• 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

Arch Enemy said:
If this is the smart thing to do. To go over there and shoot them up, then why the hell are we not safer?
Click to expand...

I can see how you would feel that way, what with all of the attacks al Qaeda has executed on US soil.


Oh, wait a minute...
 
Moon said:
I can see how you would feel that way, what with all of the attacks al Qaeda has executed on US soil.


Oh, wait a minute...
Click to expand...


You honestly think that if they really wanted to that they could not do one?
 
Arch Enemy said:
You honestly think that if they really wanted to that they could not do one?
Click to expand...
You don't think they've tried? What makes you think they are smarter then us? No smart answers please, because frankly we are not stupid people.
 
MrVicchio said:
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:
Click to expand...

Bush lets this guy go, he turns (back?) into a terrorist and you're crying that it's the Dems' fault? :roll: It seems pretty obvious that this just proves what bad decisions dubya and his cronies made. Oi vey! Talk about missing the forest for the trees! :2wave:
 
ADK_Forever said:
Bush lets this guy go, he turns (back?) into a terrorist and you're crying that it's the Dems' fault? :roll: It seems pretty obvious that this just proves what bad decisions dubya and his cronies made. Oi vey! Talk about missing the forest for the trees! :2wave:
Click to expand...



yeah talk about it. who pressured for these hajis releas? :roll:
 
American said:
You don't think they've tried? What makes you think they are smarter then us? No smart answers please, because frankly we are not stupid people.
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of "who is smarter" as it is a matter of "which is easier". It is easier to pull off terrorism, then it is to protect against terrorism.

Of course they tried, but they are not being stopped because we are shooting people in the Middle-East.

as I like to say. We are not much safer now. True, I do realize that we are slightly more conscious about it happening and we will no longer have our airplanes held hostage by boxcutters. However, I don't think it is the intent of any sort of well-organized extremists to do the same thing twice, especially on large strategic plannings. I do not think we will see, if another attack is to happen one of the following: nuke attacks, biological-attacks,
 
Last edited:
Arch Enemy said:
as I like to say. We are not much safer now. True, I do realize that we are slightly more conscious about it happening and we will no longer have our airplanes held hostage by boxcutters. However, I don't think it is the intent of any sort of well-organized extremists to do the same thing twice, especially on large strategic plannings. I do not think we will see, if another attack is to happen one of the following: nuke attacks, biological-attacks,
Click to expand...
We are far safer now, that I'll vehemently disagree with you about. How Obama unravels this... we'll see. But Bush's actions made us safer.

I remember this testimony being riveting but ignored by the press and the Democrats intent on destroying a war-time president and the war effort they voted for.

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
KAY: Senator Warner, 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.
Click to expand...
Add to that the discovery of AQ Kahn's corner store nuke supplies, Libya's giving up their Nuke toys... we're safer. We also learned Iran had an 18-year long clandestine Nukes for Kooks program.

We're safer on many fronts.
 
Last edited:
ADK_Forever said:
Bush lets this guy go, he turns (back?) into a terrorist and you're crying that it's the Dems' fault? :roll: It seems pretty obvious that this just proves what bad decisions dubya and his cronies made. Oi vey! Talk about missing the forest for the trees! :2wave:
Click to expand...

You need to actually read his post a little more clearly. He was NOT saying it was the Dems fault.

RIF!
 
MrVicchio said:
It's more then 1...

Lists of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly returned to battle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But hey who is counting, they were all happy innocent folk DRIVEN TO TERROR BY THE EVIL USA OF BUSH!!!!


Get real people, these people were there for a reason, and we're shocked they return to terror when freed? PLEASE.

Making EXCUSES for their behavior? Sorry not into enabling terrorist with lame guilt trips.
Click to expand...


