Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 79 of 79

Thread: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

  1. #71
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

    Quote Originally Posted by ADK_Forever View Post
    Do you believe Bush/Cheney ever did anything because the Dems "wanted" them to?
    no child left behind.

    They released this guy because the big bad Dems made them?
    because of pressure by kook liberals, yes.

    9/11 happened while Bush was President and it's Clinton's fault?
    and we can all play in the NBA.......


    They removed all regulations on the banking industry, the economy tanks and it's Clinton's fault?

    Who sued to force citi bank to make NINJA loans?


    They were incompetent. Period.

    They were also criminals. It's only a matter of time before they are brought to justice. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney wrote a tell all book taking credit for puppeting Bush through his Presidency. His ego can't stay silent forever.

    i can not debate lunacy, sorry.



    tick...tock...tick...tock...



    wanna make a wager?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post




    i can not debate lunacy, sorry.
    You could for quite a while, and you did it quite good.
    What has happened today?

  3. #73
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,373
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

    QUOTE=Arch Enemy
    I'd be forever grateful if you'd quote the exact paragraph that you are using to make your point. I tried to scan it, but all I saw was "Iraq war" this and "Iraq war WMDs not there" that. I do not believe that our invasion into Iraq was for American safety. I believe we did more in aiding the militant organizations within the region by destroying the psychopath known as Saddam.
    Hell, read the document, it's loaded with examples. Do your own homework... educate thyself.

    KAY: ... Iraq was in clear and material violation of 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their program. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.
    KAY: ...I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.

    I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.
    KAY: Senator Kennedy, it's impossible in a short time I have to reply to take you through fully that. And in fact, that's my hope that Senator Roberts and his committee will have done that.

    But let me just say that while it -- there's a selecting process that goes on both ways. There were people in the DOE who believed that those aluminum tubes were indeed for a centrifuge program. It's a lot easier after the fact and after you know the truth to be selective that you were right. I've gone through this a lot in my career.

    All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD.

    And I remind you, it was Secretary Cohen who stood, I think, in this very committee room with five pounds of flour and talked about anthrax.
    And it goes on and on and on...

    Oh right. Libya is a real danger to the United States and her allies. You are once again stating the idea that countries will nuke each other if given the chance. I find that completely ridiculous. Not the craziest person of the 20th century nuked any body and he, Stalin, was a bit more crazy then these thugs.
    We have bombed Libya. They have partaken in terrorism. They have killed innocents, and they had tools to start a nuke program.

    With your reasoning, your reaction to bin laden would be... hell... they sit in caves and train like it was the 1920's. What can a bunch of (using Clinton's words to Mansoor Ijaz) "ragheads" do?

    Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.

    Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

    Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

    Concludes Ijaz in the Times: "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.”
    Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden

    Libya had greater capabilities and resources than Osama.
    Last edited by zimmer; 01-25-09 at 05:58 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  4. #74
    Phoenecian
    Indy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    03-22-13 @ 04:36 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,089

    Re: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

    Just thought I'd post this:

    Security experts skeptical on Gitmo detainee report
    The report, released days before President Obama took office, says 18 former detainees are confirmed to have participated in attacks, and 43 are suspected to have been involved in attacks.

    That figure would be about 11 percent of the roughly 520 prisoners who have been released from the Guantanamo facility, which Obama on Thursday ordered be shut down.
    Bergen said some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years."
    Affiant further sayeth not.

  5. #75
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    You could for quite a while, and you did it quite good.
    What has happened today?



    I am sick and in the middle of a giant install.......
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #76
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    QUOTE=Arch EnemyHell, read the document, it's loaded with examples. Do your own homework... educate thyself.







    And it goes on and on and on...

    We have bombed Libya. They have partaken in terrorism. They have killed innocents, and they had tools to start a nuke program.

    With your reasoning, your reaction to bin laden would be... hell... they sit in caves and train like it was the 1920's. What can a bunch of (using Clinton's words to Mansoor Ijaz) "ragheads" do?


    Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden

    Libya had greater capabilities and resources than Osama.


    See, my eyes started bleeding as soon as I scanned your post and realized you are on the "blame Clinton for Osama" band-wagon. I am not even drunk anymore don't make my eyes bleed. These partisan cheap-shots make me sick "Bush unleashed Osama!" "No! Bush got the danger that Clinton left intact" "No! Wait! Bush Sr was in the region at one point, screwing around just blowing up the entire Iraqi military, it's his fault" "No! It was Jimmy Carter and his CIA goonies who trained and supplied Mujahideen!"

    The rest makes sense.

    I don't see the point in pointing out he who failed. With the exception of the whole CIA arming thing, that was a bit ridiculous in my opinion, way too much fear over Leninism.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  7. #77
    Professor
    Marilyn Monroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    03-06-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,137

    Re: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Quit playing stupid yourself. Just because fuhrer Bush and his minions claim that the people at Gitmo were or are terrorists does not mean they are. In the western world we still try to live after the rule of law, including the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.
    I'll believe Bush sooner than what non-Americans will say. He has to live here, so he's going to be a tad more concerned.

    Also it seems to me, that you are willing to give a far more legal rights and access to the legal system, than you are a bunch of men that you have only the word of a fascist Bush administration that they are "dangerous".
    It's the Bush Admin. not the fascist Bush Admin. These detainees are not American citizens, so they don't have to get the same access as citizens would, but many of them could well be "child rapists, a mass murder and other criminals" because usually if you do very hate-filled things in one area you'll do it in all areas. Criminals are criminals.

    Fact is that out of the 500+ men and boys held at gitmo (yes there have been children held there and still are), a majority, yes a majority have been released, without charge but also labelled as innocent of any "terrorist activities". It is funny how this, to a right winger, who supposedly is the staunch defender of the rule of law and the ideals of the USA, suddenly totally ignores these facts.
    Hey, if they got released that means they haven't been forgotten. Kids can be considered adults for various offenses in the US. A judge will make that decision based on the severity of the crime. Kids can kill, so I don't feel sorry for them. Usually kids can reason well before the age of 8.

    Yes there are bad men at Gitmo, but if the US has proof that they are bad.. put them on trial.
    Different rules apply for these detainees. They aren't citizens, but they may also not be considered POW's, so this is not a super easy thing to decide what to do.

    If you believe in the principles of the USA, then you should never ever accept that your government hold people of any nationality, in prison without charge, without any legal access or any access at all for long periods of time, and let alone let them be tortured by your own government. You should be up in arms defending the very principles that your troops, your father, grandfather and others died defending in WW2 and other wars.. and yet you are not only silent, but actually supportive of such fascist acts by your own government.
    You know some countries might just accidently kill them. Now that would be more like fascism. Innocent people do get caught up in situations that can be uncomfortable. This is a fact of life. I'd say in old Iraq if a reporter threw his shoes at Saddam he would end up in a wood chipper. Bush smiled about it, and joked. Wonder if Obama would do the same. I bet not, but who knows. You want the US government to be especially courteous to people who have acted in ways that were possibly harmful to US citizens. Most are there for a reason. You can't say that they all are completely innocent. There were like 14 men involved in 9/11 that killed almost 3,000 people, so I think it's definitely better to err on the side cautiousness.

    As for this guy. This happens in a world where we believe in the principle of the rule of law. Murders do get off free because we can not prove they did it. It is the price we have to pay for not having a dictatorship that locks up undesirables in gulags for most of their lives. It is the price of freedom and the difference between us and them..
    We know this, but it works both ways. Sometimes murderers get off, but it's pretty rare. Sometimes innocents get caught up because of the company they keep. If you are hanging with your best buddy and he decides to kill some guy who owes him $10, you are guilty by association. The triggerman takes all his buds with him if they are with him in the commission of a felony.

    Also Laila is absolutely correct. He could very well have been turned to a life of terror in Gitmo, because he was abused and now wants revenge against those that abused him. I am not saying that it is the truth, but I can also not claim that it is rubbish.. you and I have no idea what is going on in this man's mind after being held at Gitmo.
    This is his choice. People validate what they do in many different ways. It's just as easy to turn yourself around and learn from your mistakes, and be grateful you still have a life left to live.

    Yes the US is at war with this mythical no discript thing called terror.. but where is the limit of what terror is and what you can do to not only prevent terror but punish those that are suspected of this terror. Do you give up the very principles that so cherish because of fear? This is what the US has done.. today a woman slapping her own children on an air plane can be charged and convicted of terror... is that right? Is that what the US has come too? A person robbing a bank.. is he now a terrorist and can be held under terror laws? A person smuggling drugs.. is she a terrorist and be held under terror laws? Where do you stop?
    This is a vast exaggeration. Terror isn't a myth, it's a fact. A woman slapping her kid might get charged with child abuse. A person robbing a bank is committing robbery. A person smuggling drugs is a drug smuggler. Someone who carries a bomb onto a plane is a terrorist. Same goes for any weapon with the intent to commit terror. There are names for a gazillion different crimes and terror has it's own way to be defined as such.
    "It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.

  8. #78
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,722

    Re: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

    OK. I have read this thread, and here is what I see:

    1) There is a huge debate in this thread about whether Obama is soft on terrorism, because one of the released detainees showed up at a terrorist training camp.

    2) The rabid dogs of the GOP smear machine (Yes, those roaches haven't been stomped out......YET) are using this issue to smear Obama.

    3) Much of the information presented by the smear machine is debatable, with no hard sources. I am not talking about this particular case, but the point that they are making that there are 61 of them, a point drudged up on the Sunday talk shows.

    But guess what? I am willing to give Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Drudge the benefit of the doubt. For my final point, let's assume that what they are saying is true.....

    4) The terrorist was not released by Obama. In fact, Obama had not even taken office. He was released by George Bush!!

    Republicans are soft on terror!!
    Last edited by danarhea; 01-27-09 at 01:46 AM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  9. #79
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,373
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    See, my eyes started bleeding as soon as I scanned your post and realized you are on the "blame Clinton for Osama" band-wagon. I am not even drunk anymore don't make my eyes bleed. These partisan cheap-shots make me sick "Bush unleashed Osama!" "No! Bush got the danger that Clinton left intact" "No! Wait! Bush Sr was in the region at one point, screwing around just blowing up the entire Iraqi military, it's his fault" "No! It was Jimmy Carter and his CIA goonies who trained and supplied Mujahideen!"
    The left made a big stink about "connecting-the-dots". Clinton had the opportunity to get Osama; twice the Sudanese offered him up.

    http://archive.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3
    He admits to passing on Osama, even though he was an unindicted co-conspirator for the 1993 WTC bombing.

    That's what happens when you have a president concerned about image vs. substance, polling his way through his presidency.

    Sandy Berger thieving classified documents from the national Archives wasn't to protect Osama.

    I don't see the point in pointing out he who failed. With the exception of the whole CIA arming thing, that was a bit ridiculous in my opinion, way too much fear over Leninism.
    I think it is wise to find breakdowns and identify them publicly; Gorellick inspired roadblocks, missing the opportunity to bring a terrorist to justice. It helps make officials accountable for their actions and non-actions. Someone must be accountable, and that someone is The Clintons and their gang.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

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