Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 158

Thread: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

  1. #131
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Capitulation? Saying I'm against this "war on terror", is not saying "well we should never ever use some sort of violence against a terrorist group". I do believe sometimes violence is justified. I was against sending troops to Afghanistan. However I was in favor of selective strikes at Al-Qaeda targets/camps in Afghanistan. I was 100% against the Iraq war.


    However I think part of this report sums it up perfectly on what should be done:
    "Firstly, by setting national security above human security objectives the West has – whether directly or through proxies— too frequently responded to the threat of ‘terrorism’ with the use of violence. Such violence has, all too often, been indiscriminate, and has had a tendency to exacerbate conflict dynamics rather than contribute to sustainable peace. Secondly, counter-terrorism eforts and related actions taken under the label of ‘stabilisation’ and ‘statebuilding’ have often failed to address drivers of conflict in meaningful ways. In fact, they often clumsily reinforce the most serious drivers of conflict – especially patterns of abusive and exclusive governance and corruption. Thirdly, the Western response has typically neglected to focus on sustainable solutions to conflict that involve and respond to the concerns, priorities and potentials of conflict-afected people in constructive ways.....

    In particular, military force should not be used simply to demonstrate the resolve or power to retaliate in response to violent provocation—indeed, military responses of this kind often play into the intentions of ‘terrorists’.

    Significant eforts are also needed to strengthen adherence to international humanitarian and human rights law by international actors and those they co-operate with: torture and indiscriminate
    use of violence are not only wrong in principle – they also deepen the grievances that can fuel violence and make sustainable peace much harder to achieve. Demonstrating full accountability for irresponsible use of force and abuses that have taken place is vital to eforts to minimise grievances."
    http://www.visionofhumanity.org/site...ort%202014.pdf
    While I may not agree with your stance on terror, I appreciate the detailed response to my knee jerk comment. I obviously misjudged you when I rather rudely labeled you a "capitulator". My apologies.

  2. #132
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    Judging by the past, crime never stops, but sometimes peters out. You can only contain and fight it.
    Wait a sec? What did we do before we had this "War on Terror"?


  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Because: "The rise in terrorist activity coincided with the US invasion of Iraq. This created large power vacuums in the country allowing diferent factions to surface and become violent. Despite the fact that a government was formed and elections held, the country and region has been unstable ever since. In 2006 Nouri al-Maliki was appointed Prime Minister of Iraq. In the following year amid sectarian tensions Iraq sufered the worst year of terrorist activity recorded since 2000. It was only in 2013 with the rise of ISIL that Iraq sufered this same level of terrorism again
    Yes, after 2011, when the troops pulled out, terrorism began to rise again. This should have been expected, and now you have ISL there and many thousands have been murdered. Obama was right when he claimed Iraq was 'stable' and 'sovereign' in 2011 but can he say that now? In fact there were 54 US casualties in 2011 and not all of those were by terrorists. Now you will see greater casualties suffered by everyone until the area once again becomes 'stable'.
    --Despite Obama's rhetoric that Iraq was "stable" it was in fact not stable. It has been unstable since the invasion. The invasion created power vacuums and openings for radical groups to gain strength and in some aspects become popular. One of these groups that surfaced was Al-Qaeda in Iraq which later split to become ISIS. The "Obama pull out" of Iraq (which actually was more of Obama trying to keep troops in Iraq, which Maliliki, the US public, and the Iraqi government all saying a collective "no"). But to argue all we needed was to leave 5,000 (which Obama wanted), or even 3,000 (which others suggested) would of been enough to somehow stop the rise of ISIS in Iraq, to that I shall share what the Ambassador of Iraq from 2010-2012 said, " But the common argument that U.S. troops could have produced different Iraqi political outcomes is hogwash. The Iraqi sectarian divides, which ISIS exploited, run deep and were not susceptible to permanent remedy by our troops at their height, let alone by 5,000 trainers under Iraqi restraints." Max Boot: Obama's Tragic Iraq Withdrawal - WSJ
    Iraq was 'stable' and the military wanted 30,000, not 3,000, troops to remain. They could have handled any ISIS invasion and there would have been far less casualties suffered by everyone.
    There was no serious 'power vacuum' in Iraq. The people, for the first time in the history of the country, had a chance to vote and, despite terrorist threats, that they did.

    And as General Wesley Clark said: "I don’t think that keeping a few thousand troops in Iraq would have stopped ISIS. And it wouldn’t have fixed the Iraqi forces. " http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/10/11/...-a-difference/
    It seems you really didn't read that max Boot article you quoted and, of course, Wesley Clark is purely political whose opinion is not worth a great deal.
    When? No idea. When do you think it began?
    The plan was hatched in the 1920's by the Muslim Brotherhood but to me modern terrorism began in Munich in 1972.

