More accounts on US torture :



limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
davidmc said:
I, and other's, contend that these individuals are illegal combatants. They are not an army of a nation. They reside inside no borders. Simply put, they are cheater's when it comes to warfare-illegal combatants. And being thus, are not entitled to treatment as outlined in the Geneva convention. They are a criminal element. They do not wear uniforms as our soldiers do. They base their existence on the belief that this is only a stepping stone to reaching heaven & recieving-what?-22 virgins as a reward for blowing themselves up in a marketplace filled w/ women & children :confused: . All the while disenfranchising their women & living by sharia. They still bull-whip their citizens in the town square for petty offenses & chop off limbs for same. They're living in the stone-age. I say "feck em' :mad:

I'm not a lawyer (so maybe Fred or JHuskey can help me here).
As I understand it, one is either a soldier or a criminal, in this particular circumstance.
If one is a soldier (combatant), one is subject to Geneva.
If one is subject to criminality, then they're subject to the criminla law.
Quantanemo is limbo.

If these men are guilty - why aren't they charged with anything ?
If these men are guilty - I would support throwing away the key.
BUT, we have been subject to continuous lies from the Bush administration, and I know who's bona fides I question and it's not the people in Quantanemo.

The British authorities did not charge or prosecute the men who were illegally held in Cuba, on their return to Britain.
And let me tell you the British have been dealing with terrorism a lot longer than your lot - if there was even a whiff of terrorism about these men, the book would have been thrown at these guys.
An acquaintance of mine got in to some trouble with the British authorities and terrorism and they act if there is any hint of terrorism.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
I wonder if I'll spend my eternity in the company of 22 virgins?
I half agree with what you say here and I happen to believe the Islamic world does pose a significant problem and, yes, Bush has correctly stated that if the Islamic World if left as it is, it will become a breeding ground for fanaticism and terrorism.
Where I differ is over tactics.
Both Bush and Putin have made a grave mistake by using military tactics and repression (even cruelty) to try and exert some control over the Islamic World. I mean, if you look at history and how the early Christians were persecuted and repressed, you'll see matters were simply exacerbated. Christians were tortured, thrown to wild animals, their bibles burned and property confiscated. It made little difference and Christianity simply spread and finally took over the entire Roman Empire (you could argue it led to the Dark Ages and a rejection of philosophy and science for decades).
But with regard to Putin, Russian troops went into Chechnya, classified every male over 18 years old as a terrorist and wiped them out, leaving a vast number of bereaved, embittered female suicide bombers in their wake. These people became totally radicalized.
As for the Bush Administration, there is simply no excuse or justification for torture or abuse of these combatants in my opinion. I mean, could we justifiably compare SS captives of the Second World War with the Guantanamo captives? Let's consider the SS wiped out 3000 Jews a day, massacred children, committed all manner of atrocities, yet were treated to a fair trial in a court of law. Even the Japanese were treated according to law when they themselves broke every rule in the Geneva Convention. Compare Japanese treatment of American POW's with the Iraqi terrorists' treatment of Americans - on the whole the Iraqi radical groups come out with a better record.
I think degrading POW's is essentially wrong, unprofessional and immoral - no matter what these prisoners might have done.
My own view is that the Islamic World needs to be sorted out and modernised somehow but not through so-called military intervention. I think if these people weren't living in poverty in repressed societies, there would hardly be any suicide bombers or religious fanaticism. The thing is, though, you can't force these changes no matter how much you might dislike the regimes in such countries. I can see why Bush's policies might seem attractive to many but he's still wrong to disregard civilized standards of warfare and respect for human rights or civilian casualties.


davidmc said:
I, and other's, contend that these individuals are illegal combatants. They are not an army of a nation. They reside inside no borders. Simply put, they are cheater's when it comes to warfare-illegal combatants. And being thus, are not entitled to treatment as outlined in the Geneva convention. They are a criminal element. They do not wear uniforms as our soldiers do. They base their existence on the belief that this is only a stepping stone to reaching heaven & recieving-what?-22 virgins as a reward for blowing themselves up in a marketplace filled w/ women & children :confused: . All the while disenfranchising their women & living by sharia. They still bull-whip their citizens in the town square for petty offenses & chop off limbs for same. They're living in the stone-age. I say "feck em' :mad:
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
"And let me tell you the British have been dealing with terrorism a lot longer than your lot - if there was even a whiff of terrorism about these men, the book would have been thrown at these guys."

