You may be asked to reset your password when you try to login. This is part of a system update and is genuine, so it's safe to go ahead and do that. If you no longer have access to the email address you used to register, please email us at [email protected] rather than creating a new account. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Now children are held prisoners in Guantanamo Bay

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you think you are somehow informed when you have NO evidence?

    You really need to take logic 101.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    So you think you are somehow informed when you have NO evidence?

    You really need to take logic 101.

    Ok, so what "evidence" can you present to me on anything?

    Of course Idon't have "evidence" that the majority of Taliban soldiers had no uniforms or markings- its just something which is obvious if you followed the conflict at all on the TV or in Newspapers. Having "no evidence" is different from being uninformed- I've never seen any evidence that the Crusades happened, but I'm pretty sure they did, and what happened.

    Having just tried an internet search to find the uniform for Taliban armed forces, a source has told me that until June 28th 2001, there was no uniform:
    "KABUL, June 28: For the first time the Taliban soldiers have appeared in regular military uniforms in the streets of Kabul in what officials describe as a move to improve security.

    "For better security, protection of people and better law and order we have moved 50 soldiers of a regiment in military uniforms to man the streets and check violation of rules," Taliban military official Mullah Abdurahman Akhond said. "

    http://www.dawn.com/2001/06/29/int6.htm

    50 soldiers...then 4 months later their whole ragtag army who are not even armed or trained properly have uniforms? I don't think so.

    I did however find numerous right-wing sources saying about how NO Taliban soldiers had uniforms at all, and therefore none could be expected to be treated under the Geneva convention.

    But really, I still don't see how this is relevant- unless you are claiming that all un-uniformed and un-marked Taliban soldeirs were taken to Guantanamo bay...is that what you're claiming or not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    These guys in Cuba, whether they be 12 or 112 are evil, brain washed Islamo-fascists. They are a menace to the many billions of decent people in the world who just happen to agree with their sick religious view.

    Personally I’d save the US tax payers some money and have every last one executed, however I feel that they will just be locked up for ever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Paul_2
    These guys in Cuba, whether they be 12 or 112 are evil, brain washed Islamo-fascists. They are a menace to the many billions of decent people in the world who just happen to agree with their sick religious view.

    Personally I’d save the US tax payers some money and have every last one executed, however I feel that they will just be locked up for ever.

    Do you hve no regard for human life?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Plenty for nice people

    But non for the taliban scum and those that support them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    But really, I still don't see how this is relevant- unless you are claiming that all un-uniformed and un-marked Taliban soldeirs were taken to Guantanamo bay...is that what you're claiming or not?

    I am claiming that the bulk of Taliban soldiers were taken prisoner by the Northern Alliance, that under those circumstances it is up to the Northern Alliance to decide which ones that they wish to request US assistance with, and that the only Taliban soldiers the US would have made a decision on as to if they were illegal combatants were those that they directly captured (in other words, very few).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    I am claiming that the bulk of Taliban soldiers were taken prisoner by the Northern Alliance, that under those circumstances it is up to the Northern Alliance to decide which ones that they wish to request US assistance with, and that the only Taliban soldiers the US would have made a decision on as to if they were illegal combatants were those that they directly captured (in other words, very few).

    This claim is obviously false- CIA agents have described how they performed mass screenings of captured Taliban prisoners, e.g. "Johnny Mike" Spann, the CIA agent killed while interrogating Taliban prisoners to decide whether or not they would be taken to Guantanamo Bay.

    Its also plainly ludicrous to claim that US intellegence services had no part in deciding which prisoners would be taken to Cuba and which left behind, I hardly think they'd leave the decision making to a bunch of rag-tag Northern Alliance militia.

    And whether the number was "very few" or not makes no difference, if only some "illegal combatants" were taken to Cuba then it makes it a technicality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Paul_2
    Plenty for nice people

    But non for the taliban scum and those that support them.