Commentators questioned the credibility of the spokesmen's assertions. H. Candace Gorman, looked into the only three names had been offered of captives who had been returned to the battlefield: Abdullah Mehsud"; "Mullah Shahzada"; and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.[5] She wrote, on March 18, 2007, that she found that the name Abdullah Mehsud wasn't listed on the official list of Guantanamo captives released on May 15, 2006.[6] She found that there were captives with names close to those of the two other men. but that the records showed these men were still in custody when according to the spokesmen's assertions they had not only been released, but had been killed in combat.
Click to expand...

From the link that you posted it claims that there are credibility issues over the statements being issued.

And what is the precetage of those who return compared to those who just go home? 30 returned to the battle field over so many years. 30 out of how many?? maybe I missed it but I did not see a total number for detainee's released.

Considering our own criminal justice system releases dangerous criminals back into our streets on a daily basis and the return rate to prison is very high I am not sure if thirty slipping through the mesh is all that significant.

Also it seems that these returnee's tricked the interrogators, So apparently the water board torture is not as effective as they thought.

Moe
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
We are far safer now, that I'll vehemently disagree with you about. How Obama unravels this... we'll see. But Bush's actions made us safer.

I remember this testimony being riveting but ignored by the press and the Democrats intent on destroying a war-time president and the war effort they voted for.

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

Add to that the discovery of AQ Kahn's corner store nuke supplies, Libya's giving up their Nuke toys... we're safer. We also learned Iran had an 18-year long clandestine Nukes for Kooks program.

We're safer on many fronts.
Click to expand...

We were safer in the Reagan days because Reagan was an intelligent man and handled the problem accordingly. Mr Reagan was very good at Foreign policy. He did not sink us up to our necks in a war that did not need to be fought. And I am not even a big fan of Reagans but I give credit where credit is due and and Bush deserves very little credit for anything except bumbling from one screw up to the next.

Rest assured regardless of what Bush says "If I could do all over again I would do it the same way" is nothing but BS. Nothing went the way they planned. They thought it was going to be a cake walk. Heck before the Iraq ground war was even over they were already threatening Syria and Iran with your next. They totally underestimated the entire situation. We stayed because we couldn't leave. We screwed the pooch so bad and the entire world was blaming us for the daily deaths and civil unrest.

Moe
 
moe said:
From the link that you posted it claims that there are credibility issues over the statements being issued.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the issuers of these statements just seem to pick a number and through it out there. Where are you going to go to check if these numbers are true or not? Oh yeah, that's right, the ones that are issuing them in the first place.
Denbeaux stated: “Once again, they’ve failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which their report relies. Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DOD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers. They have included people who have never even set foot in Guantánamo—much less were they released from there. They have counted people as 'returning to the fight' for their having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for their having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival. The DOD has revised and retracted their internally conflicting definitions, criteria, and their numbers so often that they have ceased to have any meaning—except as an effort to sway public opinion by painting a false portrait of the supposed dangers of these men.

Seton Hall Law: Department of Defense Wrong Again on Guantanamo “Recidivism”
Click to expand...

moe said:
Also it seems that these returnee's tricked the interrogators, So apparently the water board torture is not as effective as they thought.
Click to expand...
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!...:lol:
 
Laila said:
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.
Click to expand...

I responded to your ignorant post earlier...,"I`d bet alot the terrorits were all inocent before we poisoned their minds at GitMo". You are as ignorant as I`ve met ,as liberals go. Prisons are loaded with bad guys. We don`t create bad guys in those facilities. `Fellow inmates` hone their brethrens skills and hatred, but no, WE don`t change good inocent people into muslims ,in terrorist prison camps.
 
moe said:
We were safer in the Reagan days because Reagan was an intelligent man and handled the problem accordingly. Mr Reagan was very good at Foreign policy. He did not sink us up to our necks in a war that did not need to be fought. And I am not even a big fan of Reagans but I give credit where credit is due and and Bush deserves very little credit for anything except bumbling from one screw up to the next.