  4. #134
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Yes, after 2011, when the troops pulled out, terrorism began to rise again.

    Actually its been rising constantly: GTD Search Results

    This should have been expected, and now you have ISL there and many thousands have been murdered.
    ISIL has been there for a while in one form or another.

    Obama was right when he claimed Iraq was 'stable' and 'sovereign' in 2011 but can he say that now?
    A failed state is stable? A state with a exremly corrupt government who ignores around 20% of its population? A state where a civil war was taking place? A state where terrorist attacks are constant? GTD Search Results

    You call that stable?

    In fact there were 54 US casualties in 2011 and not all of those were by terrorists. Now you will see greater casualties suffered by everyone until the area once again becomes 'stable'.
    And if you look beyond just US casualties....
    GTD Search Results


    Iraq was 'stable' and the military wanted 30,000, not 3,000, troops to remain.
    No. They did a series of studies on the matter. T

    They could have handled any ISIS invasion and there would have been far less casualties suffered by everyone.
    Maybe. Maybe not.


    There was no serious 'power vacuum' in Iraq. The people, for the first time in the history of the country, had a chance to vote and, despite terrorist threats, that they did.
    I dont know.... Constantly being labled a "failed state" during this time of "stability", being labeled "the most corrupt regime in the Middle East", being labeled as something between a “flawed democracy” and an “authoritarian regime”, constant terror attacks...

    It seems you really didn't read that max Boot article you quoted and,
    No I did.

    of course, Wesley Clark is purely political whose opinion is not worth a great deal.
    Why not? Why are others but not his?

    The plan was hatched in the 1920's by the Muslim Brotherhood
    Got a source. Not disputing it, I just have no idea if its true or not.

    but to me modern terrorism began in Munich in 1972.
    Black September was a secular organization.


  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Actually its been rising constantly.
    That's not a very helpful source but there is no doubt that terrorism has risen in Iraq since 2011.
    ISIL has been there for a while in one form or another.
    Well there have been many terrorist groups in one form or another for a long while and all with similar goals in mi
    A failed state is stable? A state with a exremly corrupt government who ignores around 20% of its population? A state where a civil war was taking place? A state where terrorist attacks are constant?
    Corruption? Of course, This is the Middle East. But as far as Iraq was concerned it was 'stable' in 2011, or at least moreso than when Saddam was in power and when the campaign first began. The Coalition, especially the American military, had a very strong presence there which, of course, has now been lost. All of those lives lost and money spent were for naught. Are you still talking of Iraq in 2011?
    Coalition casualties are the only real measurement because there is no breakdown of how many terrorists were killed, how many Iraqi innocents and, as well, there is no way to get an accurate account of any other group but the Coalition troops. That is the only real measurement available.
    You call that stable?
    It was certainly more stable in 2011 than it is now. Would you agree?
    No. They did a series of studies on the matter.
    I'd really like to see any study that 3,000 troops would be sufficient to protect the gains made in Iraq. Their lives would be in critical danger.
    Maybe. Maybe not.
    Do you really believe that ISIS could handle the might of the American Military?
    I dont know.... Constantly being labled a "failed state" during this time of "stability", being labeled "the most corrupt regime in the Middle East", being labeled as something between a “flawed democracy” and an “authoritarian regime”, constant terror attacks...
    There have always been critics who would call it a 'quagmire", "another Vietnam", etc. but we can't take them at face value. Even if any of what you say was true there is nothing that compares with what's going on in Iraq now. Now we can legitimacy call it 'a failed state, corrupt, and 100% of the people not looked after'.
    Why not? Why are others but not his?
    Well of course you can quote him but he's not a serious person. Just familiarize yourself with his opinions and you'll see what I mean.
    Got a source. Not disputing it, I just have no idea if its true or not.
    History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government
    Black September was a secular organization.
    We were talking modern terrorism but, in any case, they were all Muslims.

  6. #136
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    That's not a very helpful source but there is no doubt that terrorism has risen in Iraq since 2011.
    What!? Its not helpful? It tracks every terrorist attack.... But it clearly shows that it was rising even before 2011..

    Well there have been many terrorist groups in one form or another for a long while and all with similar goals in mi
    Uhh yea.. ISIS essentially evolved from these groups...

