day, woken up at 2 in the morning and then questioned.
Not actual physical torture, just inconvience and discomfort.
We witnessed good cop, bad cop, everything.

The closest we came to torture on these terrorists was probably
water boarding. This is what all the investigations have revealed,
regardless of what David Hicks says.

Even water boarding our most extreme interogation was only
used on three prisoners, and most experts on the subject
believe it was just mental stress, not physical torture.
You put the cloth over the prisoners head and pour water
on it blocking the free flow of air to the point that
the guy thinks he is drowning. He is not, but he thinks he
is, so he talks. You could do something similar by
putting a garter snake up to his neck and telling him
it was a black mamba and he is going to bite you if
you don't talk. Extreme mental pressure, but no physical
damage imparted to detract from long and successful
life afterward with full body function and no physical
pain or damage.

So I just don't buy any of David Hicks story. I believe
it takes someone pretty naive to believe one of the
enemy and give no credibility to our side. It takes
someone predisposed to disbelieving our side. There
are many in that camp. Many will believe, but that
does not mean they are right.

Anyone that believes a web site originating in the middle
east about US torture is in my mind, someone who truly
is naive.

We do know beyond doubt that David Hicks trained with
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and was captured in Afghanistan,
because he even admitts that. We also know that Al
Qaeda declared war on the US and killed our citizens
in 911 and claimed credit/responsibiltiy for it.

These above statements are from the source not from
the US, can you connect the dots here, or are you too naive?

Next, do you remember this quote from him:


Next he said, "They (soldiers) were constantly drilled with
propaganda about how much we supposedly hated them and wanted
them dead and how much they needed to hate us."


Even though I am sure he had no idea what those troops were
instructed, you can still say this is another item to discredit him
entirely, because:

Think about this, Al Qaeda publically recruits soldiers to kill
Americans, it is part and parcel to their strategy, and they
did attack America killing 3000 at the world trade center and
with this being the case, would it not be reasonable for the
US troops to be told that Al Qaeda wanted them dead?

Connect the dots.


edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee

Don't tell,
me you attended college and there was this left wing professor
that told you all about the wrong doings of the CIA etc. Tell me
about your background and real world experience. I would love
to know the background of someone who can presume that
prisoners in Gitmo are victims. I can hardly wait.

I went not to college (which here means high school, and American colleges equate to New Zealand high schools anyway.) I went to University.
I didn't need any left wing 'professor' to tell me about the evils of the CIA. Anyone who's not a producer, or a victim of propaganda knows that the prisoners in Gitmo are victims. I provided you with links that I predict you will either not read, or dismiss as 'commanism' like the Stratfor guy always does.
V.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee
Vicky,
Also I noticed that
this site has its versions up in several different
languages, definitely a multilengual effort, something
that some big dollars are behind, not some individual
getting out his message.

Hey, most of the rest of the world doesn't speak American! (I don't for one, and there's a reason why I have the Italian version of that site.) It doesn't take a lot of money to translate, but y'all are so relentlessly monolingual, it really bit you on the bum after 9/11!

Originally posted by MajorCee
naive.




Guards come out and take the first prisoner in.
This first prisoner is actually a plant, not a real prisoner.
Then you hear from the interrogation room, some beating and
screaming and this goes on for awhile.

The closest we came to torture on these terrorists was probably
water boarding. This is what all the investigations have revealed,
regardless of what David Hicks says.


edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)

I suppose I am naive, because I thought you'd actually have more content in your post, but no, sadly not.
I probably know a lot more about Hicks than you do.
The prisoner who is a plant technique you boast about above, is something Hicks refers to himself. As for water-boarding not being torture, well, you've been water-boarded have you? Until you have then stop shouting spite about it. That nasty little pillock Christopher Hitchens had himself water-boarded so he could tell everyone that it was a piece of cake, but boy did he change his tune after experiencing it! (In case your focus is as narrow as I suspect it is, I will identify him for you - he's a former British journalist who lives in the USA and has for years. He has written books campaigning for atheism, for which he is very famous, but has always written articles and columns for years, campaigning against Islam and for Israel and the USA. (After he discovered his Jewish great-granny apparently).
V.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32
As for water-boarding not being torture, well, you've been water-boarded have you? Until you have then stop shouting spite about it.