Rest assured regardless of what Bush says "If I could do all over again I would do it the same way" is nothing but BS. Nothing went the way they planned. They thought it was going to be a cake walk. Heck before the Iraq ground war was even over they were already threatening Syria and Iran with your next. They totally underestimated the entire situation. We stayed because we couldn't leave. We screwed the pooch so bad and the entire world was blaming us for the daily deaths and civil unrest.

Moe
Click to expand...
Moe, you seem to forgetting your history.

The Democrats, and there are scores of them on record pre 9-11 (on Clinton's watch) waxing eloquent about the need to remove Saddam. Their words of how threatening he and his weapons programs are came from their mouths as easily as oil from a can. It flowed.

Remember "Connect-the-dots"?
Remember the UN?
Remember the support from Congress? Far more support than GHW Bush received for Gulf War 1.

I can understand he would do it again to protect the people.
Same circumstances, same knowledge, same "it's a slam dunk" from the CIA chief, same obfuscation by Saddam, same last chance given... I understand why he would do the same thing again... clearly.

He would have been pilloried by the traitors on the left had he not done something. "Connect-the-dots".

He did something, and that was free 50 million Muslims.
How did Clinton do? He had 8-years of opportunity to put an end to the victory we achieved in Gulf War 1.
HE DID NOTHING. He pushed the problem aside. I think Obama spoke about Clinton when he said it's no longer time to push tough decisions aside.
OK, under Clinton's watch 1 million Iraqi's died, and Albright thought it was "worth the price".

It's easy to bash Bush on Iraq... if you don't think and put it all into context.

What I found disgusting are the Democrats that voted to authorize action, and then when things got tough began pissing on the President and the troops... during a war they voted in favor of. These people are the lowest scum on the planet. They turned a war vote into a political vote, and then turned on their very own votes for political gain a second time.

Have they no conscience? Morals?

It does not get any lower.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
yeah talk about it. who pressured for these hajis releas? :roll:
Click to expand...

Do you believe Bush/Cheney ever did anything because the Dems "wanted" them to?

They released this guy because the big bad Dems made them?

9/11 happened while Bush was President and it's Clinton's fault?

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

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.

tick...tock...tick...tock...
 
Do you believe Bush/Cheney ever did anything because the Dems "wanted" them to?
Click to expand...
No.

They released this guy because the big bad Dems made them?
Click to expand...
No, but the pressures may have lowered the threshold. So that cannot be answered with any confidence by anyone here.

9/11 happened while Bush was President and it's Clinton's fault?
Click to expand...
Yes.

They removed all regulations on the banking industry, the economy tanks and it's Clinton's fault?
Click to expand...
Largely yes. Look at what Bush tried to do with the central characters; Fannie and Freddie. Look at what the Dems did. The law passed by the The Clintons to encourage irresponsible financial transactions. Look at what Raines and Gorellick did. Check their compensation and how they got it?

It set the foundation for collapse.

There were 200 professionals looking at these companies as their daily job and they did not send one report. As Warren Buffet said, (paraphrasing) I look at a few more companies than that, and they had 200 people looking at one company?

These people want to run health care too? OMG!

They were incompetent. Period.
Click to expand...
No. They spent too much, but not enough to satisfy libs. They freed 50 million Muslims. They took a neglected military and started the reconstruction of it. We achieved some collateral benefits too: AQ Kahn discovered and shut down, Pakistan as an ally, Libya out of business, Iran nuke program discovered after 18 years, Saddam history, economic recovery after a recession and 9-11. The unemployment rate was as lower or lower than The Clintons.

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.
Click to expand...
You obviously have a bias against Cheney's character. You obviously don't know Cheney. The guy is the furthest from an egomaniac. We didn't see much of him. He didn't seek office, he was hauled out of private business. The guy is bright, and could have taken over the role as President without missing a beat. He's a straight arrow, you may not like the style, delivery, his looks, but the guy and his wife are people you know where they stand. And they act on those beliefs... they don't poll their way through life, they're not conniving, and they don't play by the rules of Chicago politics. They are beltway professionals with the values of Wyoming. Similar to Senator Alan Simpson. I hope we see his kind again and often.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
You obviously have a bias against Cheney's character.
Click to expand...

