Is this freedom?

[FinnAgain]

@Ryan_Liam

Thats right though, they are terrorists who belong to no state and want to destroy yours, they can be detained indefinately, its stipulated within the Geneva convention, look it up.

No. They are not terrorists, they are simply people that the president claims are terrorists and then isn’t obligated to show proof. You do understand the difference, right?

@Ryan_Liam

Ding Dong (english version) You fucking moron, I expressed the core sense of American values, and it still wasn’t enough, I even left enough for variables, but it still wasn’t enough. Retard.

~sighs~
So, in other words, you refuse to cite any relevant statistical data and instead claim to have some Magick Connection that enables you to divine the ‘core sense of American values.’
In other words, you are full of shit and refuse to back up your bullshit with data.
You’re also wrong about America.

And, were I you, I’d refrain from comments upon my intelligence.
Especially when it’s obvious where you stand in relation to me.

@Ryan_Liam

And it seems your not doing a very good job either.

Ah, no retraction, no alteration of your rhetoric. Just blithely step over any conflicting data. :rolleyes:
As I put the question to your new found buddy, yes, I realize that protesting hasn’t protected our civil liberties, and if you want us to somehow do better, I challenge you to come up with a more effective method of securing our civil liberties, making our voices heard, etc…

Otherwise shut your fucking face.
There are those of us who are at least trying to do the right thing rather than cheerleading for war and the loss of civil liberties.

@Ryan_Liam

:rolleyes: You knew what I meant, quit playing dumb.

I am not playing dumb, you are being dumb.
You make sweeping and innacurate generalizations about American society with nary a shred of data to get in the way of your ignorance.
I point out, evidently too subtly for you to notice, that freedom can’t be defended. Freedom is a concept, not an item. You cannot find freedom on a map, you cannot circle your tanks around freedom and protect it.
Thinking that Americans are some wacked out White Knights who go around the world Protecting Freedom is, well, insane.
Moreoever you will find that American foreign policy often revolves around naked self interest, “freedom” is just the propaganda used to sell it, propaganda which you have swallowed, yes, hook line and sinker.

@Ryan_Liam

And I still think your comebacks suck, and it was as you told me how I liked to something like ‘hook line and sinker?’

~sighs~
It wasn’t a ‘comeback’, I was simply pointing out how you’ve been hoodwinked.
You have swallowed American propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Do I have to admonish you to also try to keep up?

@Ryan_Liam

rubbish, they not have been obtained by society yet, but its a fundamental objective.

You have a case of verbal diarrhea it seems.
American society is not based around “fundemental objectives” of an end to “want” and “fear”.
You’re out of your fucking gourd.

@Ryan_Liam

Just making Brutus statement about you ever more clearer, your comebacks do and still, suck.

Well, I suppose that when I’ve kicked your ass consistently in this debate that you can attempt to rely on criticism of my verbiage.
Lemme know how that works out for ya.

[World_Eater]

@Ryan_Liam

Thats right though, they are terrorists who belong to no state and want to destroy yours, they can be detained indefinately, its stipulated within the Geneva convention, look it up.

They are citizens who DO belong to a state. If you have evidence, put them through the court, if not, then let them go, or ship them back to wherever the fuck they come from. You can’t hold people on a “hunch”. Why is this so difficult to understand?

IF THEY ARE TERRORISTS SHOW EVIDENCE.

[FinnAgain]

Second, the International Red Cross estimated that as many as 90 percent of the prisoners being held at Abu Ghraib had nothing to do with the insurgency. Taguba’s report estimated that 60 percent had nothing to do with it

Great record we have with making sure innocents aren’t targeted as ‘terrorists’.
Why oh why might someone ever doubt the utter infallability of the United States Government?

[GomiBoy]

@Brutus

Err, ya. Gambling debts, gotcha. But I presume you are whining about less than 100% accuracy with the program, right? Well here is a shocking and suprising tidbit for you: Nothing will be 100% You’ll never get perfect intel or targeting or operations. If you want to wait for 100%, you will never do anything, and that is unacceptable.