In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the U.S. intelligence service, was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[7][8] even though the United States hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war in World War II en.wikipedia.org...


Says it all for me. There's folks up for a neck-stretching...which would account for for the dramatic increase in 'staycations' amongst the Bushies. I keep that in mind whenever a 90 year old Nazi finds himself prosecuted.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
George Bush and AG Woo said it was lagally OK to torture innocent people's childrens' genitals with pliers to gain politically expedient though totally false confessions.
(and to film it for later enjoyment)
If its good enough for the the president of the good ol great Satan the U$A, its good enough for me...

ooops I'm Canadian...never happen

Same to you George W Bush some day,,,same to you...
just for throwing the people YOU ORDERED to do TORTURE in jail for TORTURING and then saying that you would "do it all again...."



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Miss Vicky,

Talk about naive, you sure did your home work on
this choir boy who you say was tortured by the US.

From Wikipedia, we see what David Hick's father said about him:



a typical boy who couldn't settle down" and by his former
school principal as one of "the most troublesome kids"


What else surfaces about this choir boy on wikipedia?



Hicks reportedly experimented with alcohol and drugs
as a teenager and was expelled from Smithfield Plains High
school in 1990 at age 14. Before turning 15, Hicks was
given dispensation by his father from attending school. His
former partner has claimed that Hicks then turned to criminal
activity, including vehicle theft, allegedly in order to feed
himself, although no adult criminal record was ever recorded
for this.

Hicks moved between various jobs, including factory work
and working at a series of outback cattle stations in the
Northern Territory, Queensland and South Australia. He
met Jodie Sparrow in Adelaide when he was 17 years old.
Sparrow already had one child and Hicks raised her daughter
as his own.[16] Hicks and Sparrow had two children, daughter
Bonnie and son Terry, before separating in 1996. He
eventually lost contact with his two young children after
Sparrow had an affair with another man. After their
separation, Hicks moved to Japan to become a horse trainer.


Ah yes, David Hicks, a most believable witness to
respond against the US about his TORTURE.

Vicky, you have the nerve to call me naive?
In my opinion, you are the defintion of naive.

Your main witness showing how the US was indefensible,
is a complete moron, who doesn't even know what he
stands for, why, because everything else put aside
after he went to Afghanistan and trained to be
Al Qaeda, got caught, went to prison, was found
guilty at trial (which you are complaining about as
him not getting a trial), then sentenced to prison,
this nitwit decides to:



He renounced his faith during the earlier years of his
detention at Guantánamo. In June 2006, Moazzam Begg,
a British man who had also been held at Guantanamo Bay
but was released in 2005, claimed in his book Enemy Combatant:
A British Muslim's Journey to Guantanamo and Back that Hicks
had abandoned his Islamic beliefs, and had been denounced by
a fellow inmate, Uthman al-Harbi, for his lack of observance.
This has also been confirmed by his military lawyer, Major
Michael Mori. .


Come on Miss Vicky, for someone who gives awards and
declarations to others, who she has not even met, to
be naive, how can you even respond to this. This is
one of your witnesses for why America should give
these idiots trials, and this idiot had a trial,
and he also gave up the religion that enfluenced him
to make his crimes, and yet you refer to him as
a witness for how America acted badly.

You have got to be down there right with him, in
your ability to analyse what it is you stand for.
I don't think you have a clue what you stand for,
but that is just an opinion, mind you, not a
personal attack. For all I know you may have a
perfect explanation of what you stand for and you
may post it tomorrow and make me look like a
fool. Anything is possible, who knows, but I suspect
if you do reply, it won't be very conclusive in
proving your point, since the main poster boy
you chose to prove your previous point turned out to
be the village idiot.

I suspect that some wahabi oil interests has given to David
Hicks some money to "testify against America", because
after all he was associated with this bunch, they
have the money, and this nitwit can use all the money
he can get, because he doesn't have brains enough to
make it or keep it without some benevolent care taker
helping out. Just my opinion, mind you, he could be
Einstein, because what do I know?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Johnny Canuck,

For someone who actually went through torture, and can
testify, first hand what torture is you should look
at Colonel Bud Day. This is the most decorated war
hero of America live today.