    So if somebody thought you were scum would you mind being summarily executed along with your family?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm sorry to see that the horrors and misery continue...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3015619.stm

    So nearly 2 years after the war the US is still shipping people in... Is it perhaps because they don't have the right interrogation 'tools' in Afghanistan?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    This claim is obviously false- CIA agents have described how they performed mass screenings of captured Taliban prisoners, e.g. "Johnny Mike" Spann, the CIA agent killed while interrogating Taliban prisoners to decide whether or not they would be taken to Guantanamo Bay.

    Its also plainly ludicrous to claim that US intellegence services had no part in deciding which prisoners would be taken to Cuba and which left behind, I hardly think they'd leave the decision making to a bunch of rag-tag Northern Alliance militia.

    And whether the number was "very few" or not makes no difference, if only some "illegal combatants" were taken to Cuba then it makes it a technicality.

    I guess all laws are just technicalities... :rolleyes:

    And may I ask when you had the opportunity to talk to a CIA agent?

    Spann wasn't screening people to go to Gitmo, btw. You need to get competent sources.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    I guess all laws are just technicalities... :rolleyes:

    And may I ask when you had the opportunity to talk to a CIA agent?

    Spann wasn't screening people to go to Gitmo, btw. You need to get competent sources.

    No, as I've explained to at least twice in 5 year old terms, if a law is only applied to some people when the "authorities"(people in power) want to persecute/arrest/hold/detain them for a different reason altogether then that is a technicality. Hence is somebody killed someone else in the US then they would be arrested for murder, because that is an enforced piece of legislation.The fact that "ununiformed" soldiers are not subject to the Geneva Convention is not an enforced law, because (in this case) the USA accepts that most the un-uniformed Taliban prisoners should be treated according to the GC, but it allows them to leagally hold those people who it wants to.

    Let's not get onto Spann etc, the point is the CIA screened at least some Taliban prisoners- if you deny this then this debate is not worth the webspace its written on.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you unable to understand that the United States is not the government in Afghanistan?

    BTW, I suggest you get out a dictionary and look up "technicality".
    Do you always write your own definitions?


    Why don't you go visit and see for yourself?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Are you unable to understand that the United States is not the government in Afghanistan?

    BTW, I suggest you get out a dictionary and look up "technicality".
    Do you always write your own definitions?


    Why don't you go visit and see for yourself?

    I don't see what the government in Afghanistan has to do wit this, and I've provided you with the definition from dictionary.com

    I strongly suggest you just concde or stop posting on this thread, because you're REALLY clutching at straws now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm sorry to see that the horrors and misery continue...

    It makes me happy. :)
    No, happier than that.:D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As I'm sure many will be dancing on the streets today with pure joy on the news that many Americans have been killed in Saudi Arabia.

    And that's when it becomes difficult to separate terrorists and 'bad' people from civilised people, and to fight terrorism and the causes of it efficiently.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    dancing on the streets today with pure joy on the news that many Americans have been killed in Saudi Arabia.

    Led by the wonderful Palestinians no doubt.

    *Edited, first I wrote Palestinian "people".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You haven't had that cold shower yet have you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm just angry Aladdin. For you adults, the stock market went down with the Saudi news. It was on a big rise lately.

    Al Qaeda undermined Powel...the most moderate voice in the Bush administration.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The stock market is and always will be a volatile entity pnj, best you learn that and pay more attention to far more serious contributors to economic decline such as Bush's skyrocketing Budget deficit which you can bet has largely landed in the accounts of the Carlyle Group, his pentagon cronies, and several members of this administration not least of which would be Bush himself.

    These corrupt scum are borrowing against your future to enrich themselves and secure their own power base both at home and abroad whilst bankrupting the nation. And you foolishly think they give one whiff about your security. :lol:

    The only security of any concern to them is their own political and financial security. Don't be surprised when members of this admin join the ranks of the corporate blackmailers on the board of the Carlyle Group (or ex presidents club as its come to be known).

    As for powell, he doesn't need Al Qaeda to undermine him, that's been consistently done by his own hawkish colleagues in the administration for the past two years.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Carlyle Group (or ex presidents club as its come to be known).

    Totally agree. Also agree about Powell. Why isn't the Carlyle Group a newsworthy story in the US? The Bin Laden family invested in the US defense contractors but...their stocks haven't gone up...not even with the war.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    I don't see what the government in Afghanistan has to do wit this, and I've provided you with the definition from dictionary.com

    I strongly suggest you just concde or stop posting on this thread, because you're REALLY clutching at straws now.

