Minority whip swan dives into the deep end of the hyperbole pool

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Then again, imo, one of the failings of the Bush admin is to not specifiy exactly what every detainee in Gitmo is there for. I seriously doubt they are keeping people there with no valuable information just for the hell of it, so I expect there's some valid reasons. I do wish they'd provide an explanation at the very least though.

Now, if you'd just spend as much effort dealing with the documented human rights abuses by our country as you've spent freaking out at everyone who dares criticize the U.S. for such abuses, perhaps you'd be on the right track...

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: loki8481
gotta wonder how America would react if the situation was reversed.

say, France picks up some off-duty army guys, claims that there were plotting to blow up the louvre, and sticks them in a prison indefinitely.

Erm...US Army guys are representatives of an internationally recognized government. There are rules that govern their behaviour.

Can you make the same claim of al Qaeda?

Funny how much the media develop the lexicon and the conseguent mental schemes... for example... shouldn't we all stop calling every Afghan "Al-Qaeda"? You do know 99.9% of those detained in guantanamo have no idea of what Al-Qaeda is, don't you?

Proof?

Or you think international terroristic groups enroll people by the hundreds?

According to the meme of the left, there are tens of thousands and more recruited to the cause every day. Are you claiming this is BS?

It has really become the magic word... when you wanna say "bad, bad guy" you just say "Al-Queda". The TV started all this, and now the people in the street follow. But words are important, cause they identify the frames.

Those captured who really had contacts with Al-Qaeda are not detained with the other inmates in Guantanamo, due to obvious security reasons. Those in Guantanamo are a tutti-frutti mix of what you could find in Afghanistan during the conflict: local level Taliban officiers, some Mujaheidins, some young kids, some people who were in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Some of those already released were Journalists (!!!) from all over the world...

If you give them a trial, the percentage of those charged with something will be no more than 15%.

The youngest detainee in Gitmo is 18 years old. There are no "kids."

Then again, imo, one of the failings of the Bush admin is to not specifiy exactly what every detainee in Gitmo is there for. I seriously doubt they are keeping people there with no valuable information just for the hell of it, so I expect there's some valid reasons. I do wish they'd provide an explanation at the very least though.

The fact that during a conflict many people of the invaded country will become willing to enter the guerrilla and possibly do terroristic act is one thing. Beeing inside "Al-Qaeda" is a whole another thing. You know... Al-Qaeda is not the only terroristic group in the world... nor i a word used to call terrorism in general... it's a very specifical organization, with a very disctinctive modus-operandi...
If there were thousands of people in this organization would have been much easier to have some of them betray OBL. Instead the group did an amazing job in keeping itself hidden.

Al-Quaeda is composed of very few guys, who use other people to carry on their terroristic projects, people who never get to know anything about the organization. So, I'm sure many of those 18 y.o. guys in Gitmo have been captured with a gun in their hands... but this doesn't make them Al-Qaeda members... And many of the ones released from that base have said that they DO are detained without knowing if they can be valuable for something, basically because some of them have not even been questioned...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: loki8481
gotta wonder how America would react if the situation was reversed.

say, France picks up some off-duty army guys, claims that there were plotting to blow up the louvre, and sticks them in a prison indefinitely.

Erm...US Army guys are representatives of an internationally recognized government. There are rules that govern their behaviour.

Can you make the same claim of al Qaeda?

good point. fixed post.

OK. let's see the change:

Originally posted by: loki8481
gotta wonder how America would react if the situation was reversed.

say, France picks up a group of US civilians, claims that there were plotting to blow up the louvre, and sticks them in a prison indefinitely.

To make it apples to apples, I'll assume these ficticious US civilians are also hard-core members of a radical group that blew up the Eiffel Tower and Arch de Triumph, and took the lives of a few thousand French civilians in the process? And as France was in a foreign country battling this group, these US civilians were captured on the battlefield?

If so, France can have their way with them. For all I care they can hang them upside-down by their dingle-berries for the remainder of their lives and leave them that way. I'm sure there'd be plenty of Americns that would volunteer to go to France to happily string them up because idiots like that would do nothing but blacken the eye of the US.