You've got to be kidding!

Both the French and U.S. have made repeated complaints about the U.K. harbouring Islamic terrorists. Some hijackers even took control of a plane in Moscow a few months back and demanded safe passage to London where they eventually landed. On arrival their asylum claims were duly processed and state benefits forwarded directly to them without further ado.

Then we have the rally in the U.K. that attracted some 4000 Islamic extremists who met to denounce the evil west. To my astonishment, the local councils allowed them to post 9/11 celebration posters over various parts of the city, praising the 9/11 hijackers as the "fabulous 7" or words to that effect. Nobody had the guts to confront any of this, but you can sure count on the authorities to invade a school, should a teacher be so foolish as to criticize Islam.

I know for certain that both France and Russia have protested over this matter. The French claim the U.K. is providing a safe haven for Algerian fundamentalists and one of those guys released from Guantanamo apparently met Bin laden himself. Russia wants a law to be passed that will make it illegal to fund and support known terrorists with public taxpayers money.




limerickman said:
I'm not a lawyer (so maybe Fred or JHuskey can help me here).
As I understand it, one is either a soldier or a criminal, in this particular circumstance.
If one is a soldier (combatant), one is subject to Geneva.
If one is subject to criminality, then they're subject to the criminla law.
Quantanemo is limbo.

If these men are guilty - why aren't they charged with anything ?
If these men are guilty - I would support throwing away the key.
BUT, we have been subject to continuous lies from the Bush administration, and I know who's bona fides I question and it's not the people in Quantanemo.

The British authorities did not charge or prosecute the men who were illegally held in Cuba, on their return to Britain.
And let me tell you the British have been dealing with terrorism a lot longer than your lot - if there was even a whiff of terrorism about these men, the book would have been thrown at these guys.
An acquaintance of mine got in to some trouble with the British authorities and terrorism and they act if there is any hint of terrorism.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Carrera said:
I half agree with what you say here and I happen to believe the Islamic world does pose a significant problem and, yes, Bush has correctly stated that if the Islamic World if left as it is, it will become a breeding ground for fanaticism and terrorism.

I hate to sound like SinnFein here but we've got to look at the root causes of terrorism.

Look at how the IRA started.
Catholics in Northern Ireland wanted equality of treatment.
The Unionists wouldn't cede control and furthermore, Catholic families were
petrol bombed out of their homes.
Therefore a constituency within the Catholic community decided that armed
terrorism was the only way to redress this balance.
I would argue that if there was a just and fair solution to Catholic rights, the cause of terrorism would have been removed.

The Muslim world feels that the West, by being in Saudi and now Iraq, is an attack on their identity.
Throw in Palestine and US unequivocal support of israel : and there are pelnty of root causes.


Carrera said:
Both Bush and Putin have made a grave mistake by using military tactics and repression (even cruelty) to try and exert some control over the Islamic World. I mean, if you look at history and how the early Christians were persecuted and repressed, you'll see matters were simply exacerbated. Christians were tortured, thrown to wild animals, their bibles burned and property confiscated. It made little difference and Christianity simply spread and finally took over the entire Roman Empire (you could argue it led to the Dark Ages and a rejection of philosophy and science for decades).
But with regard to Putin, Russian troops went into Chechnya, classified every male over 18 years old as a terrorist and wiped them out, leaving a vast number of bereaved, embittered female suicide bombers in their wake. These people became totally radicalized.
As for the Bush Administration, there is simply no excuse or justification for torture or abuse of these combatants in my opinion. I mean, could we justifiably compare SS captives of the Second World War with the Guantanamo captives? Let's consider the SS wiped out 3000 Jews a day, massacred children, committed all manner of atrocities, yet were treated to a fair trial in a court of law. Even the Japanese were treated according to law when they themselves broke every rule in the Geneva Convention. Compare Japanese treatment of American POW's with the Iraqi terrorists' treatment of Americans - on the whole the Iraqi radical groups come out with a better record.
I think degrading POW's is essentially wrong, unprofessional and immoral - no matter what these prisoners might have done.
My own view is that the Islamic World needs to be sorted out and modernised somehow but not through so-called military intervention. I think if these people weren't living in poverty in repressed societies, there would hardly be any suicide bombers or religious fanaticism. The thing is, though, you can't force these changes no matter how much you might dislike the regimes in such countries. I can see why Bush's policies might seem attractive to many but he's still wrong to disregard civilized standards of warfare and respect for human rights or civilian casualties.