    I've noticed you like Dictionary.com.

    I suggest you buy a decent dictionary.

    Oxford are good for British English. Webster's for American English.

    From Websters:

    Technicality - a detail meaningful only to a specialist.

    Since law is obviously of interest to lawyers, I'd say it is safe to say they are the specialists in this particular field.

    As for the details we've been discussing, obviously they are meaningful to you (are you a lawyer?) and to me (a soldier). I am not a specialist in this field, but the details are meaningful to me and my ilk. Therefore, not a technicality.

    Have a nice day. Kindly take Logic 101 before bothering to try to make an argument.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    I've noticed you like Dictionary.com.

    I suggest you buy a decent dictionary.

    Oxford are good for British English. Webster's for American English.

    From Websters:

    Technicality - a detail meaningful only to a specialist.

    Since law is obviously of interest to lawyers, I'd say it is safe to say they are the specialists in this particular field.

    As for the details we've been discussing, obviously they are meaningful to you (are you a lawyer?) and to me (a soldier). I am not a specialist in this field, but the details are meaningful to me and my ilk. Therefore, not a technicality.

    Have a nice day. Kindly take Logic 101 before bothering to try to make an argument.

    Cogently argued, but do you accept the moral flaw?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine

    These corrupt scum are borrowing against your future to enrich themselves and secure their own power base both at home and abroad whilst bankrupting the nation. And you foolishly think they give one whiff about your security. :lol:

    But corrupt scum who borrow your money in order to get themselves reelected (Clinton's misuse of Defense budget) or accept thinly disguised bribes from foreign nations (Clinton and Gore) or participate in fradulent schemes (Whitewater) are to be trusted. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    But corrupt scum who borrow your money in order to get themselves reelected (Clinton's misuse of Defense budget) or accept thinly disguised bribes from foreign nations (Clinton and Gore) or participate in fradulent schemes (Whitewater) are to be trusted. :rolleyes:

    You think that Bush is more, or at least as corrupt as Clinton/Gore?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne
    Cogently argued, but do you accept the moral flaw?

    Morality is based on religion. Are you attempting to shove your religious beliefs on me? The point of written international treaties are that the signitories agree to the treaty as written.

    As it happens, I agree with the treaty entirely. Spies, sabateurs and terrorists deserve nothing more than summary execution. If a nation is nice enough to give them something more, they should be grateful.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne
    You think that Bush is more, or at least as corrupt as Clinton/Gore?

    Ever hear about assumptions in your questions?

    So, when did you stop beating old women?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Morality is based on religion. Are you attempting to shove your religious beliefs on me? The point of written international treaties are that the signitories agree to the treaty as written.

    As it happens, I agree with the treaty entirely. Spies, sabateurs and terrorists deserve nothing more than summary execution. If a nation is nice enough to give them something more, they should be grateful.

    My morality is (i hope) humanist rather than reliigious. I.E Respect every human life as precious no matter what.

    How were the Taliban soldiers defending their country spies, saboteurs or terrorists?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne
    My morality is (i hope) humanist rather than reliigious. I.E Respect every human life as precious no matter what.

    How were the Taliban soldiers defending their country spies, saboteurs or terrorists?

    How were they soldiers is a better question.

    As for "humanist"...why?

    If you apply Darwin's theories to the concept you have claimed as your morality, it fails. What makes human life more precious than other life? What makes human life more precious than a piece of rock?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    How were they soldiers is a better question.

    As for "humanist"...why?

    If you apply Darwin's theories to the concept you have claimed as your morality, it fails. What makes human life more precious than other life? What makes human life more precious than a piece of rock?

    1) Fighting an invading army in a (relatively) organised waay

    2) Because humans are my species and I believe that my species is more important than any other.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In other words, self-interest?

    So, when one of those individuals of your race choosing to kill another, which is the more valuable?

    And if that "another" is you?

    Defending a nation doesn't make one a soldier.
Sign In or Register to comment.