wanna be drummer Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Well I couldn't resist, I mean I watched Austin Powers just a few days ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Friday, January 23, 2009 Frank Beckmann: Commentary Closing Guantanamo causes terror problems for America Less than 48 hours after Beyonce's lyrics drifted off with the music, ushering out a joyous inaugural day, America became less safe. President Barack Obama Thursday ordered the closure of the U.S. detention facility for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. property in Cuba, where he had already ordered a cessation of hearings involving people suspected of doing or meaning harm to American troops and civilians. The president's actions were meant to show America's humanity, our ambition to live by a higher standard than the terrorists who continue to plot acts of violence against us. But how will our country deal with the plotters once they are rooted out? Even as he signed the executive order to close Guantanamo, Obama was not even aware of what was in a second executive order dealing with Guantanamo inmates. "Is there a separate executive order, Greg, with respect to how we're going to dispose of the detainees?" Obama asked White House Counsel Greg Craig. "We will be setting up a process," was the answer. In other words, the administration will figure it out later. This is how we'll now fight the war on terror, flying by the seat of our pants? And what happens to future detainees on the battlefield of war? Of course, using the word "war" with terror does not seem to be part of the new administration's lexicon. Obama chose to describe the battle against terrorism as a "struggle." The president also outlawed the controversial technique of waterboarding, used as part of the Central Intelligence Agency's "enhanced interrogation techniques" to pry information from captured terrorist suspects. Waterboarding worked. The final Sept. 11 Commission report detailed the evidence gathered this way from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, USS Cole attack planner Abd al Rahim al Nashiri and al-Qaida's training and travel coordinator Abu Zubaydah. The argument for closing Guantanamo and ending tough interrogation methods has been that the world thinks less of us because of these issues. But the attacks of 9/11 and earlier -- the bombings of the World Trade Center, African embassies and Marine barracks in Lebanon -- all occurred before Guantanamo became an adjective and when waterboarding became a U.S. practice. The terrorists attacked anyway because of their religious hatred of the West and its way of life. Also Thursday, a leading al-Qaida figure posted a video on an Islamist Web site calling for attacks against the United States, Britain and other Western countries. This time, the creation of the Israeli state was the stated reason. Next time, it will be another imagined slight. These terrorists scoff at our freedoms. We need to protect those liberties. But we also value our lives, and count on our government to protect us from harm. Sadly, the executive orders have made us more vulnerable, and the terrorists will notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 "The War on Terror" has to be the worst phrase of the 21st Century. It alludes to a defeat of evil and a victorious eutopia of peace when that is far from any current or past objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 But how will our country deal with the plotters once they are rooted out? Give them all sedatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 "The War on Terror" has to be the worst phrase of the 21st Century. It alludes to a defeat of evil and a victorious eutopia of peace when that is far from any current or past objective. It also makes little sense. What if terrorist bases were found in rural Canada? Would we bomb them too? Would we invade Canada, run out the terrorists and try and rebuild them too? Makes as much sense as "The War on Drugs" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 The phrase "War on Terror" makes it sound like we're fighting an army. We're fighting an ideology. You can't destroy an ideology. It doesn't matter how long we fight, how many people die or how much money gets sucked up by this broken vacuum, there will never be a permanent end to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 The phrase "War on Terror" makes it sound like we're fighting an army. We're fighting an ideology. You can't destroy an ideology. It doesn't matter how long we fight, how many people die or how much money gets sucked up by this broken vacuum, there will never be a permanent end to it. It's quite obvious that no one in the Bush Administration ever watched V for Vendetta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 The phrase "War on Terror" makes it sound like we're fighting an army. We're fighting an ideology. You can't destroy an ideology. It doesn't matter how long we fight, how many people die or how much money gets sucked up by this broken vacuum, there will never be a permanent end to it. I totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Exactly. There will always be some sort of terrorism ie "insurgancy" as long as violence is an option for mankind to further their particular views, good or bad. Under the broad texting of terrorism as we've defined it since 9/11, any type of guerilla warefare or insurgancy group can be deamed "terrorist" in nature. Wasn't this country founded by such individuals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 wow. it's been awhile... So, President Obama's first priority as Prez was to look after the well-being of terrorism suspects, the vast majority of which were apprehended in battle zones. The problem is, many Guantanamo Bay "residents" are not all prisoners of war. Some, in fact, were US citizens labeled "Combatant". That's not right. NONE are prisoners of war in the Geneva Convention sense. No uniform = no GC protections. U.S. citizens??? Guantanamo is a US military base/installation, right? So for legal purposes, it's considered US territory.....am I correct in that? If so, then anyone held there is subject to US laws and procedure. If you believe that people held at Gitmo are being denied basic rights, then you believe they are being denied the basic rights afforded anyone on US soil. Including the right to a speedy trial