In his opinion, water boarding is not torture, read
the opinion of someone who has been there and experienced
it:


His story:
olotliny.wordpress.com...
====================================================
I got shot down over N Vietnam in 1967 a sq commander.

After I returned in 1973 I published 2 books that dealt a lot with real
torture in Hanoi. Our president is branding our country as a bunch of
torturers when he has no idea what torture is.

As for me put thru a mock execution because I would not respond pistol
whipped on the head same event Couple of days later hung by my feet all
day. I escaped and got recaptured a couple of weeks later I got shot and
recaptured. Shot was OK what happened after was not.

They marched me to Vinh put me in the rope trick, trick almost pulled my
arms out of the sockets. Beat me on the head with a little wooden rod until
my eyes were swelled shut, and my unshot, unbroken hand a pulp.

Next day hung me by the arms rebroke my right wrist wiped out the nerves in
my arms that control the hands rolled my fingers up into a ball. Only left
he slightest movement of my L forefinger. So I started answering with some
incredible lies.

Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.

Hanoi on my knees rope trick again. Beaten by a big fool.

Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel.

Much kneeling hands up at Zoo.

Really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson.

Several more kneeling events. I could see my knee bone thru kneeling holes.

There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was the Senior Officer of
a large building because of escape they started a mass torture of all
commanders.

I think it was July 7, 1969 they started beating me with a car fan belt. In
first 2 days I took over 300 strokes then stopped counting because I never
thought I would live thru it.

They continued day-night torture to get me to confess to a non-existent part
in the escape. This went on for at least 3 days. On my knees fan belting
cut open my scrotum with fan belt stroke. Opened up both knee holes again.
My fanny looked like hamburger I could not lie on my back.

They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape and that my 2
room-mates knew about it.
The next day I denied the lie.

They commenced torturing me again with 3- 6- or 9 strokes of the fan belt
every day from about July 11 or 12rh to 14 October 1969. I continued to
refuse to lie about my roommates again.

Now, the point of this is that our president has declared to the world that
we (U.S.) are a bunch of torturers Thus it will be OK to torture us next
time when they catch us .because that is what the U.S. does.

Our president is a know nothing who thinks that pouring a little water on
some one's face, or hanging a pair of woman's pants over an Arabs head is
TORTURE.

I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness
www.pbs.org... who was also in
my sq in jail . as was John McCain and we agree that McCain does not speak
for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture or that water
boarding is torture.

Point out the stupidity of the claims that water boarding which has no
after effect is torture. If it got the Arab to cough up the story about
how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC hurrah for the guy who
poured the water.

BUD DAY, MOH
==================================================


Here is link to a brief story on Bud Day:
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 22-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee
Johnny Canuck,
For someone who actually went through torture, and can
testify, first hand what torture is you should look
at Colonel Bud Day.


I don't need to. I can look at American precedent. Anyway, our conversation is through. As I said, I'm not about to change your mind and seeing that your rants don't amount to discourse...I don't bother reading them.

However...that shouldn't stop me from contributing to the rest of the thread, right? Happy Trails.
edit on 22-2-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: of grammar.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorCee
 


You,ve been here 6 years ? Wow just wow .

"In his opinion, water boarding is not torture, read the opinion of someone who has been there and experienced it:"

I counter with this -
www.youtube.com...


Enjoy !



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorCee
 


Just because there are worse ways to treat a person does not mean waterboarding, among other activities, is not torture.

That is like arguing a camp fire isn't hot - because I have a kiln that gets hotter than 1000 degrees. They will both burn you.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   


Just because there are worse ways to treat a person does not mean waterboarding, among
other activities, is not torture.


Just because there are better ways to treat a person does not mean waterboarding, among
other activities, is torture.

If you want to make an argument, you really have to define what is torture. I did, why
can't you?



You,ve been here 6 years ? Wow just wow .


You've been here 15 minutes? wow just wow.


edit on 22-2-2011 by MajorCee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join