The Gulag of our Time: Amnesty International

[Monty Cantsin]

The Gulag of our Time: Amnesty International condemns Guantanamo Bay
By Rob Lyon

Amnesty International published a report last Wednesday, May 25 condemning the US and UK betrayal of the cause of human rights in the so-called “war on terror” and urged the US to shut down its Guantanamo Bay camp. The report is a condemnation of the hypocritical policies and actions of the two imperialist powers, and has enraged both the Bush and Blair administrations.

Irene Khan, Amnesty International general secretary, while at a press conference announcing the release of the report, accused both governments of condoning torture while trying to keep a clean conscience. As Khan said, “A new agenda is in the making, with the language of freedom and justice being used to pursue policies of fear and insecurity. This includes cynical attempts to redefine and sanitize torture.” (Guardian, May 26 2005).

She exposed the hypocrisy of the UK in trying to use the language of “freedom and justice” in Iraq while at the same time insisting that the Human Rights Act does not apply to its soldiers there.

The report exposes Britain’s attempt to forge diplomatic agreements with countries such as Algeria, to which it wants to deport people and detainees. “By seeking assurances for particular cases, [the UK government] was admitting that torture was entrenched in those countries and was therefore, in effect, condoning the practice, she said.” (Guardian, May 26 2005).

The Amnesty report also condemned the UK’s illegal detention of prisoners. Although the highest court in the UK ruled that the indefinite detention of “suspected international terrorists” without charges being laid and without trial was illegal, 12 men are still being detained or held under house arrest.

Khan explained that the US claimed to be promoting freedom in Iraq, yet its soldiers had been involved in unspeakable acts of cruelty, torture and sexual abuse. She also said that evidence had since come to light “that the US administration had sanctioned interrogation techniques that violated the UN Convention against Torture.” She then described Guantanamo Bay as “the Gulag of our time, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process.” The Gulag of course refers to the system of concentration camps set up by Stalin in the former Soviet Union. This is a damning accusation against the United States.

US vice president Dick Cheney, said on Larry King Live on Monday, May 30 that “Frankly, I was offended by [the Amnesty report].” He then stated that, “For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don’t take them seriously.” Incredibly he then claimed that detainees at the camp had been “well treated, treated humanely and decently”. Amidst reports and claims that US soldiers and guards have tortured and sexually abused prisoners at the camp, Cheney’s claims are extremely disgusting and hypocritical. Cheney has taken doublespeak to new levels, where “treated humanely” means that prisoners are tortured and “treated decently” means they were sexually abused.

Ms. Khan also said, “The US administration attempted to dilute the absolute ban on torture through new policies and quasi-management speak such as ‘environmental manipulation’, ‘stress positions’, and ‘sensory manipulation’.” When representatives of the US government say ‘Environmental manipulation’ what they mean is exposure to the elements and exposure/lack of exposure to light, ‘stress positions’ is doublespeak for torture, and ‘sensory manipulation’ means sensory deprivation and solitary confinement. In order to get around UN conventions and International law the US has attempted to create a clean language to hide their actions in Guantanamo and keep their consciences clear.

Under the Freedom of Information Act the Associated Press of London was able to get hold of some 1,000 pages of tribunal transcripts from Guantanamo. There are still some 520 prisoners being held there from 40 countries around the world. One prisoner told the military tribunal that he was beaten so badly that he can no longer control his bladder. Another told the panel that prisoners in Afghanistan were stripped and intimidated with dogs so that they would admit to terrorist activity. The names and nationality of most of the prisoners have been blacked out in the documents released to the press, and some have said that the medical problems they have developed from abuse and torture have not been taken seriously. “Americans hit me and beat me up so badly I believe I’m sexually dysfunctional. I don’t know if I'll be able to sleep with my wife or not,” he said. “I can’t control my urination, and sometimes I put toilet paper down there so I won’t wet my pants ... I point to where the pain is. ... I think they take it as a joke and they laugh.” (Associated Press, May 31, 2005). The president of the tribunal promised the man who said this that he would raise his medical complaint with authorities but according to the press, “in five pages of questioning, [he] never brought up the alleged abuse.” Other prisoners have claimed that they were sold into imprisonment, and that the US government was paying bounty money to get their hands on suspected terrorists. Many of the prisoners claim that they are innocent and that they were simply sold to the US by desperate people for anything from $3,000 to $25,000 dollars.

The enemy combatant tribunals, which form the content of the transcripts obtained by the Associated Press of London, were charged with determining whether the prisoners were indeed enemy combatants – not investigating allegations of abuse and torture. In a statement released on Sunday May 29, the Pentagon claimed that “U.S. troops treat detainees humanely and ‘U.S. policy condemns and prohibits torture.’” The Pentagon statement added that “authorities take claims of abuse seriously.” (Associated Press, May 31, 2005). Given the torture and abuse cases at Abu Ghraib, and the fact that no senior military officials or government figures have been punished, it is difficult to believe this statement.

It is hard to see how the Pentagon takes these charges seriously. The enemy combatant tribunals were quickly set up after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that Guantanamo prisoners could challenge their imprisonment before U.S. courts. The tribunal transcripts do not say how many abuse allegations have been investigated and confirmed. It has been claimed that members of the tribunal are supposed to take abuse allegations to the Joint Task Force running the detention mission – which basically means that they go nowhere and nothing is done about the allegations.

The fact that the term “enemy combatants” is used exposes the intentions of the US in imprisoning these people. A person declared an “enemy combatant” is not considered a POW (Prisoner of War) and is not subject to the Geneva Convention. These “enemy combatants” can then be held indefinitely in military custody and detention. They also have no rights of communication, can be interrogated and are beyond the reach of any judicial review. The US simply changed the term under which these people are held so that they can break the Geneva Convention, because POWs are guaranteed certain rights under the Convention. If a law does not suit the imperialists, they simply change the terms of the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled last year that federal US courts have jurisdiction over Guantanamo prisoners along with the right to challenge their detention. However, no detainee has done this yet. And although the US government told the detainees that they did indeed have the right to challenge their imprisonment, prisoners were also told that they had no basis under constitutional or international law to actually challenge their detention.

The Bush administration trumps all over the world, threatening death, destruction and war to all of those countries that its considers are not “democratic” and countries that do no follow “the rule of law”. The Amnesty report absolutely exposes the hypocrisy of the Bush government, which has flagrantly disregarded the rule of law, and ignores its own institutions of “justice”.

“President Bush’s refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to those captured during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan and transferred to the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was challenged by a judicial decision in November. The ruling resulted in the suspension of trials by military commission in Guantánamo, and the government immediately lodged an appeal. The US administration’s treatment of detainees in the ‘war on terror’ continued to display a marked ambivalence to the opinion of expert bodies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and even of its own highest judicial body. Six months after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had jurisdiction over the Guantánamo detainees, none had appeared in court. Detainees reportedly considered of high intelligence value remained in secret detention in undisclosed locations. In some cases their situation amounted to ‘disappearance.’”

Along with the abuses at Guantanamo Bay, the Amnesty report also exposed the fact that the US has detained thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan and denied most of them access to lawyers and family.

William Shultz, the executive director of Amnesty International’s US branch, also issued a warning to top US officials: “The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera,” he said, “because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.” He also added, in reference to fact that there is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity, “Let’s keep in mind that these issues can be pursued years from now, not just today.”

Amnesty International placed the US on its list of human rights abusers, something which has enraged the Bush administration. The US finds itself on the list with China, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Israel/Palestine, Haiti, Russia, and Afghanistan amongst others. Although it was always disgusting and hypocritical, now that Amnesty International has exposed the US on its human rights record, the US will find it more difficult to sit on their moral high horse and preach about “human rights”.

US imperialism has never really cared about human rights. They were only interested in human rights so long as it could be used to serve their interests. The US government goes on and on about human rights abuses in Cuba, in order to put pressure on the Cuban government and to find excuses to attack the country. How can the Bush administration even mention these “abuses” when it presides over the Guantanamo camp on the island, or talk about the “war on terror” when it harbours Luis Posada Carriles, a suspected terrorist? The US government also doesn’t seem to be too bothered about the murdering of trade unionists in Colombia and other human rights abuses there. Why? Because the Uribe government is a staunch ally of Bush in the region. The US was so concerned about human rights in Iraq (even while it denies Iraqis their basic human rights), because this gave them the excuse they needed to justify the invasion (when they could no longer talk about WMD), yet they aren’t so concerned about atrocities in Darfur. The list could go on and on.

As long as capitalism and imperialism remain the dominant system on the planet, a genuine respect for human rights will never be achieved. Human rights have simply become a tool in the interests of imperialism. Human rights abuses (real or fictitious) are cynically cited by the US and other imperialist countries when they wish to destabilize or launch military operations against a given country, and these same human rights abuses go ignored as long as the interests of imperialism are served, such as in Colombia.

As long as there is capitalism, there will be poverty and misery, and as long as these exist there will be strife, and human rights abuses. These problems cannot be legislated away, and no amount of declarations or conventions will ever be able to stop human rights abuses. Many clauses in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are broken on a daily basis. There is however one important clause that has been trampled underfoot:

Article 25

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

We have written several times that it has been estimated that for $80 billion dollars a year for ten years, the points in this clause could be achieved. We must actually solve the problems that cause human rights abuses: poverty and misery. This will never be achieved under capitalism. A genuine human society must be established, a socialist society, one based on equality and production for need not profit. This will be the only way to guarantee a decent standard of living for all, and the only way to end all the want and the struggle for survival in the world, and the only way to guarantee everyone’s human rights.

May 31, 2005

Source (http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/guantanamo-gulag-amnesty020605.htm)

------------------------------------------------------------

comments?

[Publius]

This just in: Amnesty International learns what a gulag actually is; changes story.

How many have died in Guantanamo? How many died on the gulags?

Dumbasses.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

So you suppport the torture of suspects?

[Publius]

So you suppport the torture of suspects?

I don't even support the war.

I just think comparing it to a gulag is an absolute joke.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Just wondered, because I have never seen any of the home-cappies even criticize these policies. In the end, I don't think it really matters for the individual prisoner whetever he is tortured in a gulag or a American "freedom prison".

[Publius]

Just wondered, because I have never seen any of the home-cappies even criticize these policies. In the end, I don't think it really matters for the individual prisoner whetever he is tortured in a gulag or a American "freedom prison".

The torture isn't even close in terms of brutality.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:11 PM
This just in: Amnesty International learns what a gulag actually is; changes story.

How many have died in Guantanamo? How many died on the gulags?

Dumbasses.
Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gulag)

1. A network of forced labor camps in the former Soviet Union.
2. A forced labor camp or prison, especially for political dissidents.
3. A place or situation of great suffering and hardship, likened to the atmosphere in a prison system or a forced labor camp.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 6 2005, 12:37 AM


1. A network of forced labor camps in the former Soviet Union.
2. A forced labor camp or prison, especially for political dissidents.
3. [b]A place or situation of great suffering and hardship, likened to the atmosphere in a prison system or a forced labor camp.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 01:36 AM

Just wondered, because I have never seen any of the home-cappies even criticize these policies. In the end, I don't think it really matters for the individual prisoner whetever he is tortured in a gulag or a American "freedom prison".

The torture isn't even close in terms of brutality.
For crying out loud. How can you even make this claim? You don't even know how prisoners life/lived in Gulags, American torturecamps. What the torture methods are in both. What the psychological effects are. My guess is, that if you had been a Russian, you would have claimed the opposite.

[Publius]

For crying out loud. How can you even make this claim? You don't even know how prisoners life/lived in Gulags, American torturecamps. What the torture methods are in both. What the psychological effects are. My guess is, that if you had been a Russian, you would have claimed the opposite.

I can make this claim based on the evidence I've seen.

Compare the two.

Tell me, how are they similar?

Do you know?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What evidence? I just stated that due to a lack of evidence you can't make claims on who is more ruthless then the other. But really to the person it doesn't matter whetever an American or Russian dick rapes them or whetever it's American or Russian electricity which burns them from the inside out.

[Monty Cantsin]

in my mind Gulag is just russian for forced labour camps, ie. Stalins prisons camps and USA prisons so on and so on.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:36 PM
The torture isn't even close in terms of brutality.
Considering that prisoners have been tortured to death, I'm wondering how much more brutal it has to get before you'd consider it comparable.

The only difference from the Soviet gulag is scale - we don't know the exact size of the U.S. worldwide network of secret prisons and prisoners, but it's probably considerably smaller.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Gulag?

Not even close. I would love it if the guards tried harder to make a real gulag. A gulag makes you burn XXXX calories with hard labor and feeds you XXXX-500. We need more of that there.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 6 2005, 02:09 AM
What evidence? I just stated that due to a lack of evidence you can't make claims on who is more ruthless then the other. But really to the person it doesn't matter whetever an American or Russian dick rapes them or whetever it's American or Russian electricity which burns them from the inside out.
I see. You want a 'nice' prison for Al-Quada prisoners there. The harmless ones are free and sent back home. These will be thinking how the get anthrax to spread on childrens playgrounds the moment they get free. Thus in my book, there can be nothing brutal enough for them. Personally I hope the ones that dies were covered in pork grease before they were burried.

[LSD]

The harmless ones are free and sent back home.

Oh so there were "harmless ones" there. What you mean the US army made mistakes? :o

Wow, so you mean the American military isn't infallible...

hmm, doesn't that mean that there may well be more innocents there? I mean if you accept that there were some who were falsely imprisoned, but it took a while for the US to realize this and release them, why can't you accept that there are still some there who the US has isn't convinced yet are innocent, but who are?

[Intifada]

You want a 'nice' prison for Al-Quada prisoners there.

The fact that you cannot even spell "Al Quada" shows your complete ignorance of the topic at hand.


The harmless ones are free and sent back home.

The few that are sent back home have had their lives completely ruined.

Jst ask Richard Belmar or Martin Mubanga.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 6 2005, 06:17 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 6 2005, 06:17 AM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 6 2005, 02:09 AM
What evidence? I just stated that due to a lack of evidence you can't make claims on who is more ruthless then the other. But really to the person it doesn't matter whetever an American or Russian dick rapes them or whetever it's American or Russian electricity which burns them from the inside out.
I see. You want a 'nice' prison for Al-Quada prisoners there. The harmless ones are free and sent back home. These will be thinking how the get anthrax to spread on childrens playgrounds the moment they get free. Thus in my book, there can be nothing brutal enough for them. Personally I hope the ones that dies were covered in pork grease before they were burried.[/b]
Do you ever read any posts at all with some thought. There were/are bloody innoncents in those prisons. An estimated 70 percent in Abu Ghraib.

Interesting point. You want the Al'Qaida people to die in a brutal fashion, because they kill children. Then what about the sadistic US soldiers who shoot at children for fun? I don't see you condeming them. I guess the empire only works one way. You have no right to criticize Al'Qaida on ethetical grounds, when you support a regime of even larger brutality.


The harmless ones are free and sent back home.

You are great. You act like it's some sort of holiday. Like years of mental and physical torture don't traumatize. I can guess your reaction, if this were to happen on a US citizen.

[Hiero]

It was quite ironic when the US was criticisng the Indonesian court system about its inability to handle terrorist, when Indonesia has actually been a role model for the US. Indonesia were able to have quick trails putting the criminals to death and was quick to make anti terrorist acts.

What has the US done, they put people in horrible prisons for 3 or more years, court takes years to get through, then they realise them.

The funny thing is the US consider themselves the land of freedom and justics, and Indonesia is considered a growing democracy.

[OleMarxco]

And ya'll suppose when you're hittin' at the Soviet union, as for'at, you're hittin' at us, as if we're gonna get emotionally shaken by it. RIIIGHT. Like we're the most foremost example of people who would stand by for what the Gulag's in Russia had done - Like, uh, NEVERMIND all the condamnents of Stalinism on the board.....idiots designing a straw man for attacks.....and I'm just rippin' of what people blame me of, makin' straw men in fights.......GARF! Nevermind I said this http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/a/altermind.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 6 2005, 11:50 AM
Oh so there were "harmless ones" there.
Oh yeah, like the one from Britain who joined Al Quaeda out of "curiosity". :rolleyes:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 6 2005, 02:16 PM
Then what about the sadistic US soldiers who shoot at children for fun?
They don't exist outside the fantasies of Noam Chomsky and CNN.

[LSD]

Oh yeah, like the one from Britain who joined Al Quaeda out of "curiosity".

Are you actually denying that there were ever people held at Guantanamo who were actually innocent?

Fuck, even the US doesn't make that claim! :lol:

[Urban Rubble]

They don't exist outside the fantasies of Noam Chomsky and CNN.

Not according to a soldier I know (knew, he died on Memorial Day, look up the name if you don't believe me, Jeffrey Starr).

My friend Jeff did 3 tours in Iraq. He had no reason to bash to government, he felt what we were doing in Iraq was the right thing. When he came back from his second tour he told me all sorts of horrible stories. His unit participated in the siege of Fallujah. Remember the recent case where that soldier was put on trial for shooting 2 handcuffed suspects over 60 times and then hanging a sign on their dead bodies (he admitted to reloading after they were dead and continuing to fire, also to hanging a sign on them, he was still aquitted)? That is nothing compared to some of the shit this guy told me. And yes, I did hear at least one instance of children being shot trying to flee the city.

[Intifada]

To add to UR's post, Ex-Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey has also stated that the US is committing crimes in Iraq.

He said "I felt like we were committing genocide in Iraq."

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 6 2005, 03:45 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 6 2005, 03:45 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 6 2005, 02:16 PM
Then what about the sadistic US soldiers who shoot at children for fun?
They don't exist outside the fantasies of Noam Chomsky and CNN. [/b]
HAHAHAHAH&#33; How fucking naive can one person be? But then again, when the only news channel you watch is Faux "News", you see logic as an obstacle.. But seriously, there have been COUNTLESS claims and pieces of evidence that prisoners in Abu Ghraib are being tortured: are you denying this ever happened, and tha Abu Ghraib is a wonderful place where magic happens ? <_< If so, you are either seriously deluded, or you are one of the most disgusting human beings I have ever had the displeasure to meet. I in NO way condone what Al Qaeda did on 9/11, I believe they should hang for it. What pisses me off is that we (both US and UK) think we can combat terrorism with even MORE terrorism. Example: So-called "Smart bombs" are not hitting their targets, they are flying into people&#39;s houses. The crippling sanctions on Iraq, prevents even the most basic remedies for curable diseases from reaching the people. The ammount of deformities in children have shot through the roof thanks to missiles packed with depleted uranium. And of course, Abu Ghraib (Nuff said). How on earth are we suppossed to "win the hearts and minds of the people" by killing them?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:43 PM
HAHAHAHAH&#33; How fucking naive can one person be?
Of course I&#39;m naive. As opposed to the people who actually think that American soldiers shoot children for fun and no doubt believe that they have horns growing out of their heads too- they&#39;re not naive.

<snip the rest of the ad-hominem/drivel>

[Socialistpenguin]

Of course I&#39;m naive. As opposed to the people who actually think that American soldiers shoot children for fun.

Oh really? Well, you may be interested in these articles:
It&#39;s Fun to Shoot Them (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/03/national/main671617.shtml) Ironically enough, this guy seems to think it&#39;s fun.

And...
Wedding Shoot-up (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html)


<snip the rest of the ad-hominem/drivel>

oh, what? Can&#39;t argue with what I&#39;ve said? Thought so. Listen, instead of wasting your hours watching Fox "News", and relaying your "the military can do no wrong" bullshit, actually read PROPER news, and get your facts straight.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:00 PM
Oh really? Well, you may be interested in these articles:
It&#39;s Fun to Shoot Them (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/03/national/main671617.shtml) Ironically enough, this guy seems to think it&#39;s fun.
Lovely.

Do not forget this people is supposed to more or less "defend their country". I wouldn&#39;t trust them if I lived in yankeeland.

Send them to play some videogame instead.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 6 2005, 04:45 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Jun 6 2005, 04:45 PM)
Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 6 2005, 02:16 PM
Then what about the sadistic US soldiers who shoot at children for fun?
They don&#39;t exist outside the fantasies of Noam Chomsky and CNN.[/b]
I honestly don&#39;t know how to respond to this. When we showed you reports of torture, before the Abu Ghraib picture incident, you didn&#39;t believe that either. I can&#39;t believe your stupidity, I have never heard of a long-term war, inwhich soldiers didn&#39;t become sadistic murderers. Somehow, you think that US soldiers are a magical exception to this. Despite all the reports, eye-witness accounts from US soldiers, Iraqi citizens, journalists, mercenaries etc. Before you know it, you are going to claim that the Iraqi resistance didn&#39;t try peacefull methods, before grabbing their guns. Have you ever been in a war, or do you know someone who has been?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 6 2005, 03:45 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 6 2005, 03:45 PM)
Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 6 2005, 02:16 PM
Then what about the sadistic US soldiers who shoot at children for fun?
They don&#39;t exist outside the fantasies of Noam Chomsky and CNN. [/b]
Is it a nice feeling being an accessory to murder?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jun 7 2005, 12:02 AM--> (NoXion @ Jun 7 2005, 12:02 AM)
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 6 2005, 03:45 PM

Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 6 2005, 02:16 PM
Then what about the sadistic US soldiers who shoot at children for fun?
They don&#39;t exist outside the fantasies of Noam Chomsky and CNN.
Is it a nice feeling being an accessory to murder? [/b]
You should also ask that of the guys imprisoned at gitmo.

Let me ask you this? Give one of these guys a brief case bomb? Put him aboard a plane? Does he blow it up?

I know if I had one, I wouldn&#39;t do it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Which all be very well and good, if guantanamo bay actually serves any cause of justice. It doesn&#39;t. It is filled with the scapegoats of US imperialism, who may or may not be innocent, but the US gov doesn&#39;t really bother much with the truth.

Pointing your own bloody fingers at me will serve you no purpose but to highlight your own hypocrisy.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 6 2005, 12:50 PM

The harmless ones are free and sent back home.

Oh so there were "harmless ones" there. What you mean the US army made mistakes? :o

Wow, so you mean the American military isn&#39;t infallible...

hmm, doesn&#39;t that mean that there may well be more innocents there? I mean if you accept that there were some who were falsely imprisoned, but it took a while for the US to realize this and release them, why can&#39;t you accept that there are still some there who the US has isn&#39;t convinced yet are innocent, but who are?
Who ever said the US was perfect? Not me? So what are you talking about?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 02:50 AM
Which all be very well and good, if guantanamo bay actually serves any cause of justice. It doesn&#39;t. It is filled with the scapegoats of US imperialism, who may or may not be innocent, but the US gov doesn&#39;t really bother much with the truth.

Pointing your own bloody fingers at me will serve you no purpose but to highlight your own hypocrisy.
Sooooooo, YOU would feel AOK about giving an AK-47 to someone at gitmo, getting into a room, then turing out the lights? I wouldn&#39;t. I wouldn&#39;t trust one of them with a cheese sandwich. I wouldn&#39;t certainly trust them to be harmless once released, do you? I don&#39;t. I expect, once released these people will be planning then next sub way attack in Europe. Are these people Al-queda? I think so. They wern&#39;t part of a polo club in Afganistan. Especially the ones that don&#39;t speak any Afgan languages and were picked up in Afganistan with weapons or wounded after a US military action. Are those the people who are there? People with weapons in Afganistan who don&#39;t speak any local languages, or did US special forces just for fun point at a guy with funny looking clothes and take him to gitmo.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected]n 6 2005, 07:00 PM
Oh really? Well, you may be interested in these articles:
It&#39;s Fun to Shoot Them (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/03/national/main671617.shtml) Ironically enough, this guy seems to think it&#39;s fun.



Shooting bad guys is fun. Now what about these children, or was that just an attempt to make it sound extra "evil" ?


And...
Wedding Shoot-up (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html)

Is this the one where they were firing celebratory guns in the air that the soldiers mistook for an attack ? Great choice of source by the way. Not.


oh, what? Can&#39;t argue with what I&#39;ve said?

That reminds me of the words of wisdom on yesterday&#39;s calendar : "Of all those who say nothing, few are silent."

[Urban Rubble]

Shooting bad guys is fun. Now what about these children, or was that just an attempt to make it sound extra "evil" ?

I noticed you skipped the part where I mentioned my friend who was in Fallujah and said he saw plenty of children shot.

Of course, I won&#39;t claim that this is standard practice. But to sit here and ignore that many members of our armed forces are quite brutal sadists is just ridiculous. It happens, all of the time. When you take the most uneducated, poorest young men, give them guns and put them in a place where they&#39;re being shot at, what did you think was going to happen?

[codyvo]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 6 2005, 03:45 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 6 2005, 03:45 PM)
Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 6 2005, 02:16 PM
Then what about the sadistic US soldiers who shoot at children for fun?
They don&#39;t exist outside the fantasies of Noam Chomsky and CNN. [/b]
I know this is slightly off topic, but, you right wingers need to get over it and admit that CNN is not left wing. All the people here think it is right wing, and they are right. CNN is owned by Time Warner one of the largest corporations in all of the US. I am pretty sure they are not going to participate in the revolution and you guys are not allowed to call it the Communist News Network, we are communists they are NOT.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sooooooo, YOU would feel AOK about giving an AK-47 to someone at gitmo, getting into a room, then turing out the lights?

Of course not. The gaurds are brutal sadists who should die.


I wouldn&#39;t. I wouldn&#39;t trust one of them with a cheese sandwich. I wouldn&#39;t certainly trust them to be harmless once released, do you? I don&#39;t. I expect, once released these people will be planning then next sub way attack in Europe. Are these people Al-queda? I think so.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the gaurds. My mistake, you&#39;re an idiot.
You do realise that the US doesn&#39;t give a fuck about whether the people they have in their custody are actually guilty of anything apart from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You of course completely ignored this and instead went of on a silly little tangent because you seem to have the memory of a brain-damaged goldfish.
If any of the prisoners at guantanamo bay is guilty of anything they should be punished, but punished properly and not treated like dirt. Punishment isn&#39;t and should never be about revenge.
You should be criticising Guantanamo Bay for putting the US Gov in a bad light, but no in your patriotic ignorance you choose to foolishly defend it. Get a brain.


They wern&#39;t part of a polo club in Afganistan. Especially the ones that don&#39;t speak any Afgan languages and were picked up in Afganistan with weapons or wounded after a US military action. Are those the people who are there? People with weapons in Afganistan who don&#39;t speak any local languages, or did US special forces just for fun point at a guy with funny looking clothes and take him to gitmo.

They are prisoners of war and should be treated as such. But then the US Gov has always pissed on the rights of prisoners and civilians, hasn&#39;t it?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Believe me, it&#39;s standard, there is always a large portion turning into sadistic killers. Being an occupation soldier in a hostile country, is probaly one of the most emotionally confusing situations that a human can encounter.

On one side, they are feeling extremely powerless and frustrated, because of the hit and run geurilla actions. They are being constantly shot at, but hardly ever get to shoot back. On the other hand, they are the law, they carry the guns, with a push on a trigger they decide over life and death.

This frustration is enlarged, because they know that atleast some of the locals are active as geurilla&#39;s, but not being able to track them down efficiently. They seek justification for total hatred of the locals. This leads to racism. Giving them the perfect explanation to kill everyone without troubling their own consciouss. Afterall why would the life of "beasts" matter?

Here comes the "fun" part. We got a guy in the safety and ignorance of an US suburb, claiming to know exactly what US troops didn&#39;t do wrong. This all based on reports of "news" networks, who even admit to be biased. Do you know anyone on tour in Iraq?


Shooting bad guys is fun.

How would you know? You are a piece of rich scum, who has never been in a place more dangerous then a suburb. A serious question, which I know you will ignore:

On what do you base that shooting "bad guys" is fun?

What are "bad guys"?

Ahh...ignorance is comfort

Innoncent Afghan farmers were kidnapped and tortured at Guantanamo. Fucking innoncent Pakistani merchants were kidnapped and tortured at Guantanamo. Do you know the phrase, innoncent untill proofen guilty?

If not, then I accuse you of being an Al&#39;Qaida operative. Be prepared to to be kidnapped, tortured for years, have your family "collateral damaged" and receive a "it wasn&#39;t out fault" as excuse as retribution.

What I notice in general, is that people least affected by war, are the biggest supporters. A pattern?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

You know what is nice about all this US crap that is going on in the world? It doesn&#39;t make communist right. Isn&#39;t that correct? Are we all in agreement on this? What ever the US does that you think is evil, is not any proof that communism is better or viable. Communism must prove itself on it&#39;s own merits.

BTW all this US stuff? It&#39;s not capitalism.

[LSD]

ahhh_money_is_comfort, does this mean that you&#39;re admitting that you were wrong with regards to Guantanamo Bay?


BTW all this US stuff? It&#39;s not capitalism.

Yes it is ...partly.

It&#39;s the result of capitalism, of capitalism&#39;s constant need for expansion. It&#39;s also, of course, the result of good old fashioned imperialism.

The difference between this kind of imperialism and the old, however, is that American imperialism is about dominating economies and not, as much, governments. Sure the US will launch a coup or too, install dictators and such, but usually it is only if the previous government failed to abide by US economic interests. If they abide, the US will most likely leave them along, unless there are very pressing political reasons not to.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:11 PM
This just in: Amnesty International learns what a gulag actually is; changes story.

How many have died in Guantanamo? How many died on the gulags?

Dumbasses.
This just in Publius doesn&#39;t know either.

How many people died in gulags in the first five years. No made up numbers now I want to see a figure confirmed by at 3 soviet historians.

really none....hmm I guess the comparison is apt.

Mabybe we should come to your house and kick you untill your internal organs no longer work and see if you think it&#39;s still alright then.

[Publius]

This just in Publius doesn&#39;t know either.

How many people died in gulags in the first five years. No made up numbers now I want to see a figure confirmed by at 3 soviet historians.

really none....hmm I guess the comparison is apt.

Mabybe we should come to your house and kick you untill your internal organs no longer work and see if you think it&#39;s still alright then.

All in the name of communism&#33;

[cormacobear]

I can&#39;t beleive the gall of you cappies condoning genecide and torture. If the people held a Guantanamo are guilty, why isn&#39;t theUS giving them Trials, in fact why is the US state department looking at methods of indefinately imprisoning these men without trial. Your denial of these incidents makes you just as guilty as the perpetrator. As a U.S. citizen in a democratic country you are responsible for the actions of your leaders and therefore the actions of your soldiers. You&#39;re no better than a german dening the Holocust was taking place instead of opposing it.

I can list at least a hundred incidents in the first year that constitute international war crimes, after the 130,000 th unarmed civilian was killed I gave up keeping track in disgust.

Including Four international endictments of senior US officials for war crimes. here are ajust a few details.

Army Doctors Implicated in AbuseMedical Workers Helped Tailor Interrogations of Detainees, Article SaysBy Joe StephensWashington Post Staff Writer01/06/05 "Washington Post

this next is from the IRish endictment;

COUNTS 1-3: Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Punishable Under Section 3 Of The Geneva Conventions Act 1962

In holding a position of superior authority over US armed forces in Iraq, George W. Bush is criminally responsible for the acts of his subordinates. These acts include:

Count 1: Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners, conducted in a widespread and systematic manner.

Count 2: Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.

Count 3: Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the third Geneva Convention of 1949.

In failing to prevent or punish the perpetration of these crimes committed by troops under his command, George W. Bush is guilty of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

• Serious violations of international humanitarian law have taken place in Iraq since the commencement of hostilities by the armed forces of the United States of America, United Kingdom & others (Coalition Forces) against Iraq, from 20th March 2003. The situation in Iraq involves a military occupation to which international humanitarian law, as well as The Hague Regulations of 1907 are applicable. Both the Third and the Fourth Geneva Convention are applicable to the conflict. The United States of America ratified the Geneva Conventions of 1949 on 2 August 1955.

• An International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) report drew the attention of the Coalition Forces to serious violations of international humanitarian law that had been observed and documented while visiting detained Iraqis between March and November 2003. The main violations of international humanitarian law as described by the ICRC in the report included the following:

- Brutality against protected persons upon capture and initial custody, sometimes causing death or serious injury;
- Absence of notification of arrest of persons deprived of their liberty to their families causing distress among persons deprived of their liberty and their families;
- Physical or psychological coercion during interrogation to secure information;
- Prolonged solitary confinement in cells devoid of daylight;
- Excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons deprived of their liberty resulting in death or injury during their period of internment;
- Seizure and confiscation of private belongings of persons deprived of their liberty;
- Exposure of persons deprived of their liberty to dangerous tasks;
- Holding persons deprived of their liberty in dangerous places where they are not protected from shelling.


COUNT 4: Violations of the UN Convention Against Torture

Count 4: In addition to the aforementioned violations of international humanitarian law, complicity in the practice of torture is also charged under Articles 4 and 5(2) of the UN Convention Against Torture.


• Ireland ratified the Convention Against Torture (CAT) on 11th April 2002. The United States of America ratified CAT on 21st October 1994. Article 1(1) of CAT provides that for the purposes of this Convention, ‘torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.’

• According to Article 2(2) of the CAT, ‘no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.’ Article 2(3) of the CAT states that ‘an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.’ According to Article 6(1) of CAT, ‘upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.’ Article 6(2) of CAT states that any such State which takes a person into custody or takes any other legal measures to ensure his presence shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.

ANNEX I
International Law and Immunity for Heads of State

• The prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment in international law is a recognised norm of jus cogens (a mandatory norm of general international law from which no two or more nations may exempt themselves or release one another).

• Although the International Court of Justice has interpreted the existence of diplomatic immunity for sitting Heads of State in the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium), 14 February 2002 case, it should be noted that the decisions of this Court are only binding on the states concerned in each case and its statute does not provide for precedent. While the decision may be viewed as an interpretation of the law, it does not provide persuasive reasoning for immunity on the grounds of official capacity.

• Article 27 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court confirms the irrelevance of official capacity:

1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

• Neither the Geneva Conventions nor the Convention Against Torture recognize that a current head of state may be immune from being held accountable for their violations of either the Grave Breaches system or for other acts of torture.

• This is reflected in the Irish implementing legislation outlined above and the only deference to a possible immunity is section 3(3) of the GENEVA CONVENTIONS ACT 1962 which confers discretion on the Irish Attorney General to permit or prevent the institution of proceedings under Section 3 relating to Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Given the charges detailed in this indictment, permitting George W. Bush to visit Ireland with impunity would suggest unwillingness on behalf of the Irish State to uphold the fundamental provisions of international human rights and humanitarian law.

ANNEX II
Relevant Provisions of Irish legislation

Geneva Conventions of 1949

• Section 3(1) of the GENEVA CONVENTIONS ACT 1962 as amended by the GENEVA CONVENTIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1998, states that ‘Any person, whatever his or her nationality, who, whether in or outside the State, commits or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of a grave breach of any of the Scheduled Conventions or Protocol I shall be guilty of an offence.’

• Section 3(1a) states that ‘any person, whatever his or her nationality, who, whether in or outside the State, fails to act, when under a duty to do so, to prevent the commission by another person of a grave breach of any of the Scheduled Conventions or Protocol I shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction on indictment shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.’

• Furthermore Section 3(2) of the ACT states that ‘in the case of an offence under this section committed outside the State, a person may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished there or in any place in the State as if the offence had been committed in that place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that place.’

• Section 3(3) of the ACT requires that ‘proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by, or on behalf of, or with the consent of the Attorney General.’

United Nations Convention Against Torture

• Section 2(1) of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE) ACT 2000 states that ‘a public official, whatever his or her nationality, who carries out an act of torture on a person, whether within or outside the State, shall be guilty of the offence of torture.’

• Section 3 of the ACT states that ‘a person, whatever his or her nationality, whether within or outside the State, who-
(a) attempts to commit or conspires to commit the offence of torture, or
(b) does an act with the intent to obstruct or impede the arrest or prosecution of another person, including a person who is a public official, in relation to the offence of torture,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.’

ANNEX III:
Select List of Sources

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights: The Present Situation of Human Rights in Iraq, E/CN.4/2005/4, 9 June 2004. Available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/hchr/docs/iraq1.pdf

Human Rights Watch, Bush Policies Led to Abuse in Iraq, June 9, 2004. Available at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/09/iraq8785.htm.

International Committee of the Red Cross, Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the Treatment by Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and Other Protected Persons by Geneva Conventions in Iraq during Arrest, Internment and Interrogation, February 2004. Available at http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/rapporto_crocerossa.pdf.

Human Rights Watch, Bush Administration Lawyers Greenlight Torture: Memo Suggests Intent to Commit War Crimes, June 7, 2004. Available at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/usdom8778.htm.

Human Rights Watch, Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody, May 24, 2004. Available at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm.

Roth, Kenneth, ‘Time to Stop “Stress and Duress”’ Washington Post, Thursday, May 13, 2004; Page A29. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May12.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22623-2004May12.html)

Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Groups write to President Bush about Iraqi Prisoners: Directors urge immediate action to end abuse of detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, 7 May 2004. Letter available at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/10/usint8566.htm

Human Rights Watch, Timeline of Detainee Abuse Allegations and Responses, May 7, 2004. Available at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/07/usint8556.htm.

Amnesty International, USA: Pattern of Brutality and Cruelty - War Crimes at Abu Ghraib, 7 May 2004. Available at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAM...open&of=ENG-IRQ (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510772004?open&of=ENG-IRQ).

Amnesty International, An open letter to President George W. Bush on the question of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, 7 May 2004. Available at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAM...open&of=ENG-IRQ (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510782004?open&of=ENG-IRQ).
Undermining the UN and preventing it from carrying through its professed role of establishing and maintaining peace in the world;
Imposing a food and medicine embargo on the Iraqi people, affecting especially children, elderly, sick and women and causing the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of civilians;
Concentrating its military forces in the countries and seas around Iraq, threatening Iraq and world peace by declaring openly that this was preparation for war and carrying through its threat;
Taking control of Iraq’s oil wealth, redrawing the borders of the countries of this region and hiding the real reason for this war from its own people and the world secure the borders of Israel, which is the only country in that region to have nuclear weapons;
Making false statements and deceiving its own citizens and the other nations of the world with the aim of spreading fear and hatred and thus neutralizing opposition to its own policies of aggression and occupation;
Ignoring the will and liberty of the Iraqi people by appointing a governing council and using this council as a means to impose its own decisions from the top after having overturned by military means the Iraqi government, attempting to destroy the historical values and cultures and the liberty and freedom to govern their own faith of the Iraqi people;
Bringing about the death of thousands of innocent civilians, making millions of them homeless and refugees in their own countries;
Creating wide-ranging and long-term environmental damage with its bombing and missile attacks towards Iraq. Even the excessive number of military flights has created air pollution over the usual amount. The thousands of tons of explosive materials have polluted the air with dangerous chemicals and the explosions have created clouds of dust and fires which lasted for days;
Destroying basic foodstuffs essential for the people of Iraq. Carrying through missile attacks that systematically destroyed fundamental manufacturing, stocking, distribution, health and irrigation facilities related to the provision of food, water, electricity, medicines and health services to the people of Iraq;
Destroying or seriously damaging the buildings of the economic, social, cultural, health provision, diplomatic and religious institutions of Iraq. Organizing destructive and harmful attacks with the aim of destroying the economic and social structure of Iraq;
Looting and permitting the looting of the museums, libraries and ancient artifacts in Baghdad and Basra;
Using banned weapons analogous to weapons of mass destruction that cause mass killings.
Threatening with aggression, imposing economic pressure and sanctions and offering bribes, with the aim of gaining individual and governmental level support to its policies of aggression and occupation;
Arresting, kidnapping, murdering people in extra-judicial ways and subjecting them to physical and moral torture;
Preventing people that have been detained from sleeping, obliging them to stay in painful positions, keeping them for a long time with their heads covered, firing on detainees, damaging or confiscating objects found in houses during searches, keeping people in prisons under unacceptable conditions or in excessively hot tents, keeping them in camps without water and sanitary facilities;
Initiating bidding processes regarding the oil wealth of Iraq and taking other decisions about this, even though it has no right or authority;
Refusing to ratify the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court based in The Hague with the aim of escaping prosecution for the crimes its military troops and civilian authorities committed and are going to commit, including crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, war crimes;
Using international media under its control to depict the Iraqi people as a primitive society requiring modernization and made up of potential terror supporters and murderers, with the aim of gaining support for its aggression.

Fallujah&#39;s Refugees

By Dahr Jamail
With over 300,000 homeless residents of Fallujah scattered about central Iraq, daily life for these refugees is a reality filled with searching for food, medical attention, warmth and clean water

The Quiet Of Destruction And Death

By Dahr Jamail
“I need another heart and eyes to bear it because my own are not enough to bear what I saw. Nothing justifies what was done to this city. I didn’t see a house or mosque that wasn’t destroyed.”
02 December, 2004

&#39;Improved&#39; Napalm For Falluja
With &#39;Improved&#39; Effect

By Mike Whitney
The United States is using napalm in Falluja. So far, the military has denied the allegations, but the proof is mounting
01 December, 2004

Covering Up US War Crimes

By James Petras
The US mass media “reports”, the style, content and especially the language, echo their Nazi predecessors of 70 years ago to an uncanny degree. Coincidence?
30 November, 2004

&#39;Unusual Weapons&#39; Used In Fallujah

By Dahr Jamail
Eye witnesses testify that the U.S. military has used poison gas and other non-conventional weapons against civilians in Fallujah

Allawi&#39;s Dictatorship

By Dahr Jamail
The rule of Ayad Allawi, the U.S. appointed interim prime minister of Iraq, is now more in the style of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein than a leader of a supposedly democratic state

Fallujah And The Laws Of War

By Richard Hoffman
Even as US forces launch new offensives against Iraqi cities, the flow of reports of serious war crimes committed by the American military in the assault on Fallujah continues

US Forces Raid A Mosque And
Murder The Worshippers

By Dahr Jamail
U.S. soldiers raided the Al- Hanifa mosque in Baghdad during Friday prayers, killing at least four and wounding up to 20 worshippers

Congratulations American Heroes

By Baghdad Burning
They killed a wounded man. It&#39;s hard to believe. They killed a man who was completely helpless- like he was some sort of diseased animal. I had read the articles and heard the stories of this happening before- but to see it happening on television is something else

800 Civilians Feared Dead In Fallujah

By Dahr Jamail
According to estimates by a Red Cross official at least 800 civilians are believed to have been killed during the U.S. offensive in Fallujah

Mass Slaughter In Fallujah

By Doug Lorimer
The deliberate destruction of Falljuah hospitals was a clear indication that the US military wants to ensure that dead or injured Fallujah residents are not brought to the city&#39;s hospitals — so as to conceal the scale of civilian casualties

Children Pay A Price For Assault On Falluja

By Rory McCarthy and Osama Mansour
Evidence began to emerge of civilians, including children, who were seriously injured in the US assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja
16 November, 2004

Aid Convoy Turned Back From Falluja

By Aljazeera
An aid convoy has been forced to turn back from the beleaguered city of Falluja as more evidence emerged of a mounting humanitarian crisis on the eighth day of a US offensive to crush resistance forces

AP Photographer Flees Fallujah

By Katarina Kratovac
Bilal Hussein watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross the Euphrates. Then, he "helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands."

Doctor Is Haunted By Siege Of Fallujah

By Alissa J. Rubin
"I think if the Americans let us treat the injured, even in the streets," Dr. Ahmed Ghanim said, "we could have saved hundreds."

Falluja&#39;s Looming Gendercide

By Adam Jones
"U.S. troops sealed all roads to Falluja and urged women, children and non-fighting age men to flee, but said they would arrest any man under 45 trying to enter or leave the city."

100,000 Iraqi Civilians Dead

By Sarah Boseley
About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces
October 2004(more than 3 months ago)

Iraq: &#39;Liberation&#39; or War Crimes?

By Ghali Hassan
The Duelfer report also Confirm earlier reports, including the UNSCOM&#39;s, that Iraq had no WMD and that the war was unnecessary and illegal. This alone should be enough ground to indict George Bush, Tony Blair and their "coalition" with war crimes committed since 1991 against the Iraqi people
08 October, 2004

29 September, 2004
Anyone Remember Abu Ghraib?

By Robert Fisk
Kidnappers demand the release of women held prisoner by the Americans. Abu Ghraib is what they are talking about. Abu Ghraib? Anyone remember Abu Ghraib? Remember those dirty little snapshots?
28 September, 2004

Toxic Pollution And Mass Killings In Iraq

By Ghali Hassan
The American use of "depleted" uranium (DU) munitions to attack Iraq in the 1991 and 2003 wars has unleashed a toxic disaster that is much more dangerous and deadly than the crimes committed on Vietnam by the use of Agent Orange
24 September, 2004

Abuse, Torture And Rape Reported At
Unlisted U.S.-Run Prisons In Iraq

By Lisa Ashkenaz Croke
"Nobody talks about it. All everyone talks about is Abu Ghraib because of the pictures," said Alomari. "But in these other places, there’s tons of acts of torture, abuse, rape."

"Take Pictures - Show The World
The American Democracy"

By Ghaith Abdul-Ahad
On Sunday, 13 Iraqis were killed and dozens injured in Baghdad when US helicopters fired on a crowd of unarmed civilians. G2 columnist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, who was injured in the attack, describes the scene of carnage - and reveals just how lucky he was to walk away
31 July, 2004

The Secret File Of Abu Ghraib

By Osh Gray Davidson
New classified documents implicate U.S. forces in rape and sodomy of Iraqi prisoners


I have several pages more if you sick bastards want more.

[Andy Bowden]

It&#39;s important to remember that the people held in Guantanamo are terrorist suspects, not convicted terrorists. You are innocent till proven guilty. If these people were charged with a crime and given the opportunity to challenge these allegations in a court of law then their detention could be justified.
As it stands many of the people in Guantanamo were picked up by Northern Alliance warlords for looking like an Arab or coming from the middle east - thus the northern alliance footsoldiers assume they must be Al Qaeda volunteers from overseas.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:27 PM
I know this is slightly off topic, but, you right wingers need to get over it and admit that CNN is not left wing.
Most media companies are insitutionally left wing. It comes with the education system.

[Professor Moneybags]

Here comes the "fun" part. We got a guy in the safety and ignorance of an US suburb, claiming to know exactly what US troops didn&#39;t do wrong.

Or didn&#39;t do right, in your case.


How would you know? You are a piece of rich scum,

I&#39;m not rich. Nor scum. Not that the raving of a sociopath bother me or anything...


who has never been in a place more dangerous then a suburb.

And how would you know ?


A serious question, which I know you will ignore:

On what do you base that shooting "bad guys" is fun?

1- On the basis that they deserve to die and carrying out justice should be a source of satisfaction.
2- On the basis that if they do die, they&#39;re going to be in heaven with however-many dozen virgins, so shooting them is mutually beneficial.


What are "bad guys"?

Initiators of force.


Innoncent Afghan farmers were kidnapped and tortured at Guantanamo. Fucking innoncent Pakistani merchants were kidnapped and tortured at Guantanamo. Do you know the phrase, innoncent untill proofen guilty?

You clearly don&#39;t, Mr. Innocent-until-proven-rich.

[Professor Moneybags]

Somehow, you think that US soldiers are a magical exception to this. Despite all the reports, eye-witness accounts from US soldiers, Iraqi citizens, journalists, mercenaries etc. Before you know it, you are going to claim that the Iraqi resistance didn&#39;t try peacefull methods, before grabbing their guns.

Of course they didn&#39;t ("free Saddam or die" doesn&#39;t count). They couldn&#39;t wait to pop a few caps into the soldiers of the Great Satan because like your lot, conflict and struggle against the "infidel" is what their entire existence revolves around.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:29 PM
They are prisoners of war and should be treated as such. But then the US Gov has always pissed on the rights of prisoners and civilians, hasn&#39;t it?
As has been explained in the other thread, they do not qualify as POWs.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 7 2005, 04:08 PM

How would you know? You are a piece of rich scum,

I&#39;m not rich. Nor scum. Not that the raving of a sociopath bother me or anything...
You&#39;re not rich that&#39;s easy enough to prove. But current evidence suggests you are scum.

Three billion people live on less than &#036;2.00 a day. One billion 300 million people live on less than &#036;1.00 a day. The number of people living on less than &#036;1/day increased by 30% during the past 10 years.

world pop. as 100 people.

61 Asians
12 Europeans
14 Americans (from North and South America)
13 Africans
01 Australian (Oceania)
50 women
50 men
67 are not christian
33 are christian (Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox)
6 people own 59% of the entire wealth of the community
13 are hungry or malnourished
14 can&#39;t read
only 7 are educated at a secondary level
Of the village&#39;s total annual expenditures
of just over US&#036; 3,000,000 per year:
US&#036; 181,000 is spent on weapons and warfare...
US&#036; 159,000 is spent on education...
US&#036; 132,000 is spent on health care.
If you keep your food in a refrigerator
And your clothes in a closet
You are richer than 75% of the entire world population.
If you have a bank account
You&#39;re one of the 30 wealthiest people in the world.
25 struggle to live on US&#036; 1.00 per day
or less... 47 struggle to live on US&#036; 2.00 per day or less.


Name one media owner that you beleive is left wing. Name one editor not hired by the owners. Left wing media my ass.

Pressure from media owners leads to underreporting of social issues, study says
January 24, 2000 | National Office | Topic(s): Corporations & corporate power, Media / Media analysis | Publication Type: News Release
Ottawa; January 24, 2000--The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives today released a report, The Missing News, which documents and analyzes recurring blind spots in news coverage by Canada&#39;s print media. "These blind spots are related to institutional filters and corporate pressures on journalists&#39; working conditions," said Dr. Robert Hackett one of the study&#39;s authors and a professor of communication at Simon Fraser University.
The Missing News reports the findings of an independent six-year research project, Newswatch Canada, funded primarily by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Employing content analysis, the researchers have identified categories of political stories that have been systematically underreported. Hackett gave the following examples:
· stories of government tax breaks for the wealthy--how they shift the tax burden to middle and lower income earners and reduce the capacity to pay for social programs;
· stories which expose the vested interests and biases of media owners themselves, one case study showing that changes in ownership clearly influence newspapers&#39; coverage of their new parent company;
· stories of corporate activities which have adverse social impacts; for example, the growing corporate intrusion into public health care or corporate complicity in cigarette smuggling concurrent with their campaign for lower taxes.
Journalists interviewed for the project also identified newsroom cutbacks and increasingly bottom-line-driven priorities of management as important factors filtering the news.
The study also found a large imbalance in the use of sources with business and conservative policy institutes favoured 3:1 over their progressive counterparts.
The study makes several policy recommendations to improve the quality, diversity and independence of print journalism, including: ceilings on media ownership holdings, a right of reply, and independent press councils with teeth.
Professor Hackett urged groups of concerned citizens to form alliances to advocate for media reform.
"Furthermore," said Hackett, "journalists&#39; unions should--as the Calgary Herald strike demonstrates--place a high priority on establishing protections against ownership interference with editorial content."

I have a half dozen research papers proving how far to the right the US media is skewed. I&#39;ll post those too if you&#39;d like

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don&#39;t think we should take anything that Professor Moneybags says seriously anymore. It&#39;s not like he&#39;s been taking us seriously. Let&#39;s flame them instead.

I will start by calling PM a drooling money-hungry retarded objectivist coprophile.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Uggh, it&#39;s like explaining the relativity theory to a four 2 year old. Arguments, evidence, it all doesn&#39;t matter, he&#39;ll be repeating the same refuted points over and over again. Once again he comes with the "they are not POW&#39;s". It&#39;s been said a dozen times, you don&#39;t need to be a POW for the geneva rules.

The fuckin idiot doesn&#39;t even know about the protests inwhich millions of Iraqi&#39;s marched for several weeks, against the occupation. It ended up with several hundred protestors killed by US troops. Nor does it occur in his mind, that there are more sides to the story then Bush and Saddam.


Or didn&#39;t do right, in your case.

Nevermind the evidence which has been given in this very thread.


1- On the basis that they deserve to die and carrying out justice should be a source of satisfaction.
2- On the basis that if they do die, they&#39;re going to be in heaven with however-many dozen virgins, so shooting them is mutually beneficial.

- Repeat, repeat, repeat -

Why do they deserve to die?

They beat innoncent people to death&#33;

How I know that you have never been to war or experienced some hardships? Guess.


Initiators of force.

The US invaded Iraq&#33; Jesus wake up man.


Most media companies are insitutionally left wing. It comes with the education system.

omfg. I guess anyone reporting anything which can be interpreted as critic on the US is leftist. Actually why don&#39;t you sign up for service in Iraq?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 10:24 PM




Three billion people live on less than &#036;2.00 a day. One billion 300 million people live on less than &#036;1.00 a day. The number of people living on less than &#036;1/day increased by 30% during the past 10 years.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHA

That&#39;s a bold faced lie. For that alone you are relagated to the back of the class.

Read: http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/10300228.htm



25 struggle to live on US&#036; 1.00 per day
or less... 47 struggle to live on US&#036; 2.00 per day or less.

Taking the World Bank report into account, I find these numbers VERY suspect, using your handy numbers, the clear majority of people live in Asia, so therefore the clear majority of the poor live in Asia, so this reduction in poverty means these high numbers cannot be correct.

And since they aren&#39;t backed up at all, I have no reason to assume they are correct.



I have a half dozen research papers proving how far to the right the US media is skewed. I&#39;ll post those too if you&#39;d like

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 7 2005, 09:56 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Jun 7 2005, 09:56 PM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 05:27 PM
I know this is slightly off topic, but, you right wingers need to get over it and admit that CNN is not left wing.
Most media companies are insitutionally left wing. It comes with the education system. [/b]
Media companies must be left wing, as being right wing entails being boring, reggressive, and ultimately useless.

CNN is very pro-American. CNN has beneifitted from the war in Iraq. War makes interesting news for the brainwashed masses.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Publius+Jun 7 2005, 07:40 PM--> (Publius &#064; Jun 7 2005, 07:40 PM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 10:24 PM




Three billion people live on less than &#036;2.00 a day. One billion 300 million people live on less than &#036;1.00 a day. The number of people living on less than &#036;1/day increased by 30% during the past 10 years.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHA

That&#39;s a bold faced lie. For that alone you are relagated to the back of the class.

Read: http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/10300228.htm



25 struggle to live on US&#036; 1.00 per day
or less... 47 struggle to live on US&#036; 2.00 per day or less.



I have a half dozen research papers proving how far to the right the US media is skewed. I&#39;ll post those too if you&#39;d like

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp [/b]
Where is his source, real researchhas references, not these numbers because I said, where is the world Bank report. It&#39;s certainly not listed in an article on a fascist website.

Again, same situaation on the media. Have you ever seen an unbiased source you apperantly wouldn&#39;t know one if it jumped up and bit you. How reporters vote is irrelevant. reporters don&#39;t decide on content editors do, and owners hire editors. So where are the stats on how owners and editors vote. Certainly not on a fascist website.

Here they looked back to 1964 let&#39;s try a little more recent. Here is an unbiased study on Conservative/ Democrat Election coverage. Lets see if the reporters decide.

2000 Election coverage media coverage:

Pew charitable trust for excellence in Journalism

Positve: Gore 13% Bush 24%

Neutral: Gore 31% Bush 27%

Negative: Gore 56% Bush 49%

Add to this the fact that the Democrats are not on the left but are glogally considered soft conservatives by everyone else, and you get a pretty grim picture of the Right wing propaghanda machine.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 10:24 PM
You&#39;re not rich that&#39;s easy enough to prove. But current evidence suggests you are scum.
Current evidence suggests that you keep repating the same mantras (i.e. "less than one dollar a day" etc.) over and over again when you get in a tight spot, hoping that no one will ever bother to question or analyse the nonsense you push at us. Guess what : You&#39;re shit out of luck.

Like when Eisenhower heard that half of all US soldiers were of below average intelligence, he was horrified, while the rest of us just laughed.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 10:25 PM
I don&#39;t think we should take anything that Professor Moneybags says seriously anymore. It&#39;s not like he&#39;s been taking us seriously. Let&#39;s flame them instead.

I will start by calling PM a drooling money-hungry retarded objectivist coprophile.
I could tell you were getting desperate when you began resorting to subjectivism, but if name-calling is all you have left, then I guess I win.

[Professor Moneybags]

Arguments, evidence, it all doesn&#39;t matter, he&#39;ll be repeating the same refuted points over and over again.

Was this evidence from the same source as the "Koran-in-the-toilet" story ?


Once again he comes with the "they are not POW&#39;s". It&#39;s been said a dozen times, you don&#39;t need to be a POW for the geneva rules.

They need to follow the points I have listed and if these points don&#39;t apply, then they are not entitled to protection. They don&#39;t, so they&#39;re not.


The fuckin idiot doesn&#39;t even know about the protests inwhich millions of Iraqi&#39;s marched for several weeks, against the occupation. It ended up with several hundred protestors killed by US troops. Nor does it occur in his mind, that there are more sides to the story then Bush and Saddam.

Serves them right for having the wrong opinion; they were clearly "asking for it".


- Repeat, repeat, repeat -

Evade, evade, evade.


Why do they deserve to die?

They beat innoncent people to death&#33;

It&#39;s unlikely they weren&#39;t innocent. But then, I have had more than a few insights into what and who you consider "innocent" and "guilty".


The US invaded Iraq&#33; Jesus wake up man.

The allies invaded Nazi Germany. Were the allies the agressors, or the Nazis ?


omfg. I guess anyone reporting anything which can be interpreted as critic on the US is leftist. Actually why don&#39;t you sign up for service in Iraq?

I&#39;ve already got a job, thanks. You ought to try it sometime.

[Black Dagger]

The allies invaded Nazi Germany. Were the allies the agressors, or the Nazis ?

Well technically, the Soviets invaded Germany, but more importantly, the Nazi&#39;s had ALREADY invaded Poland, France etc. They were engaged in a continuous war with the Allies. Iraq and the US were not at war, the US then invaded Iraq. The situations are not comparable.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 8 2005, 03:14 PM

The US invaded Iraq&#33; Jesus wake up man.

The allies invaded Nazi Germany. Were the allies the agressors, or the Nazis ?


I don’t really think there’s a comparison; one was invaded because it was a threat the other because it’s full of resources.

[LSD]

The allies invaded Nazi Germany. Were the allies the agressors, or the Nazis ?

:blink:

Please tell me you&#39;re not that stupid.

The Soviet Union invaded Germany, after Germany invaded them first. Britain invaded Germany after Germany bombed them. The US invaded Germany after Germany declared war on the US and sank US ships.

...remind me again what Iraq did to the US?

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2005, 03:43 PM

...remind me again what Iraq did to the US?
nothing really iraq was bad becase it was &#39;to nationalistic&#39; and had resources the US could use.

[Intifada]

I&#39;m still waiting for a proper rebuttal from any of the cappies.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 8 2005, 03:43 PM
I don’t really think there’s a comparison; one was invaded because it was a threat the other because it’s full of resources.
Germany was full of resources and Iraq was a threat to pretty much everyone.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2005, 03:43 PM
The Soviet Union invaded Germany, after Germany invaded them first. Britain invaded Germany after Germany bombed them. The US invaded Germany after Germany declared war on the US and sank US ships.

...remind me again what Iraq did to the US?
You must have some wierd history books. It doesn&#39;t say anything about
"Britain declared war because Germany bombed it" in any of mine. According to mine, Britain declared war because Germany invaded Poland and decided to retalliate on their behalf, just as the US has done in behalf of Kuwait (which they should have been done back in 91) and on behalf of the victims of Saddam&#39;s regime. Dictatorships have no right to exist, you see.

Or is retalliation on someone else&#39;s behalf "imperialism" too ?

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 8 2005, 03:00 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Jun 8 2005, 03:00 PM)
Monty [email protected] 8 2005, 03:43 PM
I don’t really think there’s a comparison; one was invaded because it was a threat the other because it’s full of resources.
Germany was full of resources and Iraq was a threat to pretty much everyone. [/b]

If dictatorships have no right to exist then why does your government keep overthrowing democratically elected governments and setting up dictatorships, like in Chile. The best way to bring down dictators is for your government to stop sending them money and weapons.


If you think Saddam&#39;s military capabilities made him a threat to invade or bomb the Mainland USA, you&#39;ve just proven how truly stupid you really are. Iraq&#39;s neighbors no longer considered him a threat and were pushing to ease the embargo.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 8 2005, 03:00 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Jun 8 2005, 03:00 PM)
Monty [email protected] 8 2005, 03:43 PM
I don’t really think there’s a comparison; one was invaded because it was a threat the other because it’s full of resources.
Germany was full of resources and Iraq was a threat to pretty much everyone. [/b]
:huh: What? Rice and Powell both said Iraq wasnt even a threat to their neighbours&#33;

"Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn&#39;t even threaten the countries arou
nd it with conventional military power."

Source (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm)

[Professor Moneybags]

If dictatorships have no right to exist then why does your government keep overthrowing democratically elected governments and setting up dictatorships, like in Chile.

Just because a government is democratically elected does not exclude it from being a dictatorship. I don&#39;t agree with replacing one dictatorship with another.


The best way to bring down dictators is for your government to stop sending them money and weapons.

You need to duscuss that with Russia and France, not the US.


If you think Saddam&#39;s military capabilities made him a threat to invade or bomb the Mainland USA, you&#39;ve just proven how truly stupid you really are.

Nowhere have I implied that.


Iraq&#39;s neighbors no longer considered him a threat and were pushing to ease the embargo.

Like Kuwait ? What about Israel ?

[Intifada]

Germany was full of resources and Iraq was a threat to pretty much everyone.

Can you enlighten us with some proof for the ridiculous lie that Iraq, under Saddam, was a threat to anybody?

[LSD]

"Britain declared war because Germany bombed it" in any of mine. According to mine, Britain declared war because Germany invaded Poland

That&#39;s why they declared war, not why they invaded.

But let&#39;s talk about the declaration of war, then. Which country did the US have a mutual protection treaty with in 2003 when they invaded Iraq?

Which country were they comming to defend.

Remember, Britain didn&#39;t declare war on Germany out of "retribution", they did it, ostensibly, to get Germany out of Poland. Who was the US trying to get Iraq out of?


nd decided to retalliate on their behalf, just as the US has done in behalf of Kuwait (which they should have been done back in 91)

:blink:

Whaaa?

Are you trying to suggest that the current war in Iraq was about ...Kuwait?


and on behalf of the victims of Saddam&#39;s regime

Yeah, but as for the victims of Saudi Arabia , fuck &#39;em, right?

Y&#39;all only care about the victims of countries you don&#39;t like.. <_<


Dictatorships have no right to exist, you see.

Riiiight, but then your country supports a whole mess of them...

Can you smell hypocrisy?


Like Kuwait ? What about Israel ?

What evidence was there that Iraq wa preparing to attack either of them?
What evidence was there that Iraq was planning to attack either of them?

North Korea has much greater military capability and has demonstrated far more recent hostility than Iraq ..so why didn&#39;t we invade it?

How about Pakistan? Lot&#39;s of weapons, doesn&#39;t like India, dictatorship. ...so should we invade then?

Your argument makes no sense&#33;

You are advocating that the US (of all countries) has the right to invade any country that doesn&#39;t like it&#39;s neighbours, whether or not it has attacked or even threatened them.

Wow ...just, wow.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 9 2005, 09:34 AM

The best way to bring down dictators is for your government to stop sending them money and weapons.

You need to duscuss that with Russia and France, not the US.

WOW &#33; Simply stunning, some of your "claims".. :huh:


US Selling More Weapons to Undemocratic Regimes That Support &#39;War on Terror&#39;



The report, from the Arms Trade Resource Center at New York-based New School University&#39;s World Policy Institute, says increased weapons sales and grants have been used to reward countries that have either joined what the White House calls its &#39;&#39;war on terror&#39;&#39; or have backed the U.S. administration&#39;s military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United States ranks top among the world&#39;s arms exporters and in developing countries, a majority of its arms are sold to regimes &#39;&#39;defined as undemocratic by our own State Department,&#39;&#39; says the study released Wednesday.


Source (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0525-04.htm)

[Professor Moneybags]

That&#39;s why they declared war, not why they invaded.

They invaded it for the same reason.


But let&#39;s talk about the declaration of war, then. Which country did the US have a mutual protection treaty with in 2003 when they invaded Iraq?

Who cares ? You don&#39;t need a treaty to protect someone.


Remember, Britain didn&#39;t declare war on Germany out of "retribution", they did it, ostensibly, to get Germany out of Poland. Who was the US trying to get Iraq out of?

Back in 91, Kuwait, when they should have finished the job. In 03, they weren&#39;t getting Iraq out of anywhere they were getting Saddam out of Iraq.


Whaaa?

Are you trying to suggest that the current war in Iraq was about ...Kuwait?

No, it was all about Oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil ™.

I&#39;ve already told you that it doesn&#39;t matter what the reason was.


Yeah, but as for the victims of Saudi Arabia , fuck &#39;em, right?