and counsel. Lincoln may have suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, but to my knowledge Bush did no such thing during this "war" on terror. Wrong. They committed their acts on non-US soil. Just because they're taken to a secure location doesn't suddenly afford them the "rights" of a citizen or immigrant, legal or otherwise. Finally something being done about that American Gulag gulag? You're joking, right? hmmm, let's see... Gu·lag n. 1. A network of forced labor camps in the former Soviet Union. NOPE 2. A forced labor camp or prison, especially for political dissidents. NOPE again 3. A place or situation of great suffering and hardship, likened to the atmosphere in a prison system or a forced labor camp. Strike 3 Sorry, but those guys are treated better, fed better than the vast majority of U.S. citizens in our state and federal prisons. Including allowing them all their religious freedoms. You should read up on REAL gulags, where people were malnourished, suffered extreme weather conditions without even remotely adequate protection, forced to work beyond exhaustion, no medical care, and indiscriminately killed. But "gulag" has that nice evil connotation you're aiming for, even if it isn't really accurate, huh. Seems a lot of people here are morphing the incidents at Abu Ghraib with the environment at Guantanamo Bay. Abu Ghraib was a terrible incident, GB is a controlled environment. As PB pointed out, waterboarding was rare and only used a few times. Everyone here is acting like it's part of their daily routine - breakfast, waterboarding, exercise, lunch, waterboarding, etc... It's not. Whether waterboarding is torture or not is a valid enough question. But using the single label of torture is like using the single label of drugs (a pound of heroin = an oz of weed?), sex offense (raping a 9 year old = consensual sex between a 17 y.o. and a 15 y.o.?) or murder (serial killer = crime of passion?). Equating waterboarding with pulling fingernails, or electric shock is just as unreasonable. It's actually very clever - creating a life-threatening scenario without actually threatening the life. The subject won't die, but he doesn't know that. How about they tickle them? That's considered torture. Bottom line - the majority of those who are against Guantanamo Bay have portrayed it as a place where innocent American citizens are swept out of their homes and imprisoned. NO ONE there now is an American or a U.S. citizen, nor were they taken into custody on U.S. soil. Last of all, has this action taken by President Obama, as one of his very first priorities, made us more safe or less safe? The President's prime responsibility is to protect the citizens of this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 The people who fought in the American Revolution today would be called terrorists, I agree. Dumping tea in Boston Harbor? They'd get sent to Gitmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 I cannot abide people being detained illegally with no trial and no counsel. I don't care what your rationalization for that behavior is, I don't care how much it gives you or others the warm and fuzzies. Sorry. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 shit TypeO, where you been man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I think it's almost ironic that he characterized me that way when he's no different himself. Pot meet kettle, huh? Wrong, as usual, I have humor, taste, and I am very very well informed, obnoxious, tactless, and rude, thats me. Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 shit TypeO, where you been man? fuggin' real life crowds muh internet at times :lolo: a lot more often over the past few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Why oh why must YOU always start insulting? Every time this happens. Sorry,bud, but you question is ridiculous and deserved an apt responce, of course i dont think you are an idiot, far from it in fact you are one of the most informed posters on here. But this time I think you are wrong. Oh and you didn't answer the question. The answer is, NO. Dearborn, Michigan. It's one of the most Muslim places in America. Sheesh, get with the program bud. Thank you, and you dont need to lower yourself to the language of you spoilt little friend/fiend, you are better than that. Finally, an actual argument. I know what we did to the Indians was incredibly immoral and I'm sorry that it happened. You did not do the murdering so you dont need to say sorry. But, we did not murder millions of Vietnamese. Yes you did, you need to read up a lot more about just what crimes your country has done, it will surprise you as it did me. We were fighting (at least, according to most people) for the South Vietnamese, so that they didn't get slguhtered by the North (which they did when we left). And as far as Iraqis go, how many did Saddam kill may I ask? Doesn't matter about what Saddam did, who you kill will be on your conscience and your country will have to answer to that one day, maybe even to God him/herself. Stum isn't a word. It is where I come from, it means button it, shut it, oi trappy quiet, lips together, and its probably from Jewish. Anyways,Israel took nothing from the British. Israel was created, and is allowed to exist, only because the UN said so. Great Britain held the mandate from the UN on Palestine, the Jewsish terrorist then took over the country and fought a war with the surrounding Arab states, just because the Jews won doesn't make it right, they are still a terrorist state. Yeah some of the Jews there were fucked in the head, but they were not a terrorist nation. No more than the rest of the area anyways. They fought for themselves and a land of their own, which they got. They were sick of being shit on as an existence. I don't see the problem there. Thats because you cant see things from an Arab/Muslim point of view, now the Muslims have to put up with the Jewish shit ah. And you dont have to pick me up and take the piss out of my spelling mistakes, you make enough of them yourself Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Lets just treat them the way China is dealing with those responsible for the tainted milk and baby formula: Death Sentences! Then executions. That way there would be no need for Gitmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 The people who fought in the American Revolution today would be