Now if only Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and the others would take that stance against their radicals, maybe this Islamic terrorism problem would be solved. We wouldn't put up with it here in the US and we don't expect other countries to put up with it either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: loki8481
gotta wonder how America would react if the situation was reversed.

say, France picks up some off-duty army guys, claims that there were plotting to blow up the louvre, and sticks them in a prison indefinitely.

Erm...US Army guys are representatives of an internationally recognized government. There are rules that govern their behaviour.

Can you make the same claim of al Qaeda?

good point. fixed post.

OK. let's see the change:

Originally posted by: loki8481
gotta wonder how America would react if the situation was reversed.

say, France picks up a group of US civilians, claims that there were plotting to blow up the louvre, and sticks them in a prison indefinitely.

To make it apples to apples, I'll assume these ficticious US civilians are also hard-core members of a radical group that blew up the Eiffel Tower and Arch de Triumph, and took the lives of a few thousand French civilians in the process? And as France was in a foreign country battling this group, these US civilians were captured on the battlefield?

If so, France can have their way with them. For all I care they can hang them upside-down by their dingle-berries for the remainder of their lives and leave them that way. I'm sure there'd be plenty of Americns that would volunteer to go to France to happily string them up because idiots like that would do nothing but blacken the eye of the US.

Now if only Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and the others would take that stance against their radicals, maybe this Islamic terrorism problem would be solved. We wouldn't put up with it here in the US and we don't expect other countries to put up with it either.

Well in those 3 countries you mentioned Religion has gotten the upper hand over their government. It wouldn't happen here because there are boundries preventing religion from gaining to much power.

 

[BBond]

If we won't put up with it here, then how do you explain this?

Russians rally against terrorism

On Monday, Putin said that mid-level officials in the U.S. government were undermining his country's war on terrorism by contacting Chechen separatists, whom he compared to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Asked about Putin's comment, U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "There have not been any recent meetings between department officials and Chechen political figures, separatists or political figures.

"The United States has met with people from Chechnya who had differing points of view, including points of view that differ from the Russian government. But we don't meet with terrorists. We don't meet with people who are involved in violence or fomenting violence."

He was speaking to a group of Western foreign policy experts.

A few weeks ago the United States granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement.

While qualifying his remarks by calling President Bush friendly and decent, Putin had pointed remarks for the administration.

He said each time Russia complained to the Bush administration about meetings held between U.S. officials and Chechen separatist representatives, the U.S. response has been "we'll get back to you" or "we reserve the right to talk with anyone we want."

Putin blamed what he called a "Cold War mentality" on the part of some U.S. officials, but likened their demands that Russia negotiate with the Chechen separatists to the United States talking to al Qaeda. (Full story)

These are not "freedom fighters," Putin said. "Would you talk with Osama bin Laden?" he asked.

"Osama bin Laden attacked the United States saying he was doing it because of polices in the Middle East," Putin said. "Do you call him a freedom fighter?"

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
If we won't put up with it here, then how do you explain this?

Russians rally against terrorism

On Monday, Putin said that mid-level officials in the U.S. government were undermining his country's war on terrorism by contacting Chechen separatists, whom he compared to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Asked about Putin's comment, U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "There have not been any recent meetings between department officials and Chechen political figures, separatists or political figures.

"The United States has met with people from Chechnya who had differing points of view, including points of view that differ from the Russian government. But we don't meet with terrorists. We don't meet with people who are involved in violence or fomenting violence."

He was speaking to a group of Western foreign policy experts.

A few weeks ago the United States granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement.

While qualifying his remarks by calling President Bush friendly and decent, Putin had pointed remarks for the administration.

He said each time Russia complained to the Bush administration about meetings held between U.S. officials and Chechen separatist representatives, the U.S. response has been "we'll get back to you" or "we reserve the right to talk with anyone we want."

Putin blamed what he called a "Cold War mentality" on the part of some U.S. officials, but likened their demands that Russia negotiate with the Chechen separatists to the United States talking to al Qaeda. (Full story)

These are not "freedom fighters," Putin said. "Would you talk with Osama bin Laden?" he asked.