Obviously you didn’t read the rest of the post. Obviously, as what I was ‘whining’ about was not that Phoenix didn’t get 100%, but that it didn’t get more than 10% and that it actually aided the enemy. I don’t even ask for 100%, but I do ask for better than 10%.

@Brutus

A massive failure? Certainly and undeniably, Phoenix played a pivotal role in effectively wiping out the VC. What’s that, you say? You didn’t know that the VC were pretty much gone by the end of US involvement? Thank Phoenix (and lesser known programs) along with the VC’s bumbling of the Tet offensive.

As to Phoenix wiping out the VC, I think maybe the hundreds of thousands of troops and massive bombing raids might have helped a bit too, especially seeing as how Phoenix was so fucking effecient it got a whole heaping 10% of suspected VC in country and killed them. Sure, your heroes the CIA certainly won that war…

Do you know, even their 10% success rate could have been random chance? I mean, if you kill 20-40k random people in villages all over the country, you’re sure to get a few bad guys, right? Maybe we should use that tactic in Iraq? I’m sure you’d be happy to support such a half-assed gamble in the war on Terror, seeing as how you’re shouting the praises of our Chickenhawk in Chief and his Cabal of Armchair Generals.

And sure, Tet was quite the fumble. Sure. It only won them the war. And destroyed any last vestiges of hope the people in the US had of winning and by the by also made sure that the people in the US knew, flat out knew, that their government was lying to them about Vietnam as we were supposed to be winning but the enemy managed this massive assault in the face of all our ‘successes.’

So I can see how someone like you could view that as a fuck-up. Sure. Nice try dipshit - wanna go again?

@Brutus

What ‘lost’ Vietnam was the lack of polical will, not some fantasy of run-amok assassinations or whatnot.

Think maybe the loss of political will was maybe, oh, I dunno, a little bit maybe down to the fact that the US public was a little disheartened to learn about things like the Phoenix program and that led to further erosion of will? Think maybe that it was a little less black and white than your pathetic little brain understands about why we lost and how the loss of will came about? Maybe?

Oh, wait, just in case - pathetic means really really weak. Just to make sure you understand the big words. As apparently both your and Ryan_Liam’s reading comprehension skills are not quite up to par.

@Brutus

Thus neatly revealing that you don’t actually see current administration policy (and the Patriot Act) as being detrimental to our civil rights. After all, I would already be bereft of rights if things were a fraction as bad as you are trying to make them out to be; there wouldn’t be anything left for me to give up.

(But you were just engaging in a bit of goading, right?)

Goading - no. Flat out insulting you and your idiotic worldview - yes. I do see current mis-administration as increasing the pace of the steady erosion of our civil rights, and hold out some hope that organizations such as the ACLU are working hard to stop him. I also know, from personal experience, that the only place where the erosion of civil rights is moving faster is within the military, and asked when you were going to sign up?

My question still stands, oh ye mighty supporter of troops and policy. If the policy you support is so fucking grand and great when are you going to put some skin in the game, you fucking chickenhawk?

@Brutus

What the hell are you talking about? I care not one iota about your North Carolina Whateverthefucks; I was rather obviously refering to a list of questions that certain posters simply must have answered by me.

Well, as you can’t bother to read them, I guess I don’t really expect them to be answered either.

See ya’ round dipshit, maybe next time you can defend any one of your pathetic little points.

[Zoe]

Ryan: Thats right though, they are terrorists who belong to no state and want to destroy yours, they can be detained indefinately, its stipulated within the Geneva convention, look it up.

Ryan, who says they belong to no state? Where is the proof that they want to destroy ours? They have not been charged! Don’t you know that some of these people have been British? A couple have been American.

The Geneva Conventions are not applicable in this case. That is by design.

There is abuse and some torture taking place according to the International Red Cross and Amnesty International. I am a member of AI.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled against the Bush Administration’s policy of holding these people indefinitely without due process, but someone else would have to explain the technicalities of the rulings.

When President Bush came to London, he wanted protestors kept away from him, but the British Government wanted its citizens to be free to express their feelings. In America, for the first time that I can remember, protestors are kept at a distance. The President largely sees only cheering supportive crowds.

