War on terrorism or not

raid517

Well I do pretty much mean it. Remember you said the US was going to 'kick the balls of anyone harboring terrorists.' I simply pointed out to you how absurd that notion was. You are not going to be bombing/invading the UK any time in the foreseeable future, nor pretty much anywhere else in Europe for that matter. It is simply not on the agenda - at least not this side of reality it isn't. Maybe you might go after some other small third world country with big oil reserves if they look an easy enough pushover, but that's about the limit of it.

But anyway I shouldn't worry too much. We are pretty much on top of the situation. These guys may be free, but they are being watched constantly. Although it should be pointed out that a lot of the guys (indeed I should say all) that were set loose were being held illegally by our government on behalf of your government. There was no evidence to convict them of any crimes in the UK (or elsewhere for that matter) and since there was no evidence of them being involved in any crimes, there were no legal grounds to extradite them to the US (who incidentally also had no evidence that they had been involved in any crimes). So the solution my government came up with was to simply ignore the law and lock them up illegally. That does seem an awfully accommodating thing to do. I mean to lock people up and suspend civil liberties because the American government just so happens to ask us to do it. Which is why I thank God every day that we have an independent judiciary that ensures that not even our government are above the law.

Actually I'm quite surprised no one from your side of the pond jumped on this and began harping on about how terrible it was that we weren't locking these 'potential terrorists' up without trial. Indeed in the past I have been asked if this wasn't preferable to putting my fellow countrymen in danger by allowing them to go free? But you know seriously, if it came down to a choice of enduring 100, or 200 or however many 9/11 type attacks, I would say that I think that the price we might pay for these is worthwhile, if that is what it takes in order to preserve the freedoms and liberties that have been enshrined in the over 1000 years of democracy that has existed in this country. Indeed I would rather see my country destroyed and ground into the dust than give ground on a single one of these principals.

America and Americans used to think similarly. But you guys crossed that line a long time ago. (Well, maybe 5 or 6 years ago to be exact).

Can you ever cross back over that line? Personally I doubt it. Not unless the same thing happens in your country and the law and the judiciary re-establish their independence from government (and from your church).

It is interesting that you acknowledge a lot of the nonsense that gets talked about on these subjects. Terrorist sleeper cells, dirty bombs, Bin Laden buried in a James Bond style cave in the mountains of Afghanistan and so on. I tried to point this out months ago to a lot of guys around here, but as ever, they refused to believe it. If George W. said it was real, it was real.

What ever happened to that mad Orange, Amber and Red terror alert thingy they used to issue with the weather report? Do they still use it? Lol.

"There is a small risk of mass beheadings in the Arizona region today - while in Delaware you may experience intermittent suicide bombers, with strong gusts of dirty bomb attacks blowing in from the East."

Crazy. It seems to me that life is so much easier for the government when people are afraid, since they tend not to notice so much the other problems that confront them - or when their own liberties are being erroded. Could that really be what little old George is up to?

Hmm... I wonder...

GJ

[)arkNova

To tell you the truth kel,you are comparing apples to oranges here. Something domestic is different from a political/war issue. I will not accept the premise.

[)arkNova

If you remember raid,you're the one that brought up the "kick your balls " comment.The people we arrest in a war zone, in another country, weren't born here so they don't have American citizen rights. Neither were they born in the country in which they were fighting.All the citizen American terrorist are getting access to the courts,not the ones that aren't citizens. They reject our way of life anyway,they hate our justice system.They will be tried in a tribunal or set free later.

kelticknight

your point of view is the same in every thing
this will not change.the world as awhole will not accept tahat your beleaf that america has the right to do what ever it likes.get the point
as far as apples and ornges go,surprised you can tell the diffenence
america's views are not the worlds views
won't change now or ever

kelticknight

nova,you might want to check out the law as far as people who are not born in usa as far as their right go,just a tip

raid517

Well it was pretty clear what you were saying. If that isn't what you meant then perhaps you should think a little more carefully about what you say in your other posts? Besides you only too happily jumped on the phrase and used it yourself quite freely in several of your subsequent posts. It's hard to see how we might have got the wrong impression.

As I said, I think it's safe to say you won't be kicking my (or our) balls any time in the foreseeable future. Nor indeed do I think you will be coming after us in any similar way either. So your General Paton type speech is as I said, quite literally nonsense.