Ya think?

You obviously don't know Cheney. The guy is the furthest from an egomaniac. We didn't see much of him. He didn't seek office, he was hauled out of private business. The guy is bright, and could have taken over the role as President without missing a beat.
Click to expand...

Cheney gave dubya the list of his qualifications that a VP should have and it coincidentally matched him perfectly. His middle name should be Paul Winchell. ;)

Actually, he DID take over for dubya. Cheney gave the "shoot down" order just b4 flight 93 crashed in PA. There is no phone log of the call he claimed he made to dubya getting that authorization, which only the prez can issue. Cheney took over for little junior because he was so used to doing just that.

And, I think Cheney, and Bush, have the moral character... of an alligator. They'll eat anyone in their path. :roll:
 
zimmer said:
We are far safer now, that I'll vehemently disagree with you about. How Obama unravels this... we'll see. But Bush's actions made us safer.

I remember this testimony being riveting but ignored by the press and the Democrats intent on destroying a war-time president and the war effort they voted for.

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
Click to expand...
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.

Add to that the discovery of AQ Kahn's corner store nuke supplies, Libya's giving up their Nuke toys... we're safer. We also learned Iran had an 18-year long clandestine Nukes for Kooks program.

We're safer on many fronts.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arch Enemy said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

For one, Every thing any president has done in the middle east has been for oil. So really constantly laying that at Bush's feet is sensless.

We went into Iraq because we believed it would be easier than going into Iran. Iran has a pretty formidable military with Russian and Chinese support. We were looking for a quick shock victory.

Iraq is a very strategically located country. Saddam was isolated with a broken down military and no allies supporting him. If the Iraq campaign would have went the way we thought it was going to go We would have had excellent blocking positions against both Iran and Syria and forward staging area's against both.

Who ever controls Iraq controls the middle east. Unfortunatly things did not go quite as well as planned.

Personally I think we are going to lose Iraq completely and it is going to become another Iran. As soon as we remove all our forces all hell is going to break lose. It is enevitable. You have three factions that do not like each other. The Kurds are already marginalized. The Shiite are the largest and the most violent faction. They are just waiting for us to leave.

Moe
 
Last edited:
I agree.

I believe highly that our fight was not with Iraq, but with Iran, if there were to be a fight.

People on this thread seem to be labeling me as both an extreme pacifist, who would ignore a countrys right to defend herself, and as a simplistic cliche' Orwellian.

I am an Orwellian scholar, however, if they knew more about Orwell then they would know that one cannot be Orwellian-scholar, and an extreme pacifist.

I believe in America's inherited rights to defend herself, and as the large-kid on the block it is America's job not to bully but to mediate between other parties in a hope of accomplishing what has been accomplished in America since her birth, compromises.

I am hawkish in the way at which we go about being the great mediator, as we are super biased to a certain group, and we will go as far as to denote another group as people who should be wiped off the Earth. Military action is condoned in large-scales, times when it matters, like World War II for example. However events like Vietnam, not a chance in hell would I accept that as necessary to world stability. If that makes sense.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Do you believe Bush/Cheney ever did anything because the Dems "wanted" them to?
Click to expand...

no child left behind.

They released this guy because the big bad Dems made them?
Click to expand...

because of pressure by kook liberals, yes.

9/11 happened while Bush was President and it's Clinton's fault?
Click to expand...

and we can all play in the NBA....... :roll:

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


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.
Click to expand...


i can not debate lunacy, sorry.



tick...tock...tick...tock...
Click to expand...




wanna make a wager?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.”
Click to expand...
Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden

Libya had greater capabilities and resources than Osama.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom