Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
Originally posted by Greenhat So you think you are somehow informed when you have NO evidence?
You really need to take logic 101.
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.
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?
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).
Originally posted by Paul_2 Plenty for nice people
But non for the taliban scum and those that support them.
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.
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.
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'm sorry to see that the horrors and misery continue...
dancing on the streets today with pure joy on the news that many Americans have been killed in Saudi Arabia.
Carlyle Group (or ex presidents club as its come to be known).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Originally posted by Simbelyne Cogently argued, but do you accept the moral flaw?
Originally posted by Simbelyne You think that Bush is more, or at least as corrupt as Clinton/Gore?
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.
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?
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?