    Corruption? Of course, This is the Middle East. But as far as Iraq was concerned it was 'stable' in 2011, or at least moreso than when Saddam was in power and when the campaign first began. The Coalition, especially the American military, had a very strong presence there which, of course, has now been lost. All of those lives lost and money spent were for naught. Are you still talking of Iraq in 2011?
    What world do you live in? Iraq in 2011 during its "stable" time was ranked the worst of the worst in the middle east.... In 2010? Still the worst.. How about 2009? Damn! That "stable Iraq" is still ranked the worst! 2008? Naaa it still was the worst... But hey its "stable for the middle east"

    Coalition casualties are the only real measurement because there is no breakdown of how many terrorists were killed, how many Iraqi innocents and, as well, there is no way to get an accurate account of any other group but the Coalition troops. That is the only real measurement available.
    -I literally just provided you a break down in that link
    -The "coalition of the willing" basically left in 2009
    -But how is providing casualty numbers of US Troops in Iraq, who were announced in 2009 to move away from battle and mainly focus on trainign, and were announced to leave the country resonate to what is happening in the country? How does at all the stability of a country relate to deaths of US personnel?


    It was certainly more stable in 2011 than it is now. Would you agree?
    And it was more "stable" in 2002 as well.. I use stable because how liberally you use that word. If it was "stable" in 2011 then it was even more "stable" in 2002..


    Do you really believe that ISIS could handle the might of the American Military?
    "Handle"? What do you mean "handle"? But a force of insurgents that only seems to be getting bigger as a war goes on seems to be pretty hard to "handle" this is not only shown by late 20th century history, but the current history we are living in..

    There have always been critics who would call it a 'quagmire", "another Vietnam", etc. but we can't take them at face value. Even if any of what you say was true there is nothing that compares with what's going on in Iraq now. Now we can legitimacy call it 'a failed state, corrupt, and 100% of the people not looked after'.
    Yet somehow you call it stable even after you can "legitimacy call it a failed state". Some how a "legitimacy called failed state" is "stable"

    Well of course you can quote him but he's not a serious person. Just familiarize yourself with his opinions and you'll see what I mean.
    History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government
    I mean its all fine and dandy to quote a article that Michelle Bachman has used to back up her claims, but what specifics are you going to point at? When did it start? Rhetoric is one thing but how are you going to specifically point to that year?

    We were talking modern terrorism but, in any case, they were all Muslims.
    Well if we are talking about modern terrorism it depends on your defintion of "modern". But then again if they were all Muslims (which they were not, one was from a Christian family, one was from a family who had a Jewish mother and a Christian father, the rest we just dont know anything about their religion), is every crime or act of terror carried out by a certain individual or individuals, even if its not carried out in the name of that religion (like this attack, it was not carried out in the name of Islam.....) is thefore carried out by that religion (even if you dont know their religion, instead "well they are Palestinians therefore MUSLIM!!!)?


  7. #137
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,289

    Re: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Wait a sec? What did we do before we had this "War on Terror"?
    Like with the war on drugs.

  8. #138
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Well it seems like continuing the war is only increasing these attacks and support for these groups....
    So yes is your answer....Like I said....Foolish.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #139
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Wait a sec? What did we do before we had this "War on Terror"?
    Obviously lived with our heads in the sand....3,000 died for that...That is what you want to return to.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #140
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Five Yemenis transferred from U.S. custody at Guantanamo: Pentagon

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So yes is your answer....Like I said....Foolish.
    See post #130: "However I think part of this report sums it up perfectly on what should be done:
    "Firstly, by setting national security above human security objectives the West has – whether directly or through proxies— too frequently responded to the threat of ‘terrorism’ with the use of violence. Such violence has, all too often, been indiscriminate, and has had a tendency to exacerbate conflict dynamics rather than contribute to sustainable peace. Secondly, counter-terrorism eforts and related actions taken under the label of ‘stabilisation’ and ‘statebuilding’ have often failed to address drivers of conflict in meaningful ways. In fact, they often clumsily reinforce the most serious drivers of conflict – especially patterns of abusive and exclusive governance and corruption. Thirdly, the Western response has typically neglected to focus on sustainable solutions to conflict that involve and respond to the concerns, priorities and potentials of conflict-afected people in constructive ways.....

    In particular, military force should not be used simply to demonstrate the resolve or power to retaliate in response to violent provocation—indeed, military responses of this kind often play into the intentions of ‘terrorists’.

    Significant eforts are also needed to strengthen adherence to international humanitarian and human rights law by international actors and those they co-operate with: torture and indiscriminate
    use of violence are not only wrong in principle – they also deepen the grievances that can fuel violence and make sustainable peace much harder to achieve. Demonstrating full accountability for irresponsible use of force and abuses that have taken place is vital to eforts to minimise grievances."
    http://www.visionofhumanity.org/site...ort%202014.pdf


Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •