• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
BEIRUT: The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order that President Barack Obama signed that the detention center be shut down within a year.

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by a U.S. counterterrorism official. "They're one and the same guy," said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. "He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear."
Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group - International Herald Tribune

Gee, this doesn't bode well for Obama's "Close Gitmo" policy and is good evidence that Bush's policies of holding terrorist was right, the sad thing is, if it wasn't for all the screaming and whining about Gitmo this guy might still be in there... and not helping kill people.

But hey, what's ONE guy right? :roll:
 
I'd bet alot he wasn't a terrorist before he entered the prison ... but you are right, what is one terrorist compared to the hundreds of thousands in total.
 
Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group - International Herald Tribune

Gee, this doesn't bode well for Obama's "Close Gitmo" policy and is good evidence that Bush's policies of holding terrorist was right, the sad thing is, if it wasn't for all the screaming and whining about Gitmo this guy might still be in there... and not helping kill people.

But hey, what's ONE guy right? :roll:

Exactly. What's ONE guy. It hardly proves that EVERYONE being held there is a dangerous terrorist; in fact, lots of people have already been released because the US government concluded that they were completely innocent, or guilty of minor things that aren't a threat to national security.

If this guy was a terrorist, then the government should have tried him and convicted of him of a crime.
 
Last edited:
I'd bet alot he wasn't a terrorist before he entered the prison ...

This is laughable.
And you believe it?

The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch

Not the garden type of terrorist. One of the Hydra.
 
Last edited:
Quit playing stupid Kandahar. This is but one example of Gito releases returning to the battlefield. How many times are we going to read about Gito releases being killed by US forces in Afghanistan or being picked up as part of a terror cell in East Asia or...or...or for you to acknowledge that, you know, there are bad guys locked up at Gitmo?

Secondly, you said, "If this guy was a terrorist, then the government should have tried him and convicted of him of a crime" which is completely ignorant or at a minimum completely ignores the problems associated with treating terrorism like a common liquor store robbery.
 
Some people think Terrorist are a creation of US policy.

Terrorists to us are those who wish to Terrify US.
Why would someone wish to terrify, or cause a terrifying reaction, from us?
Because American foreign policy.
Let me break this down. If it wasn't for the habitual sodomizing of the term "terrorism" then there would be "no terrorists" just militants who have a different world-view then us.

Tell me. You take all of those resurfaced detainees and you kill them all, what did you accomplish?
Let me give you a hint. Not a damn thing. Infact, you probably created more who favor that ideology then you took away from. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING PEOPLE WE ARE FIGHTING AN IDEOLOGY. AND YOU CANNOT KILL AN IDEOLOGY WITH GUNS.

FFS learn something.
 
They shoulda just dropped him off in the middle of the ocean and told him to swim home.
 
Terrorists to us are those who wish to Terrify US.
Why would someone wish to terrify, or cause a terrifying reaction, from us?
Because American foreign policy.
Let me break this down. If it wasn't for the habitual sodomizing of the term "terrorism" then there would be "no terrorists" just militants who have a different world-view then us.

Tell me. You take all of those resurfaced detainees and you kill them all, what did you accomplish?
Let me give you a hint. Not a damn thing. Infact, you probably created more who favor that ideology then you took away from. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING PEOPLE WE ARE FIGHTING AN IDEOLOGY. AND YOU CANNOT KILL AN IDEOLOGY WITH GUNS.

FFS learn something.

So what's the difference between terrorists sending car bombs into residential neighborhoods expressly to maximize civilian casualties and a militant that launches rockets into residential neighborhoods to maximize civilian casualties?

Answer: f'ing nothing. You're merely defending the use of terrorism as a responsible, reasonable method to address political grievances.

Good luck with that!
 
Terrorists to us are those who wish to Terrify US.
Why would someone wish to terrify, or cause a terrifying reaction, from us?
Because American foreign policy.
Let me break this down. If it wasn't for the habitual sodomizing of the term "terrorism" then there would be "no terrorists" just militants who have a different world-view then us.

Tell me. You take all of those resurfaced detainees and you kill them all, what did you accomplish?
Let me give you a hint. Not a damn thing. Infact, you probably created more who favor that ideology then you took away from. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING PEOPLE WE ARE FIGHTING AN IDEOLOGY. AND YOU CANNOT KILL AN IDEOLOGY WITH GUNS.

FFS learn something.

Funny, we cannot fight an ideology with ideas it will never accept.

Like Freedom. Freedom of Religion. Freedom of choice. Freedom of <insert here a freedom western culture allows that Islamo-fascist don't>.


So we can fight them with guns, and kick the CRAP out of them.

We can send them flowers and tell them to like us.

We can convert to their brand of Islam and have them love us.


I have a feeling you'd send flowers then opt to convert rather then fight.
 
Quit playing stupid Kandahar. This is but one example of Gito releases returning to the battlefield. How many times are we going to read about Gito releases being killed by US forces in Afghanistan or being picked up as part of a terror cell in East Asia or...or...or for you to acknowledge that, you know, there are bad guys locked up at Gitmo?

Secondly, you said, "If this guy was a terrorist, then the government should have tried him and convicted of him of a crime" which is completely ignorant or at a minimum completely ignores the problems associated with treating terrorism like a common liquor store robbery.