And when will that be? A lot of them have been locked up for over 4 years already. And I think its fair to say that any one locked up for that amount of time without trial, would quickly come to hate your justice system. Indeed I'm not much of a fan of it myself right now. So does that mean I should be put in prison?

You know I often think that maybe it's a good job that a lot of Americans have guns - because the way things are going - sooner rather than later you are all going to need them. And it won't be so you can fight off terrorists either.

The dumbest part of it all though, is that you will have done it to yourselves.

GJ

[)arkNova

Kel,I know the law for the people fighting in other countries who aren't citizens there. They are called illegal combatance. They have no rights in that country or ours.They are illegal.They are not part of any army,so they don't go under the Geneva Convention either.

raid517

That is just a loophole in the law. And I don't think you should be too proud about not affording them any rights under the Geneva convention either. The convention is there to prevent abuse and torture. What I ask is so wrong with that? Your government could easily extend this to them if they chose - but they choose not to. Why? Well clearly, given the evidence of some of those who have been released (and without charge too I might add) it is exactly so that they can employ torture and other practices that are forbidden under the convention. Previously adherence to the convention was what most developed nations regarded as the benchmark that separated civilized nations from uncivilized ones. Now that America appears to find the convention inconvenient, I wonder where exactly in the family of nations this leaves you?

GJ

[)arkNova

Why would we give terrorist special rights, that would only embolden them. Make them feel they have accomplished something. Why reward them with special rights just because they are illegals that hate freedom. That would give them a victory,give them another cause to fight more. Sorry but you know nothing in how to fight terrorist. Good thing you have no say on how we are fighting this war. Thank God.( yes I did say God, sue me).

raid517

It isn't 'special rights', its the same basic human rights that are supposed to be given to every incarcerated human being. The convention is there to stop people being treated like animals - and to stop their captors from becoming animals too. Or maybe you think that's a bad thing?

GJ

[)arkNova

No, special rights because other illegal criminals outside the US who aren't terrorist don't get access to the our courts either. Why give terrorist a pass?Where did treated like animals come from? German Nazi camps? Not ours.

raid517

Ahh it is all just a choice of words. It is very easy for your government to give them these rights. It is simply a matter of making a decision. They could also just as easily moved them to a camp that fell within US law. Why do you think they chose not to?

I guess the whole Abu Ghraib jail thing just passed you by? You think these things aren't still happening at Guantanamo Bay. Try telling the guys who were released and who are now suing your government over the mistreatment they received when they were there that they aren't. Try telling the Red Cross - who have collected a whole catalogue of abuse stories that they aren't. Try telling Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, that it is really just an extended vacation camp.

I think you may be surprised by their response.

GJ

[)arkNova

They are all antiAmerican anyway. The UN for example let Lybia and Iraq(with Saddam)head the human rights division. Go tell me that was crap. AntiAmericanism everywhere. Not long ago the UN was complaining about America's slavery issue in the 1800's. But said nothing of the current problems of today in other countries,like Africa.

raid517

Well now you are just becoming confused again. None of the organizations I mentioned have anything to do with the UN. And I think you will find that the UN do quite a lot for the poor and starving people's of Africa - and of the world at large for that matter. They may not always be so hot when it comes to organizing a war, or rubber stamping wars that the US wants to fight - but aid (particularly during natural disasters) is something that they are really extremely good at.

And the Red Cross - one of the most benevolent and respected organizations in the history of humanity is 'biased and anti-American.'? Go figure...

I guess the person who leaked the pictures from Abu Ghraib where prisoners were actually shown being treated like animals was 'anti-American' too?

How come everything that doesn't sit comfortably with your notion of how fluffy and nice Americans are can just be dismissed as anti-American? It seems to me that it is just a convenient label to explain away all the things you can't, or simply don't want to deal with.

Maybe the whole world and everything in it is 'anti-American'? I wonder why that might be?