I have no difficulty with Muslims countries in the Muslim world wishing to modernise.
But I do not believe for one moment that Bush went in to Iraq to help liberate
anyone but the oilfields.
I don't believe that Bush wanted to modernise Iraq.
If Bush had said to us "Saddam is a bad man and I want to remove him because....", then he might well have "right" on his side.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
To speak in very politically incorrect and frank terminology, the West has simply profitted from ignorance in the Middle East. No matter how much this may grate, the truth is the Middle East has been backward and stagnant for centuries. Former policy encouraged the Middle East to remain in this state of repression so the proverbially greedy British imperialists and Europeans could keep a foothold on the oil reserves. Democracy didn't suit anyone's interests.
Now, it may be the case Bush does want to see some kind of democracy in Iraq but is clueless as to how to bring about this goal. My bet is he hoped the Iraqis would be gateful for the overthrow of Saddam, form a democracy and have no objection to U.S. companies maintaining control over the oil reserves (at least in part). Bush figured that even if he directed a modest amount of dollar profits towards Iraqi amenities, the Iraqi people would still be living far better than under Saddam. So, all would end happily ever after.


limerickman said:
I hate to sound like SinnFein here but we've got to look at the root causes of terrorism.

Look at how the IRA started.
Catholics in Northern Ireland wanted equality of treatment.
The Unionists wouldn't cede control and furthermore, Catholic families were
petrol bombed out of their homes.
Therefore a constituency within the Catholic community decided that armed
terrorism was the only way to redress this balance.
I would argue that if there was a just and fair solution to Catholic rights, the cause of terrorism would have been removed.

The Muslim world feels that the West, by being in Saudi and now Iraq, is an attack on their identity.
Throw in Palestine and US unequivocal support of israel : and there are pelnty of root causes.




I have no difficulty with Muslims countries in the Muslim world wishing to modernise.
But I do not believe for one moment that Bush went in to Iraq to help liberate
anyone but the oilfields.
I don't believe that Bush wanted to modernise Iraq.
If Bush had said to us "Saddam is a bad man and I want to remove him because....", then he might well have "right" on his side.
 

FredC

New Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,859
0
0
limerickman said:
Dave - that's exactly who I had in mind when I posted that message.
That great Christian : Bush.
I don't know whether this is a reasonable thought or not. I already know that Bush has no Jews in his family as far as can be ascertained, and certain people ascribe the Bush's as being of French origin (Boucher).
I've been checking out the Kerrys, and his Jewish family connections through the ages. I came to the conclusion that Bush would have been defeated in the Presidential Election had his opposition been a white anglo saxon protestant.
You see, the connection to Israel by Kerry would have been forced by Israel as a 'one of us' scenario. Perhaps people just voted for Bush again because of this reason.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Carrera said:
To speak in very politically incorrect and frank terminology, the West has simply profitted from ignorance in the Middle East. No matter how much this may grate, the truth is the Middle East has been backward and stagnant for centuries. Former policy encouraged the Middle East to remain in this state of repression so the proverbially greedy British imperialists and Europeans could keep a foothold on the oil reserves. Democracy didn't suit anyone's interests.
Now, it may be the case Bush does want to see some kind of democracy in Iraq but is clueless as to how to bring about this goal. My bet is he hoped the Iraqis would be gateful for the overthrow of Saddam, form a democracy and have no objection to U.S. companies maintaining control over the oil reserves (at least in part). Bush figured that even if he directed a modest amount of dollar profits towards Iraqi amenities, the Iraqi people would still be living far better than under Saddam. So, all would end happily ever after.

The fact of the matter is that none of the Iraqi's want the Americans there.
Despite Saddam.