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.

Also it seems to me, that you are willing to give a child rapist, a mass murder and other criminals 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"..

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.

Yes there are bad men at Gitmo, but if the US has proof that they are bad.. put them on trial.

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.

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..

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.

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?
 
I love how the usual suspects blame the US for making this guy a terrorist.


And we aren't suppsed to mention "terrorist sympathizers" here, yet we have people doing just this, giving every benefit of the doubt to these savages, so far as to going all the way in blaming the US for turning this guy into a terrorist.


Please. :roll:
 
Damn Vich, why didn't you put this thread in the Terror forum?
 
This is laughable.
And you believe it?

Im merely suggesting it.
You don't know how people may have changed after spending years locked up. Im just saying a few cases of bad apples does not take away from the fact that alot of those who were released ended up innocent of wrongdoing.
 
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 think you miss a big point or two Pete.

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists, and enemies captured during war are not tried until the war is over.

They don't get to go through our courts.

They rot in hell until the war is won. Of course our version of hell lets them pray 5-times a day and serves them food that fits their religious beliefs.

Our military does a good enough job sorting through the mess. You may not trust them, but I do. They have no reason to keep non-terrorists. For what? Play toys?
 
So what's the difference between terrorists sending car bombs into residential neighborhoods expressly to maximize civilian casualties and a militant that launches rockets into residential neighborhoods to maximize civilian casualties?

Answer: f'ing nothing. You're merely defending the use of terrorism as a responsible, reasonable method to address political grievances.

Good luck with that!

No. I am merely arguing against political jargon that no longer has any sort of ethical meaning. Our foreign policy uses the term "terrorism" when they really mean "someone who has a different opinion than we do". The term dilutes the fact that our foreign policy is just one view of the world, and it turns them into some sort of machine that kills people because it wants to kill people.

Orwell argued in "Politics and the English language" that one of the biggest problems facing modernity is the usage of words to either intensify or chill the problem for political agenda. Al Quedia calls us Infidels and we call them Terrorists.
 
Im merely suggesting it.
You don't know how people may have changed after spending years locked up. Im just saying a few cases of bad apples does not take away from the fact that alot of those who were released ended up innocent of wrongdoing.

You're suggesting makes a me a laughing.
:2wave:
 
Funny, we cannot fight an ideology with ideas it will never accept.

Like Freedom. Freedom of Religion. Freedom of choice. Freedom of <insert here a freedom western culture allows that Islamo-fascist don't>.


So we can fight them with guns, and kick the CRAP out of them.

We can send them flowers and tell them to like us.

We can convert to their brand of Islam and have them love us.


I have a feeling you'd send flowers then opt to convert rather then fight.

No. What you do to eliminate an ideology is you make it irrelevant. Shooting weaponry at a person does not kill the ideology it kills the person. How do you make an ideology irrelevant? Well, you take up the cause of the people who are buying into the ideology as an option to make their own lives better. You forget that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have large wings that do nothing but give aid to the slums of their respective countries. If someone is able to smuggle food into your country, you are not going to immediately turn your back on them.
 
Our military does a good enough job sorting through the mess. You may not trust them, but I do. They have no reason to keep non-terrorists. For what? Play toys?

I doubt it, the military probably have their hands ties with targets by the politicans

By saying you have so and so amount of "terrorists" you make yourselves look better, especially a Government in the eyes of the citizens
 
Quit playing stupid Kandahar. This is but one example of Gito releases returning to the battlefield. How many times are we going to read about Gito releases being killed by US forces in Afghanistan or being picked up as part of a terror cell in East Asia or...or...or for you to acknowledge that, you know, there are bad guys locked up at Gitmo?

Never said there weren't. But there have also been innocent people there, which is exactly why we need a judge to review each case and, you know, actually JUDGE them.

JMak said:
Secondly, you said, "If this guy was a terrorist, then the government should have tried him and convicted of him of a crime" which is completely ignorant or at a minimum completely ignores the problems associated with treating terrorism like a common liquor store robbery.

So do you believe that it's OK for the President of the United States to order the indefinite incarceration of anyone, anywhere in the world, with no oversight, simply because he deems them to be a terrorist? If not, what do you suggest?
 
I doubt it, the military probably have their hands ties with targets by the politicans

By saying you have so and so amount of "terrorists" you make yourselves look better, especially a Government in the eyes of the citizens

Sorry, I failed to understand your point. A and B.
 
No. What you do to eliminate an ideology is you make it irrelevant.

Great, and how do you do that when they keep using guns, bombs and attacks? Hmm?

Shooting weaponry at a person does not kill the ideology it kills the person.
Yep, and kill enough of them, the ideology dies


How do you make an ideology irrelevant? Well, you take up the cause of the people who are buying into the ideology as an option to make their own lives better.

What if that ideology hinges on defeating yours and bringing about World Islamic Rule as the path to happiness? Hmm?


You forget that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have large wings that do nothing but give aid to the slums of their respective countries. If someone is able to smuggle food into your country, you are not going to immediately turn your back on them.

Yeah, cuase if you turn your back on those groups they might choose your family as their next "human shields"
 
Back
Top Bottom