GJ

kelticknight

darknova,have you fought terrorists
all are protected under geneva convention bud

kelticknight

why darknova,because these groups protect right of others that america took away
so if a group don't agree with america or side with them ,then there anti american,get real bud,smell the coffe or tea

kelticknight

l ain't anti american ,but anti your views,you head in a hole for too long

[)arkNova

Kel,go read the geneva convention.It only protects the military of any given country.Not illegals that aren't associated with thier military.Those are terrorist i.e. bin laden,Zarkowi and thier buddies.If you want human rights organizations headed by Lybia or countries like former Iraq,then you got a problem and we all got a problem.Raid,I know those organizations you mentioned wasn't the UN,are you confused. I'm only expanding the conversation. Keep up boy.Don't fall behind. I wish we wouldn't help fund the UN,then it would go away. They only helped Saddam anyway.

raid517

No you were making a deliberate association with an organisation that your government has told you not to like in a bogus attempt to discredit these other completely independent organisation. You also called them 'anti-American,' simply because they promote human rights and are against torture and oppression. I guess being pro-American in your mind then must be the opposite of this, where you are for torture, against human rights and actively in favour of political and social oppression?

I am well up to speed on what you meant thank-you.

And who would take over all of the great aid work that the UN does do if it did 'just go away'? America, you, no one? Should they just all perhaps be left to starve?

And these guys were the Afghan military at that time. They were arrested on a technicality because they were largely too poor to buy what we described as 'uniforms.' They did though wear fairly standard tribal outfits - which made them recognisable to all the various other tribes - so in their own sense I have no doubt that this qualified as a 'uniform.' Essentially they were arrested because their dress didn't meet the standard set out by your military. Or in other words, they were arrested for having made a poor fashion statement. (Albeit a military one). Seems like a pretty loose premise to me.

And I am not your 'boy'. I believe that this is a term that members the American right usually reserve for black people they consider their inferiors? Well I'm sorry to say that in this instance I am very certainly neither of these.

You know if you are going to play these word games, you should at least make some attempt to be good at them. Why don't you and Kel and Neon go off together somewhere and form your own little debating society? I'm sure you would make excellent company for each other.

GJ

[)arkNova

Great work like the oil for food scandal. The money taken from women and children to give to Saddam's new palaces. The UN knew it was happening while children starved. Oh that one I got ya. You support good organizations.Right?

raid517

Read again my friend.

raid517

Yes the good old American sponsored, American inspired, American backed, American supported oil for food program. I guess that all those American oil companies who were pumping and buying the Iraqi oil at that time never made a single dollar either?

It's a good job that that's not the only thing thing the UN has ever done.

And anyway, you are at it again, trying to blacken the name of other organizations that have precisely zero, zilch, nada to to with the UN, by mentioning the UN. How exactly is that supposed to work?

GJ

kelticknight

first off ,i have read the neneva convention as l was in army bud,your still way off base on that one,read it and weep bud
america broke more rules as far as rights goes,so it right
there is more agencys than un,human rights etc.so don't give me america bull,america only get involved with these agencys that protct other humans rights when it suit its needs and darknova get with the program.if your going to talk about things like this,get the fact right first

kelticknight

raid l wouldn't deprive you of darknova company,it wouldn't be fair would as you both know each other so well

[)arkNova

Wrong wrong wrong,Raid read http://www.iht.com/articles/533768.htm The US and Britian did everything they could so Saddam wouldn't abuse the program. Don't make up things raid.

raid517

Man that was only towards the end of the program. Until then pretty much everyone had turned a blind eye - until it became politically expedient to try to discredit certain members in the run up to the Iraq war. There was 6 years prior to that period when a whole lot of people, American, British, French Russian, you name it were all busily lining their pockets. Indeed three of the main companies under investigation are among the biggest in the US oil industry. As the article you pointed to says, kickbacks were accepted as a normal part of the trade (and as it is oil they probably always have been) and neither the British or the American government expressed very much concern through this period because they were focused on simply containing Saddam and preventing him from obtaining goods that were forbidden under the UN sanctions. Cash they didn't care about, so long as Saddam didn't have anything he could spend his money on.

It was only when it looked like the US wasn't getting it's own way in the UN that they worked with the British in an attempt to discredit it and give their own cause some sense of validity. After all if the UN could be made to look like it was corrupt and that it didn't matter, then it's opinion of what America did, or didn't do didn't matter either.

Anyway, I have too much to do to waste my time continually explaining these things to you. If you want to rave on feel free, But you could at least make half an attempt to stay on topic. This thread has nothing to do with whether you personally like or do not like the UN - regardless of how misguided your motivations for either of these sentiments might be. I honestly couldn't care less whether you like it or not.

GJ