"Nice Work Creating New Terrorists, You Morons"

[Smoke]

The Relinquishment of Guantanomo Bay is akin to the the British handover of Hong Kong which officially signal the UK weakening global strenght and the demise of the Commonwealth

Wrong in every single respect. Giving up Hong Kong as promised didn't weaken the UK, and the Commonwealth is still with us. Giving up Guantanamo wouldn't weaken the US, either, if we did it. However, the US has not given up Guanatanmo Bay; we still have a base there, and nobody in the US government has signaled any intention of giving it up. We haven't even closed our concentration camp there, and there are no definite plans to do so.

 

[Smoke]

Oh, but a kinder gentler America was going to remove all threats to our country.

Um ... George H. W. Bush, remember?

Terrorists don't give a damn about human rights. :sorry1:

Terrorists or Republicans, either one.

 

[McBell]

Terrorists don't give a damn about human rights. :sorry1:

Thank you Captain Obvious

 

[Ba'al]

Terrorists don't give a damn about human rights. :sorry1:

That's a matter of perspective. If Iraq was occupying America, wouldn't americans be the terrorists? Bin Laden planned 9/11 because of the attack Israel and the US launched in Lebanon in 1982 where many civilians were killed. Terrorists are human and care about human rights like everyone else, sometimes that's why they become terrorists. When they aren't on our side, we call them terrorists, when they're on our side we call them CIA or the military.
"And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

– Osama bin Laden​

 

[dogsgod]

I would like for you to hang out in Yemen for a while.

Cruise Missile Attacks in Yemen

By Glenn Greenwald

December 21, 2009 - "Salon" -- Given what a prominent role "Terrorism" plays in our political discourse, it's striking how little attention is paid to American actions which have the most significant impact on that problem. In addition to our occupation of Iraq, war escalation in Afghanistan, and secret bombings in Pakistan, President Obama late last week ordered cruise missile attacks on two locations in Yemen, which "U.S. officials" say were "suspected Al Qaeda hideouts." The main target of the attacks, Al Qaeda member Qasim al Rim, was not among those killed, but: "a local Yemeni official said on Sunday that 49 civilians, among them 23 children and 17 women, were killed in air strikes against Al-Qaeda, which he said were carried out 'indiscriminately'." Media reports across the Muslim world -- though, not of course, within the U.S. -- are highlighting the dead civilians from the U.S. strike (one account from an official Iranian outlet began: "U.S. Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama has signed the order for a recent military strike on Yemen in which scores of civilians, including children, have been killed, a report says").

 

[YmirGF]

Anyone who thinks torturing folks and killing civilians is a good idea might do well to read this:

Guest Post: Nice Work Creating New Terrorists, You Morons « naked capitalism

I am inclined to think the story is either a fabrication or perhaps a gross distortion of the facts - which are in dispute - as per the times article. Just for the record, killing kids and civilians is not an especially bright idea.

Personally, I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of an American commander ordering such a hit - it is so blatant - that it seems suspicious. If I heard the Americans had lobbed a few rockets at the area and killed the kids, I'd probably buy in... but taken in the night and handcuffed. I just don't see it.

 

[kai]

On Wednesday, an explosion tore through a group of children gathered around foreign soldiers visiting a U.S.-funded road project in Nangarhar province, east of the capital of Kabul. Afghan officials said four children were killed. NATO said two died.

Minutes after the blast, local residents were accusing American forces of throwing a grenade into the crowd -- even though several international troops were among the wounded. The Afghan Interior Ministry later released a statement saying the explosion occurred when a passing police vehicle hit a mine.

Still, an estimated 5,000 protesters demonstrated the deaths Thursday along a road between Kabul and Jalalabad in Nangarhar. They waved a banner condemning the attack, set fire to an effigy of President Barack Obama and chanted "Long live Islam!" and "Death to Obama!"

"We are shouting 'Death to America' and 'to the Afghan government,'" Sardar Wali, a university student at the demonstration.

"It is the responsibility of the Afghan government to find and hand over the people who are responsible for this attack.

"


seems like they already made their minds up, or had it made up for them.


he Afghan Taliban had a statement of its own Thursday that asked who killed "school students, the adolescents in Narang district of Kunar province, nearly one week ago?"

The insurgents were referring to an incident late last month when the Afghan government and foreign military officials sparred over reports that 10 civilians died during a military operation in a remote area of Kunar in eastern Afghanistan.

Karzai expressed anger over the deaths, saying the victims included eight young students. He appointed a team to visit the province to investigate the deaths, which prompted hundreds of Afghans to protest and chant "death" to America.

The investigative team reported that eight students between the ages of 12 and 14 were among the dead discovered in a village house. NATO said that while it had no direct evidence to substantiate claims that civilians were killed, the international force had requested and welcomed a joint investigation to reach an "impartial and accurate determination" of what happened in the attack.



again it seems some people have already made their minds up! the death toll and circumstances often matters less than the Afghan public's perception of it.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/new-civilian-deaths-roil_n_416585.html

 

[Reverend Rick]

If Obama would have kept his word and closed Gitmo, we would not be having these problems now right?