There are many ways to protest besides marching in the streets. You are making assumptions about us. For example, we can protest by supporting legal action through the American Civil Liberties Union or the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. The Natural Resources Defense Council also works to protect the environment through the court system. And both of these organizations provide other ways of protesting also.

No one with a computer is more than a few clicks away from making her or his voice heard.

Ryan, you have every right to express your opinion about America. But so does Aldebaran. Why in the world would you ask him what gives him the right to judge?

Please keep in mind that more people voted for Bush’s opponent than have ever voted for the non-incumbent in the history of United States Presidential elections.

GomiBoy: …seems like the feces-flinging monkeys are outside the bars in the zoo now… after all, they are the ones with the ‘mandate’

Are those “steaming turds” in their hands by any chance?

[GomiBoy]

@Zoe

Are those “steaming turds” in their hands by any chance?

Yep, flinging them is really second nature…

[Ryan_Liam]

@Zoe

Ryan

Ryan, you have every right to express your opinion about America. But so does Aldebaran. Why in the world would you ask him what gives him the right to judge?

Please keep in mind that more people voted for Bush’s opponent than have ever voted for the non-incumbent in the history of United States Presidential elections.
are those “steaming turds” in their hands by any chance?

Again with the stupid 'he’s so unpopular his opponent got more votes, but he didn’t, he has the popular vote of 3 million, and just about trounced Kerry in the electoral college votes.

Aldebaran does, but to whitewash the entire US campaign as some imperialistic genocidal war against Muslims and Islam in general, is downright offensive.

[GomiBoy]

@Ryan_Liam

Again with the stupid 'he’s so unpopular his opponent got more votes, but he didn’t, he has the popular vote of 3 million, and just about trounced Kerry in the electoral college votes.

Aldebaran does, but to whitewash the entire US campaign as some imperialistic genocidal war against Muslims and Islam in general, is downright offensive.

May I be the first to ask if you have some sort of disability in mental reasoning? Other than being just dog-stupid and stubornly uninformed, some sort of deficiency is all I can think of as to why you simply refuse to understand simple points.

Zoe’s point, and she(?) is absolutely correct, is that in the history of US Presidential elections, not only did Bush win by a popular (as well as electoral) majority for the first time in many years, but also that more people voted for his opponent than ever before in this type of election (i.e. more popular votes against an incumbent president than ever before).

This is not questioning the outcome, or saying Kerry won, just simply stating the fact that more people than ever in the history of US elections voted against an incumbent president. Which to my mind is pretty indicative that his policies disenchanted a record number of Americans, who voted in droves against him.

Did that get through? Or are you still struggling to understand?

Oh, and stop blaming Aldebaran - he can defend himself, and makes far more eloquent and meaningful posts (even if I disagree) than you do in spite of his disadvantages of not natively speaking this language.

[Aldebaran]

**FinnAgain[/], just a question: Do you plan to get politicaly active so that you can think about running for president of the USA?

Salaam. A

[GomiBoy]

One small nitpick…

@Zoe

The Geneva Conventions are not applicable in this case. That is by design.

If these individuals were captured on the field of battle, or even if they are captured in law-enforcement-style raids by US soldiers abroad, then the Geneva Convention absolutely applies. What Bush et all have done is placed themselves and the US Military arbitrarily outside of the scope of the Geneva Convention (as well as the US Constitution), in disregard of treaties signed and against both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Federal Judicial Code (as evidenced by the SCOTUS’s decision that the Government must either bring cases or release the Guantanimo detainees)
[/nitpick]

[ZombiesAteMyBrain]

@Ryan_Liam

Thats right though, they are terrorists who belong to no state and want to destroy yours, they can be detained indefinately, its stipulated within the Geneva convention, look it up.

As a UK resident, are you not interested that our very own Law Lords voted 8-1 yesterday that the UK’s very own copycat version of the Patriot Act is unlawful.

Lord Hoffmann, one of the panel of nine law lords, said: “[This case] calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.”

In response to government arguments that the anti-terrorism Act was necessary to protect the life of the nation, Lord Hoffmann said: "The real threat to the life of the nation … comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.

“That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.”

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=594088

[Dunderman]

Since you apparently missed it, Brutus:

And you’re not even a tiny bit worried that some day this policy might be turned against someone that you think it shouldn’t be turned against? Maybe even someone you know or even care about, or maybe even yourself?