I remember all the talk about the Americans will be viewed as liberators etc.
For differing reasons, no one likes the Americans despite their overthrowing Saddam.
The Shia hate the USA, not least because Bush I urged them to revolt and then abandoned them when they did after Gulf War 1 : the Kurds despise the Americans because Saddam turned his wrath on them after he remained in power after Gulf War I, and the Sunni's hate the Americans because they overthrew their strongman, Saddam.
No one could have possibly miscalculated as badly as the Americans have done.
Throw in the fact that ideologically the Shia oppose the US throughout the Muslim world and the Sunni's believe in a Pan-Arab identity which opposes the West, you've got a proverbial powder keg, at the very least.

And forget this line about imposing democracy.
Look at the chronology.
When the yanks removed Saddam - they wanted to instal their choice of crook, Mr.Chalabi.
Funny how people forget this.
It was only when the yanks were told in no uncertain terms that this "solution" would not work, that Bremer came up with the notion of an election.
The idea of an election was agreed upon by the Shia and Ayotollah Sistani.
By agreeing to this - the yanks have had some breathing space.
That space is now diminishing.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
FredC said:
I don't know whether this is a reasonable thought or not. I already know that Bush has no Jews in his family as far as can be ascertained, and certain people ascribe the Bush's as being of French origin (Boucher).
I've been checking out the Kerrys, and his Jewish family connections through the ages. I came to the conclusion that Bush would have been defeated in the Presidential Election had his opposition been a white anglo saxon protestant.
You see, the connection to Israel by Kerry would have been forced by Israel as a 'one of us' scenario. Perhaps people just voted for Bush again because of this reason.

That's a very interesting point of view, Fred.
 

Squirmy Returns

New Member
Jan 18, 2005
88
0
0
limerickman said:
Hey, shouldn't you be brushing up on the profitability of airlines ?
Don't you have a brown shirt meeting you need to attend? April is right round tha corner. Must be a big holiday for ya.
 

FredC

New Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,859
0
0
Squirmy Returns said:
Of course it is me boy! Its as anti-semitic as you ****.
That's exactly the point I am purporting. Overt anti Israeli sentiment is a no go area in the USA, you mentioned the words 'anti semitic', not me.
I'm sure that more than 49% of USA citizens were dissatified with the Bush administration and it's failure to address problems internally and externally in a constructive manner. Let's face the facts. Jews account for about 6million out of population of roughly 350million, which isn't a large percentage by any means.
Now I might be wrong here, but not faraway on the figures, that over 30% of the Senate are Jewish.
With Kerry in charge, what would have happened?
This is the point that I am making, and I'm sure that many American citizens were aware of this situation, and as the media is under such tight control this point of view would hardly have a chance to get an airing.
Draw your own conclusions from this post, that is if you can get the words ****** and **** to stop whizzing around in your Tourettes Syndrome affected head.
It's not my country, but sometimes the spectator gets a better unblinkered view of the game.
I'm no historian, but when did your country last have a Jewish president?
Our last one was Disraeli I think.
So please tell me how a countryful of Evangelical bible thumpers could possibly elect a Jew?
In my opinion the closeness of the Election indicates that Bush was not all that he thought he was in the popularity stakes.
 

Squirmy Returns

New Member
Jan 18, 2005
88
0
0
FredC said:
That's exactly the point I am purporting. Overt anti Israeli sentiment is a no go area in the USA, you mentioned the words 'anti semitic', not me.
Didn't mention anti-semitic! Crofter! Yours and the wankers ramblins and mumbo jumbo ******** betray you. Oiy Ve!
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
You're preaching to the converted basically. I agree with 99 per cent of your posts with the only difference that I don't agree the Jews are the villains in this sorry scenario. In fact, I'm more inclined to blame the Arabs and the whole phenomenon of Islamic radicalism.
My view is neither the U.K. or U.S. should be involved in Iraq or interfering in the Middle East as a whole. After 9/11 we should have reviewed our entire attitude to immigration and secured our borders.
New Yorkers have cottoned on to Bush quite well and are outraged by the way he has exploited 9/11 at their expense.
I agree with you that abuse of any POWs is ethically and morally wrong and places the lives of foreign servicemen in danger.


limerickman said:
The fact of the matter is that none of the Iraqi's want the Americans there.
Despite Saddam.

