7 ex-Gitmo prisoners return to terror

[demon]

This is you prattling on about terrorists and Gitmo again?

If I remember correctly you still have some evidence to give me after your last crap about it.
Here`s the the thread if anyone is interested...the crickets are still chirping.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870363643&highlight=elind#post1870363643

 

[The Fool]

Cheap; but classic for the category.

what is even cheaper is your fabrication of facts to suit your opinion. You seem to believe that all those your army holds in this concentration camp were captured, bearing arms, on the battlefield....Are you still holding to that fairy tale?

 

[Elind]

That's just the problem, isn't it?

If someone claimed Elind was a baby raper, DUE PROCESS means that we investigate those charges, and if they appear to have merit, Elind gets his day in court, and after that, if they had enough merit to convince a jury of his peers, he is convicted and put away where he can't reach any more babies. What Elind seems to want is the assumption that Elind is a baby raper because the charge is so terrible, and that he should be punished for it outright without troubling to investigate, try or convict. This all seems fair to Elind's POV, so obviously we should brand him a baby raper and be happy if he's forever imprisoned.

Because the United States of America has abandoned due process and simple investigation of crimes (except for torturing victims until they would confess to well, anything at places like at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib), we have no way to determine whether they were 'terrorists' before they were rounded up.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/terr18e_20041018.htm

All I see is evidence that el presidente's security directives are not working. We lazily round up 'whoever' and we just as lazily (eventually) release them back into the wild as willy-nilly as we round them up. Just wonderful. This is simply evidence that our 'anti-terror' policies are garbage. Of 'about 146 people' released, 4% have returned to (or turned to) terrorism.

No due process means no justice. Our administration's policy seems to be just randomly flailing around and not doing anything effective, while making martyrs of people (some of whom MAY be dangerous, but we have no way of knowing that, because they don't bother with realistic investigation or trials) at the same time.

The vcery dangerous precedent is that once you begin making exceptions to human rights, you've driven in the wedge that allows these 'exceptions' to grow. Perhaps until eventually the exception is people who are treated as human beings should be treated. (A bit of 'slippery slope' argument, but I'd rather not give scoundrels the excuse to experiment and 'find out' for sure.)

But what does that mean to unprincipled idiots who believe that their own rights are inviolate, while they happily watch other people stripped of the same rights? Nothing at all. They are immune to any sense, including common sense.

"common sense". This the above?

 

[evildave]

Hard to say, baby raper. The charge is so terrible, we can't risk not condemning you for it.

 

[Elind]

This is you prattling on about terrorists and Gitmo again?

If I remember correctly you still have some evidence to give me after your last crap about it.
Here`s the the thread if anyone is interested...the crickets are still chirping.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870363643&highlight=elind#post1870363643

Your recall borders on fanaticism, if not for the fact that your quotes utterly confuse who said what, and what you ignored.

Still, what else can one expect from another apologist who joins the frenzy?

 

[Elind]

Hard to say, baby raper. The charge is so terrible, we can't risk not condemning you for it.

Perhaps you missed including something that might conceivably help the above make some sense? I think I see the connection but it doesn't fall within the parameters of rigorous proof that you tend to promote when making your usual apologies for others.

 

[evildave]

It's sad, baby raper. You honestly don't see how claiming every human being at Guantanamo is a 'terrorist' who should not ever be given a chance at facing their accusers is exactly like calling you, a baby raper, a baby raper?

A lousy, stinking baby raper like yourself doesn't deserve a trial. We should probably hurry up and execute you, except maybe we can torture you and gather 'inteligence' about your baby raping family, friends and neighbors. I know we can get a confession from you about your perverted parents and degenerate family and friends if only we apply the right 'motivation' to you, after all. It'll only take a few weeks to get you to cooperate with anything we ask.

You probably stomp puppies, too.

 

[varwoche]

That's just the problem, isn't it?

If someone claimed Elind was a baby raper, DUE PROCESS means that we investigate those charges, and if they appear to have merit, Elind gets his day in court, and after that, if they had enough merit to convince a jury of his peers, he is convicted and put away where he can't reach any more babies. What Elind seems to want is the assumption that Elind is a baby raper because the charge is so terrible, and that he should be punished for it outright without troubling to investigate, try or convict. This all seems fair to Elind's POV, so obviously we should brand him a baby raper and be happy if he's forever imprisoned.

Because the United States of America has abandoned due process and simple investigation of crimes (except for torturing victims until they would confess to well, anything at places like at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib), we have no way to determine whether they were 'terrorists' before they were rounded up.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/terr18e_20041018.htm

All I see is evidence that el presidente's security directives are not working. We lazily round up 'whoever' and we just as lazily (eventually) release them back into the wild as willy-nilly as we round them up. Just wonderful. This is simply evidence that our 'anti-terror' policies are garbage. Of 'about 146 people' released, 4% have returned to (or turned to) terrorism.

No due process means no justice. Our administration's policy seems to be just randomly flailing around and not doing anything effective, while making martyrs of people (some of whom MAY be dangerous, but we have no way of knowing that, because they don't bother with realistic investigation or trials) at the same time.

The vcery dangerous precedent is that once you begin making exceptions to human rights, you've driven in the wedge that allows these 'exceptions' to grow. Perhaps until eventually the exception is people who are treated as human beings should be treated. (A bit of 'slippery slope' argument, but I'd rather not give scoundrels the excuse to experiment and 'find out' for sure.)

But what does that mean to unprincipled idiots who believe that their own rights are inviolate, while they happily watch other people stripped of the same rights? Nothing at all. They are immune to any sense, including common sense.

Brilliant.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Raping babies. That's pretty sick stuff, Elind. What the Hell is wrong with you? You don't deserve a trial, you evil whacko.

 

[The Fool]

Burn Him.......no, lets be sensible about this....chuck him in the river, if he floats he's guilty.

 

[MRC_Hans]

OK. You make your nitpick point. You think the war is over on a semantic quote technicality, and you consider that a serious response to the topic? Bye Hans.

Translation: I cannot counter that, so I have to acuse you of nitpicking. And to avoid getting in trouble again, I will dismiss you for good.

No problem, Elind, I notice you have nothing worhtwhile to say anyway, and there is currently plenty of room on my ignore list.

Bye, bye.

Hans

 

[Elind]

Brilliant.

"We lazily round up 'whoever' and we just as lazily (eventually) release them back into the wild as willy-nilly as we round them up. Just wonderful. This is simply evidence that our 'anti-terror' policies are garbage. Of 'about 146 people' released, 4% have returned to (or turned to) terrorism."

In response to the above by a serial insulter, and more similar garbage, you respond "brilliant".

Let's try to cut through the crap and ask these bleeding heart apologists for terrorists, just what they consider non-lazy rounding up? It's clearly not good enough to be captured on a battlefield on the side of Al Qaeda/Taliban, whatever; so what is? Of course our conspiratorily inclined posters, by their own statements will accept no accusation by western forces as anything but lies, and lazy lies at that.

The same twerp earlier said that some of these people are probably guilty of something but that they should be treated as common criminals with, perhaps, OJ's lawers paid at taxpayer expense to travel the world looking for the "truth". He did however not bother to say guilty of what, nor how they could ever be found guilty of anything if his criteria (meaning all western forces are liars) are accepted.

Frankly I think there are a lot of people here who need anger counceling, or little pills or both (or perhaps simply to grow up to the age that they pretend to have online) and they use this forum not to debate anything but simply to have an excuse to say things that in normal society they would never get away with.

Taliban/Al Qaeda and the seekers of truth who choose to follow them after completing the 101 in Wahabism belong to a degenerate culture and perversion of Islam (as most Muslim leaders also say when they, very occasionally, have the guts to say anything critical of "fellow" Muslims). They want to kill for their perverted god and while their philosophy (if you can call it that) remains predominant in many parts of the Muslim world they will inevitably revert to the same behaiour when under local peer pressure, even if they might have wanted to quit the killing when they were released.

These are not common criminals. They are dangerous beings who, if they were simple foot soldiers, could sometimes be freed again, but only if they are freed into a culture that condemns their prior actions, which presently does not exist in most parts of the Middle East in particular.


Now, if anyone wants to discuss those views, I'lll be happy to do so, and if the "brilliants" of the forum want to continue to rant and rave then they are welcome to do so, and show themselves yet again for what they are.

 

[fishbob]

You missed the point. The point is:

"We lazily round up 'whoever' and we just as lazily (eventually) release them back into the wild as willy-nilly as we round them up. Just wonderful. This is simply evidence that our 'anti-terror' policies are garbage.

This is the 'enemy combatant' policy in action. A failed anti-terror policy developed by the Bush administration specifically for dealing with whoever they wanted to round up. A poorly thought out and poorly executed method of screwing with the rule of law and with the rules of war. Worked like a charm, didn't it?

This is not a failure of criminal justice or a failure of POW actions in accordance with Geneva. So let's cut through the crap and admit that you, Mr. Elind, are a Bush Admin apologist.

 

[Elind]

You missed the point. The point is:
This is the 'enemy combatant' policy in action. A failed anti-terror policy developed by the Bush administration specifically for dealing with whoever they wanted to round up. A poorly thought out and poorly executed method of screwing with the rule of law and with the rules of war. Worked like a charm, didn't it?

This is not a failure of criminal justice or a failure of POW actions in accordance with Geneva. So let's cut through the crap and admit that you, Mr. Elind, are a Bush Admin apologist.

Cute. You take the point (as you quote it) seriously; I think it's a cop-out by those who expect instant gratification in everything. You think the war should be over, and because it isn't yet we shouldn't have fought it?

I agree (do you?) that Bush should have had another 100,000 troops in Iraq shortly after the war, and shot looters on sight to restore order, but his simplistic view that Iraqis would behave in a civilized manner was a definive screw up. I don't apologize for Bush and I won't vote for him (for many reasons) if that's any comfort to you, but I know that Saddam would not have changed his spots once the corrupt UN got their last sanctions payoff and started on phase two payoffs. My kids would be the ones dealing with his weapons a few years from now and, for what it's worth, I was in Kuwait in 1990 and 91 (as a civilian) and saw what the Iraqi carpetbaggers did after his hooligan army finished phase one. I know what Iraqis are capable of first hand, and I don't mean just the "upper class".

We need to win this war however long it takes and change their degenerate culture (any squeals of disapproval on that comment?) so they can join a civil community (baited comment for some, I realize).

 

[varwoche]

In response to the above by a serial insulter, and more similar garbage, you respond "brilliant".
...
Let's try to cut through the crap and ask these bleeding heart apologists for terrorists, just what they consider non-lazy rounding up?

So, in Elind's narrow-minded reality, to believe in due process and rule of law is to be an apologist for terrorism.

You are a presumptious twit Elind, and make no mistake that I would say it to your face.

Me an apologist? Based on the half-ass effort being put forth by our government, I'm more militant on fundamentalist terrorism than Bush and Cheney combined, you abject moron. Don't let your knee hit your chin next time.

 

[Kerberos]

You are an apologist for muslim fanatics/terrorists/jackasses or anyone who wants to kill us (presumably not you). That is the definition although the categories are relevant to this thread only.

Ok, beside looking up “apologist” you should also look up "definition". Defining apologist as apologists is circular, if you don't know what “circular” means you can look it up too.

Did you have a point to make in that regard?

Yep, that you apparently don't know what apologist means.

I don't know squat about you...

You don't know squat about anything apparently.

except that you are extremely concerned about the well-being of anyone captured on the field of battle to the exclusion of anything else that is relevant;

To bad I haven't said anything like that.

like all the other apologist who chose to respond pavlovianly to this post. and I find many similarities between Randi's discourses with dowsers, for example, who simply can't understand why the check wasn't earned. Needless to say, they all think it was Randi's fault.

Pavlovianly? Where did you lean an expensive word like that? Too bad that the most incoherent drooling on this thread come from you. As for the dowser thing, I suppose you can't actually name one of the many similarities you find?

Do you find that a fascinating explanation for a fascinating conclusion?

Sure, positively fascinating, to bad it has no connection with reality.

 

[fishbob]

I agree (do you?) that Bush should have had another 100,000 troops in Iraq shortly after the war, and shot looters on sight to restore order, but his simplistic view that Iraqis would behave in a civilized manner was a definive screw up.

I think we should not have gone to Iraq in the first place. I think that once we were there, there were multiple screw-ups. Not enough troops, not the right equipment, not enough support services, not preserving buildings and infrastructure from looters, not enough supervision of the prisons, and trying to develop methods of dealing with non-POW, non-criminal prisoners. The troops over there have been stuck dealing with poor planning and an increasingly hostile populace. There is no clear goal for getting out.

Posting guards around public buildings would have prevented most of the looting. A few carefully restrained shots by some of the more level-headed guards would have driven home the point that lawlessness would not be acceptable in the 'new' Iraq.

 

[Elind]

So, in Elind's narrow-minded reality, to believe in due process and rule of law is to be an apologist for terrorism.

You are a presumptious twit Elind, and make no mistake that I would say it to your face.

Me an apologist? Based on the half-ass effort being put forth by our government, I'm more militant on fundamentalist terrorism than Bush and Cheney combined, you abject moron. Don't let your knee hit your chin next time.

And your age is what? A disappointing but expected response from another likely juvenile.

 

[Elind]

I think we should not have gone to Iraq in the first place. I think that once we were there, there were multiple screw-ups. Not enough troops, not the right equipment, not enough support services, not preserving buildings and infrastructure from looters, not enough supervision of the prisons, and trying to develop methods of dealing with non-POW, non-criminal prisoners. The troops over there have been stuck dealing with poor planning and an increasingly hostile populace. There is no clear goal for getting out.

Posting guards around public buildings would have prevented most of the looting. A few carefully restrained shots by some of the more level-headed guards would have driven home the point that lawlessness would not be acceptable in the 'new' Iraq.

OK. So we can actually agree on some things in a civil tone. That's a first for this thread.

However, particularly with the latest info coming out on just how financially biased most of the war opponents were, it seems to me that backing down before the war would have made us no more friends (with friends like that, who needs enemies?) and have been seen as an abject defeat by the Islamists; something that we would inevitably be paying for in other ways.

In any case, the issue now (in this thread) is the failure of so many to even acknowledge that their is a war, based on their salivating support for terrorist prisoners and their failure to make any reasonable suggestion on how to deal with them, other that treat them as common criminals on US soil. They talk of "due process", colored by childish insults, as if they think there is a "due process" in our civil system prepared to cope with this.

 

[Elind]

Ok, beside looking up “apologist” you should also look up "definition". Defining apologist as apologists is circular, if you don't know what “circular” means you can look it up too.

Yep, that you apparently don't know what apologist means.


You don't know squat about anything apparently.
To bad I haven't said anything like that.


Pavlovianly? Where did you lean an expensive word like that? Too bad that the most incoherent drooling on this thread come from you. As for the dowser thing, I suppose you can't actually name one of the many similarities you find?

Sure, positively fascinating, to bad it has no connection with reality.

More of the same I see.