 

[ericoh2]

If Obama would have kept his word and closed Gitmo, we would not be having these problems now right?

But Rick he's a politician so we have to hold his word to a lower standard. We must take it for what it is, a pile of BS.

 

[Yerda]

If Obama would have kept his word and closed Gitmo, we would not be having these problems now right?

Not exactly. If he had closed it and not chose to maintain a series of secrets prisons where some of the worst forms of torture still go on, there would be less of a problem.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Terrorists are human and care about human rights like everyone else

Are you a member of a terrorist organization?

 

[Tiapan]

We want peace so we enforce it through war.
We want wealth so we do it through greed.
We want material goods so we buy from china
We need the money for the goods so we sell our country to china.

The world goes on empires and jedi's come and go.

Cheers

 

[YmirGF]

Not exactly. If he had closed it and not chose to maintain a series of secrets prisons where some of the worst forms of torture still go on, there would be less of a problem.

No doubt water-boarding has been replaced by endless hours of playing Obama's favorites speeches.

 

[Gharib]

I would like for you to hang out in Yemen for a while.

why, so he can be shot by the americans?

 

[Yerda]

No doubt water-boarding has been replaced by endless hours of playing Obama's favorites speeches.

I'd betray my own mother if I was subjected to that.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me telling that torturing prisoners in order to get information from them is advocated almost solely by people who don't know what they are talking about. Instead, almost every professional interrogator -- almost every expert in the field -- is opposed to torturing prisoners because, as they say, torturing prisoners doesn't work.

Among other things, the US Army field manual to interrogations was strongly opposed to torturing prisoners prior to its being re-written during the Bush/Cheney administration. The Bush/Cheney administration, when it was looking around for people to set up a torture program, could not find anyone who was a professional interrogator willing to set up such a program and, consequently, had to set up their torture program using people who had no experience in interrogations.

Professional interrogators have said again and again and again that almost no usable information comes from torturing prisoners. But this is an issue on which the experts are ignored.

So, why do so many ignorant people advocate torturing prisoners in order to get information from them? It seems the more ignorant you are, the more likely you are to advocate torturing prisoners in order to get information from them. Why is that?

People who advocate torturing prisoners in order to extract information from them are sort of like Creationists in that they do not -- because they cannot -- base their argument on facts. There are no facts that support torturing prisoners in order to extract information from them, just as there are no facts that support "Creation Science". Both Creationists and those who advocate torturing prisoners are essentially irrational, ignorant, or both.

 

[sonofskeptish]

It seems to me telling that torturing prisoners in order to get information from them is advocated almost solely by people who don't know what they are talking about. Instead, almost every professional interrogator -- almost every expert in the field -- is opposed to torturing prisoners because, as they say, torturing prisoners doesn't work.

Among other things, the US Army field manual to interrogations was strongly opposed to torturing prisoners prior to its being re-written during the Bush/Cheney administration. The Bush/Cheney administration, when it was looking around for people to set up a torture program, could not find anyone who was a professional interrogator willing to set up such a program and, consequently, had to set up their torture program using people who had no experience in interrogations.

Professional interrogators have said again and again and again that almost no usable information comes from torturing prisoners. But this is an issue on which the experts are ignored.

So, why do so many ignorant people advocate torturing prisoners in order to get information from them? It seems the more ignorant you are, the more likely you are to advocate torturing prisoners in order to get information from them. Why is that?

What... almost no usable information comes from torturing prisoners? Come on... look at all the witches the church was able to identify during the Inquisition!

 

[Yerda]

Both Creationists and those who advocate torturing prisoners are essentially irrational, ignorant, or both.

Sometimes I get the impression that the dubious effectiveness isn't even a question. When years are spent employing techniques intended to destroy what makes a person a person - long term isolation, beatings, electrocution, simulated drowning, sleep deprivation, etc - what possible results could be yielded?

What use is turning a man (potentially a criminal in possession of information) into a vegetable, incapable of identifying even himself?

It seems like an act of boundless cruelty.

 

[Sunstone]

Sometimes I get the impression that the dubious effectiveness isn't even a question. When years are spent employing techniques intended to destroy what makes a person a person - long term isolation, beatings, electrocution, simulated drowning, sleep deprivation, etc - what possible results could be yielded?

What use is turning a man (potentially a criminal in possession of information) into a vegetable, incapable of identifying even himself?

It seems like an act of boundless cruelty.

Excellent point.

 

[Alceste]

The US doesn't need an occupation to control a country, just a co-operative ruling class that can be bought off.
We pretty much controlled all of South and Central America with hardly any occupation. Where do you think the terms "banana republic" or "gunship diplomacy" came from?

"Give me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws."

M.A. Rothschild