I remember all the talk about the Americans will be viewed as liberators etc.
For differing reasons, no one likes the Americans despite their overthrowing Saddam.
The Shia hate the USA, not least because Bush I urged them to revolt and then abandoned them when they did after Gulf War 1 : the Kurds despise the Americans because Saddam turned his wrath on them after he remained in power after Gulf War I, and the Sunni's hate the Americans because they overthrew their strongman, Saddam.
No one could have possibly miscalculated as badly as the Americans have done.
Throw in the fact that ideologically the Shia oppose the US throughout the Muslim world and the Sunni's believe in a Pan-Arab identity which opposes the West, you've got a proverbial powder keg, at the very least.

And forget this line about imposing democracy.
Look at the chronology.
When the yanks removed Saddam - they wanted to instal their choice of crook, Mr.Chalabi.
Funny how people forget this.
It was only when the yanks were told in no uncertain terms that this "solution" would not work, that Bremer came up with the notion of an election.
The idea of an election was agreed upon by the Shia and Ayotollah Sistani.
By agreeing to this - the yanks have had some breathing space.
That space is now diminishing.
 

FredC

New Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,859
0
0
Squirmy Returns said:
Didn't mention anti-semitic! Crofter! Yours and the wankers ramblins and mumbo jumbo ******** betray you. Oiy Ve!
See#29 my little goldfish.
Another well considered and erudite reply, no doubt well thought through as we have come to expect from you. I'm sure that all the posters on this site will be illuminated by your mental grasp of complex situations.
I must tell the Moderator of your great publishings at once. Spoofing is it? I'm not.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Squirmy Returns said:
Didn't mention anti-semitic! Crofter! Yours and the wankers ramblins and mumbo jumbo ******** betray you. Oiy Ve!

You actually mentioned anti-semitic in your first message to this thread
Message 29 reads :

Squirmy Returns said:
Of course it is me boy! Its as anti-semitic as you ****.

Like I said, go away and brush up on your liguistics, economics.
Then come back and have another try.
 

FredC

New Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,859
0
0
Carrera said:
You're preaching to the converted basically. I agree with 99 per cent of your posts with the only difference that I don't agree the Jews are the villains in this sorry scenario. In fact, I'm more inclined to blame the Arabs and the whole phenomenon of Islamic radicalism.
My view is neither the U.K. or U.S. should be involved in Iraq or interfering in the Middle East as a whole. After 9/11 we should have reviewed our entire attitude to immigration and secured our borders.
New Yorkers have cottoned on to Bush quite well and are outraged by the way he has exploited 9/11 at their expense.
I agree with you that abuse of any POWs is ethically and morally wrong and places the lives of foreign servicemen in danger.
I didn't say that jews were responsible, I said that Israel was, and still is the biggest stumbling block.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Israel is the stumbling block, but there is hope.

The ST had a very good article about the former head of Shin Beit, I can't recall his name but he has advocated revoking 1967 and redrawing the maps, to pre 1967.
This means the removal of all settlements in the West Bank.
In addition, he advocates that Jerusalem be the capital of both Palestine and
Israel, and that it would be an international city.

This guy is a member of the Israeli Labour Party and is running for the Knesset.
I can't think of the guys name.
 

FredC

New Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,859
0
0
limerickman said:
Israel is the stumbling block, but there is hope.

The ST had a very good article about the former head of Shin Beit, I can't recall his name but he has advocated revoking 1967 and redrawing the maps, to pre 1967.
This means the removal of all settlements in the West Bank.
In addition, he advocates that Jerusalem be the capital of both Palestine and
Israel, and that it would be an international city.

This guy is a member of the Israeli Labour Party and is running for the Knesset.
I can't think of the guys name.
This is only what the United Nations have been asking for for the last 38 years!
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
FredC said:
This is only what the United Nations have been asking for for the last 38 years!

I know.

As on the Palestinian side, General Sharon needs to be removed, preferably
involuntarily.
Despite his words yesterday (and well all know the double speak of his kind),
he can never be trusted to deal fairly.

My own plans for Israel would include the demolition of Israel in it's entirety (preferably while they're all in it).

But if the Palestinians are prepared to deal with the Israeli's, I have no choice but to support them in that endeavour.
 

Similar threads