"Osama bin Laden attacked the United States saying he was doing it because of polices in the Middle East," Putin said. "Do you call him a freedom fighter?"

It's explained right in the article you linked:

"The United States has met with people from Chechnya who had differing points of view, including points of view that differ from the Russian government. But we don't meet with terrorists. We don't meet with people who are involved in violence or fomenting violence."

 

[Warpirate]

say, France picks up a group of US civilians, claims that there were plotting to blow up the louvre, and sticks them in a prison indefinitely.

The French will lie about anything!! LOL

and Tastes Like Chicken is handling the replies very well.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: loki8481
gotta wonder how America would react if the situation was reversed.

say, France picks up some off-duty army guys, claims that there were plotting to blow up the louvre, and sticks them in a prison indefinitely.

Erm...US Army guys are representatives of an internationally recognized government. There are rules that govern their behaviour.

Can you make the same claim of al Qaeda?

good point. fixed post.

OK. let's see the change:

Originally posted by: loki8481
gotta wonder how America would react if the situation was reversed.

say, France picks up a group of US civilians, claims that there were plotting to blow up the louvre, and sticks them in a prison indefinitely.

To make it apples to apples, I'll assume these ficticious US civilians are also hard-core members of a radical group that blew up the Eiffel Tower and Arch de Triumph, and took the lives of a few thousand French civilians in the process? And as France was in a foreign country battling this group, these US civilians were captured on the battlefield?

If so, France can have their way with them. For all I care they can hang them upside-down by their dingle-berries for the remainder of their lives and leave them that way. I'm sure there'd be plenty of Americns that would volunteer to go to France to happily string them up because idiots like that would do nothing but blacken the eye of the US.

Now if only Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and the others would take that stance against their radicals, maybe this Islamic terrorism problem would be solved. We wouldn't put up with it here in the US and we don't expect other countries to put up with it either.

Alleged ... alleged ... alleged. That's the key word you and so many other Bush faithful omit. You start with a presumption of guilt, then use circular reasoning to support your presumption.

To make your analogy less inaccurate, you need to mention that the French government has merely alleged these things, but has declined to produce evidence supporting its allegations -- let alone actually taking the prisoners to trial. You should also mention that France steadfastly refuses to grant the prisoners their right to legal resources that might help them demonstrate their innocence. Finally, you need to describe the evidence that at least some of these alleged miscreants have been subjected to abusive interrogation, but that France insists it does not have to follow its own laws or the Geneva Convention.

If you make those changes and don't explain it's an analogy to Guantanamo, my guess is you would join most people in believing it must be describing some mad regime with no concern for human beings. And you can bet that all the squawking Bush apologists currently attacking Durbin as over-the-top would flip-flop 180 degrees and themsleves use every over-the-top claim they could to attack France's behavior.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
His comments were a little over the top, so good for him. I'd like to point out again that even John McCain remarked that even Eichman got a trial.

Eichman was an official representative of an internationally recognized govenrment. al Qaeda members are not. That's why Saddam is getting a trial and the guys in Gitmo are not.

So we have the right to imprison any foreigner we want as long as we make sure we tag them as a terrorist? We don't have to prove it, the rest of the world is just going to take us at our word (like they did with the WMD's). No wonder the world thinks so highly of us.

I guess your definition of abuse is different then mine, or maybe you haven't seen the pictures.

You're confusing Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

Opps, brain fart. Your right about that, but I've still seen stories about alleged abuse at Gitmo and if trials were to happen, I'm sure we'd hear a lot more allegations.

So, what do you think we should do with them?

Personally I think we should put them all into a building and then fly a remotely controlled jetliner into it. I bet a lot of Americans would agree with me too on that point too. Unfortunately, the Bush admin is a lot more kind to them in that respect. And far kinder than the al Qaeda types who slice people's heads off.

There may be a lot of people who feel like you do, but I'd be willing to bet that it's no where near a majority. The only thing that I can see to do with these people is to send them back to Iraq to face trial and in order to do that the Iraqis need to get a constitution and an army/police force to enforce it. Why is that taking so long??????