called terrorists, I agree. You would. Let's highlight just a few of the major differences between the terrorists in Iraq and the revolutionaries who founded the United States of America. The founding fathers organized an army of men and met the British army on the field of battle. The terrorists pose as citizens and hide behind their women and children.The founding fathers never chopped the heads off captive British soldiers or civilians.The founding fathers fought, in part, for the freedom to practice religion openly. The terrorists are fighting to force their brand of religious dogma on everybody else.The founding fathers never targeted civilians with suicide attacks. Suicide attacks, especially those using brainwashed women and children, are the bread and butter of the terrorists. And, perhaps most importantly:The terrorists are fighting against the spread of freedom. The founding fathers fought against an oppressive British regime to spread freedom.Declaration of Independence When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: For imposing taxes on us without our consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses: For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies: For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments: For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776 ------------------------------------------------- ^^^ I cannot fathom the sheer ignorance required to equate this with a roadside bombing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Sorry,bud, but you question is ridiculous and deserved an apt responce, of course i dont think you are an idiot, far from it in fact you are one of the most informed posters on here. But this time I think you are wrong.That wasn't the only part of your post that i was referring to. You did not do the murdering so you dont need to say sorry.Neither did the American Government. Yes you did, you need to read up a lot more about just what crimes your country has done, it will surprise you as it did me.I've done more than my fair share of research on Vietnam, and I can assure you that the American military did not, out of cold blood, murder 1,000,000 innocent Vietnamese civilians Doesn't matter about what Saddam did, who you kill will be on your conscience and your country will have to answer to that one day, maybe even to God him/herself.Once again, those were all accidents. We are not murdering innocent civilians randomly. Great Britain held the mandate from the UN on Palestine, the Jewsish terrorist then took over the country and fought a war with the surrounding Arab states, just because the Jews won doesn't make it right, they are still a terrorist state.Very correct, but the mandate was up. And the Jews wasted no time in declaring independence. And those Arab states were going to invade sooner or later. It's called a preemptive strike. And in this case, I agree with it. Thats because you cant see things from an Arab/Muslim point of view, now the Muslims have to put up with the Jewish shit ah. And you dont have to pick me up and take the piss out of my spelling mistakes, you make enough of them yourself Regards, Danny Put up with the Jewish shit? The Israeli government is very generous to its people and doesn't treat everyone like third class citizens. It's pretty secular believe it or not. The Muslisms there shouldn't be bitching (and really they aren't, it's just the governments there), since their own governments are pieces of shit too. And for the spelling mistakes, I realize I make them. Usually it's because I'm typing too fast but yes I make them too. I just found it ironic that you were telling me that you needed a more intelligent foe and then you went and spelled it wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Hi all, The people who fought in the American Revolution today would be called terrorists, I agree. Dumping tea in Boston Harbor? They'd get sent to Gitmo. They at the time considered themselves British citizens.They did not on both sides kill women,children,or any other. It sesms that that the cranium needs to be removed from the Uranus.How about tax,without representation? Was that what the tea tax was all about?And others,... Gitmo?Look up your history,.....get back to me,.... KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 You would. Let's highlight just a few of the major differences between the terrorists in Iraq and the revolutionaries who founded the United States of America. wow. all I can say is... amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 wow. all I can say is... amen. So as to avoid reposting Steves huge post, I'll quote yours. Guys, youre missing the point. No one here is comparing the Founding Fathers with Bin Laden literally. But if you look at what they're trying to do, similarities can be found. Bin Laden "fights" to avenge his people and bring down an empire that he feels has wronged him. The Founding Fathers did the same thing. Modern Terrorists are fighting for what they believe in. Same with the Founding Fathers. Modern Terrorists are trying to reshape the world (or lands, whatever) as they see it should be run. Did not the Founding Fathers do the same thing with America? Of course Washington was far greater then Osama, but the point bigstick and Liz were making is just that there are similarities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Hey Wanna Be, I think you are mis-naming the founding fathers as "terrorists". They were "traitors" to their mother country, but they did not bring "terror" to anyone. Look up the word "terrorist". It does not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 You don't think the men who fought for independence brought terror to those who chose to side with the Crown? Do you know what happened to the Loyalists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 The point bigstick and Liz were making is just that there are similarities. Similarities can be found between apples and oranges, but they are still different things. The point I'm making is the founding fathers peacefully and lawfully sought to dissolve their political bond with the government and resorted to warfare out of necessity, as wars often follow a failure to meet objectives within a political process. Modern-day terrorists (generally speaking) merely seek to terrorize and impose upon others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.