[World_Eater]

@GomiBoy

One small nitpick…

If these individuals were captured on the field of battle, or even if they are captured in law-enforcement-style raids by US soldiers abroad, then the Geneva Convention absolutely applies. What Bush et all have done is placed themselves and the US Military arbitrarily outside of the scope of the Geneva Convention (as well as the US Constitution), in disregard of treaties signed and against both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Federal Judicial Code (as evidenced by the SCOTUS’s decision that the Government must either bring cases or release the Guantanimo detainees)
[/nitpick]

The irony of course is that these pinheads actually believe locking up a few “terrorists” to keep them off the streets will really help protect us. No critical thinking as to whether these policies make us look bad globally and possibly increase the ranks of anti US groups.

[World_Eater]

@World Eater

The irony of course is that these pinheads actually believe locking up a few “terrorists” to keep them off the streets will really help protect us. No critical thinking as to whether these policies make us look bad globally and possibly increase the ranks of anti US groups.

ndefinitely locking up people without due process I should say.

[FinnAgain]

Aldeberan: Truth be told I’ve considered it, but I don’t know.

@Ryan_Liam

to whitewash the entire US campaign as some imperialistic genocidal war against Muslims and Islam in general, is downright offensive.

So you, a British citizen, are downright offended that someone thinks American foreign policy might be racist?
Moreoever, since Bush called this “war on terror” a “crusade” it isn’t all that odd to think that maybe he views it as a war of christians against muslims.

[World_Eater]

As usual I can hear crickets chirping.

What’s the problem boys? Run out of witty non sequitur comebacks?

[Aldebaran]

@FinnAgain

Aldeberan: Truth be told I’ve considered it, but I don’t know.

You would have my backing

So you, a British citizen, are downright offended that someone thinks American foreign policy might be racist?
Moreoever, since Bush called this “war on terror” a “crusade” it isn’t all that odd to think that maybe he views it as a war of christians against muslims.

Well, actually no, I don’t but of course for those who can barely support the thought of my presence on “their” message board it is a useful idiocy to come up with.
However, that Bush has used the word “crusade” and that he in addition came up with things like being “inspired by God to defeat Evil” (this Evil of course situated in the Middle East and right before invading a few Islamic nations) is among the most stupid PR stunts he could have send to Muslims all over the globe. It is no surprize that people take him on his words, is it?

That a lot of the underlying tone of todays mentality in the US is racist-anti-Arab and attacking Islam and that a lot of that is fueled additionally by Crazy Christian Preachers and/or by the PR machine of Bush and crew, has no doubt in my mind.
I can give easily a few examples posted on this message board. And here we see a gathering of people who have at least learned to use their brain (a few exceptions not mentioned).

Salaam. A

[FinnAgain]

@Aldebaran

You would have my backing

Shhhhh!
Next they’ll be saying I’m fluent in french

P.S. do you have a cite for the second quote you refrenced, about Bush saying God inspired to fight evil? I’ve heard a version that might be similar that was attributed to Bush via Abbas, but I’m wary of taking that at face value.

[Brutus]

@Priceguy

Since you apparently missed it, Brutus:

Yep.

And you’re not even a tiny bit worried that some day this policy might be turned against someone that you think it shouldn’t be turned against?

No. Not even a little tiny bit. I also don’t worry that the Airforce will bomb my house or that the Army will shell my backyard, but that is also going on, sans trials and whatnot. Funny how there have been no (well, few, if you count that strafing in New Jersey) incidents where the military used its other powers against people.

It’s not like they are just sitting around and waiting to steal away with your aunt or something.

Maybe even someone you know or even care about, or maybe even yourself?

See above. Nope.

@World Eater

As usual I can hear crickets chirping…

Still just trying to goad? Pathetic.

[World_Eater]

@Brutus

Still just trying to goad? Pathetic.

If you mean by goad getting a mofo to answer a simple question, sure.
I’ll ask one more time.

If these people are terrorists it’s because we should have evidence that suggests so. If we have evidence, then we should try their asses, and if we don’t we should let them go.