Y&#39;all only care about the victims of countries you don&#39;t like.. <_<

Why, what are your lot doing about it (apart from defending these regimes) ?


Riiiight, but then your country supports a whole mess of them...

Can you smell hypocrisy?

Which part of this did you not understand :


I don&#39;t agree with replacing one dictatorship with another.

I&#39;m not running the country, so how can I be a hypocrite in supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein from power ? The US isn&#39;t right about everything, but on this occasion, it is.


North Korea has much greater military capability and has demonstrated far more recent hostility than Iraq ..so why didn&#39;t we invade it?

That&#39;s on the cards, isn&#39;t it ?

<snip the rest of the garbage>

[LSD]

Back in 91, Kuwait, when they should have finished the job. In 03, they weren&#39;t getting Iraq out of anywhere they were getting Saddam out of Iraq.

That&#39;s a nonanswer.

It&#39;s like saying Germany invaded Russia to get Stalin out. The point is there were reasons that they wanted Stalin out of power, just like there were reasons that the US wanted to replace Saddam Hussein.


Why, what are your lot doing about it

Unfortunately "my lot" does not have any power, but if we did I can tell you we would not be occupying other countries and propping up oppressive governments&#33;


(apart from defending these regimes)

Who defended Saudi Arabia here?

I think you might be confusing us with the US government, they defend Saudi Arabia all the time.

If you mean Baathist Iraq, I ask again, who here defended it?

Alright I think you might be confused by the complexity of the real world, so I&#39;ll break it down to an easy comparison: look at this like Operation Barbarossa in &#39;42 when Germany invaded the USSR. You don&#39;t support Stalinist Russia, but you also don&#39;t supprt Germany. And when Germany invades you are opposed to it, but your opposition to the invasion does not mean that you supported the Stalin government&#33;

And even though you hate the Stalin government you support it because Germany is the bigger threat.

Right now, the US is the bigger threat.


That&#39;s on the cards, isn&#39;t it ?

Really?

Where did you get that idea from?

From everything I&#39;m reading, Bush seems to be looking for a "diplmatic solution".


I&#39;ve already told you that it doesn&#39;t matter what the reason was.

How can it not matter?

You&#39;re saying that the US doesn&#39;t have to justify the invasion and occupation of a soverign nation?

Does that same rule apply to other countries? Does Pakistan need to give a reason the next time they feel like invading India, or should we just trust them?


<snip the rest of the garbage>

The part that you "snipped" was:

Originally posted by me
You are advocating that the US (of all countries) has the right to invade any country that doesn&#39;t like it&#39;s neighbours, whether or not it has attacked or even threatened them.

Do you deny that that is your position?

[Professor Moneybags]

The point is there were reasons that they wanted Stalin out of power, just like there were reasons that the US wanted to replace Saddam Hussein.

Just ones that were totally different in principle.


Unfortunately "my lot" does not have any power, but if we did I can tell you we would not be occupying other countries and propping up oppressive governments&#33;

No, you&#39;d be running them.


If you mean Baathist Iraq, I ask again, who here defended it?

No one here will admit it, but Saddam is not without his friends in the old Labor ranks. Galloway and Benn, for instance. They&#39;re his best buddies.


Alright I think you might be confused by the complexity of the real world, so I&#39;ll break it down to an easy comparison: look at this like Operation Barbarossa in &#39;42 when Germany invaded the USSR. You don&#39;t support Stalinist Russia, but you also don&#39;t supprt Germany. And when Germany invades you are opposed to it, but your opposition to the invasion does not mean that you supported the Stalin government&#33;

It doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re not either. The reasons you have for opposing the war are questionable.


And even though you hate the Stalin government you support it because Germany is the bigger threat.

Right now, the US is the bigger threat.

You consider the US a bigger threat than a lunatic who gasses, tortures amd murders thousands of his own people ?

*Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.*


How can it not matter?

You&#39;re saying that the US doesn&#39;t have to justify the invasion and occupation of a soverign nation?

It&#39;s a dictatorship. It doesn&#39;t have the right to soverignty any more than Nazi Germany did.

Nice bit of context dropping there.

<snip the other stupid questions/comments>

[LSD]

Just ones that were totally different in principle.

Of course there were different reasons, I&#39;m just asking you to lay out what those reasons were&#33;

All you would say before was that the war was bout "they were getting Saddam out of Iraq." without providing an explanation for why the US would want to do that.


No one here will admit it, but Saddam is not without his friends in the old Labor ranks.

Irrelevent.

No one here supports the Labour Party&#33; We&#39;re communists, for fuck&#39;s sake&#33;


It doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re not either.

No it doesn&#39;t, but if you make the positive claim that we support Baathist Iraq, the owness is on you to prove it. You attempted to do so by, effectively, claiming that opposing the war meant that one most have supported the preexisting government. I cited the example of the second world war to demonstrate that this was not so.

Therefore I ask again, when have we here supporting Saddam Hussein?


The reasons you have for opposing the war are questionable.

No they&#39;re not.

I think that US occupation is bad for Iraq and the Iraqi people, plain and simple.


You consider the US a bigger threat than a lunatic who gasses, tortures amd murders thousands of his own people ?

Yes.

Obviously, when he was in power Hussein was a bigger threat to the average Iraqi than the US, but the US is the greater threat globally.


It&#39;s a dictatorship. It doesn&#39;t have the right to soverignty any more than Nazi Germany did.

Really?

So does that mean that India has the right to invade Pakistan whenever it wants to?

Now don&#39;t avoid that question, it&#39;s a serious one. You are claiming that dictatorships to not have a right to sovereignty. That would mean that a country like Pakistan, which is a dictatorship, has no rights to sovereignty in the face of a republic like India ...correct?

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 9 2005, 03:32 PM


If you mean Baathist Iraq, I ask again, who here defended it?

No one here will admit it, but Saddam is not without his friends in the old Labor ranks. Galloway and Benn, for instance. They&#39;re his best buddies.


It doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re not either. The reasons you have for opposing the war are questionable.


And even though you hate the Stalin government you support it because Germany is the bigger threat.

Right now, the US is the bigger threat.

You consider the US a bigger threat than a lunatic who gasses, tortures amd murders thousands of his own people ?

*Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.*


How can it not matter?

You&#39;re saying that the US doesn&#39;t have to justify the invasion and occupation of a soverign nation?

It&#39;s a dictatorship. It doesn&#39;t have the right to soverignty any more than Nazi Germany did.


Wow two guys that means he&#39;s a socialist, we&#39;ll pull an "american citizen" here and ignore the hundreds of labour organizers he had killed.

Questionable? The people of Iraq don&#39;t want you there. A peoples right to self -determination is not questionable.
Yes the United States kills and gasses it&#39;s own people, and has the worlds largest invading army. The notion that Saddam was a threat, the justification given by the US murderers, is rediculous.

Where are the figures on French and Russian arms sales? that&#39;s a pretty serious accusation. The Americans have killed nearly a quarter of a million Iraqi Citizens how many did Saddam kill? The US has killed people in nearly every country in the world, so which should be deemed a greater threat, an aggresser state, who has attacked hundreds of countries in the last half decade or a disarmed mid east dictator who has attacked two neighboring states?

What about the Iraqi peoples right to self determination?

[colombiano]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 9 2005, 03:34 PM

The best way to bring down dictators is for your government to stop sending them money and weapons.


=Professor Moneybags,Jun 9 2005, 03:34 PM

You need to duscuss that with Russia and France, not the US.



Wrong Professor Moneybags.

Promoting Democracy Or Fueling Repression?
Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung
June 02, 2005


Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung are a senior research associate and senior fellow, respectively, at the World Policy Institute at the New School. This article is based on their new report, U.S. Weapons at War 2005, available at http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/r...awjune2005.html (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html).

At a Rose Garden press conference earlier this week, President Bush struck one of his favorite themes, asserting that "the U.S. is a country that promotes freedom around the world." But the reality of U.S. arms sales policy contradicts Bush&#39;s rhetoric.

The United States&#39; longstanding policy of arming, training and aiding some of the world&#39;s most repressive regimes has accelerated during the Bush years. Increased weapons shipments have gone to allies like the authoritarian Uzbekistan and the thinly veiled military dictatorship in Pakistan; and to the Philippines and Colombia, where U.S. weapons and training have been turned against civilians.

These are not exceptional cases.

The United States transferred weaponry to 18 to 25 countries involved in active conflicts in 2003, the last year for which full Pentagon data is available. From Chad to Ethiopia, from Nigeria to India, transfers to conflict nations totaled over &#036;1 billion in 2003.

Thirteen of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world are undemocratic according to the State Department&#39;s Human Rights Report. Citizens in these countries either "do not have the right to change their own government." or those rights are severely abridged. These undemocratic regimes received over &#036;2.7 billion in U.S. arms transfers in 2003.

Under the rubric of the war on terrorism, military aid has increased precipitously, while scrutiny of the human rights and democracy records of recipients has decreased. Foreign Military Financing, Washington&#39;s largest military aid program, increased almost 70 percent between 2001 and 2003-- from &#036;3.5 billion to &#036;6 billion. The largest increases went to U.S. allies in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, including Jordan, which saw its military aid increase by &#036;525 million, and Pakistan, which received an additional &#036;224 million. Military aid totals have leveled off at about &#036;4.6 billion since 2003, but the number of countries receiving military aid increased by 50% between 2001 and 2006, from 48 to 71.

A deeper look at a few U.S. arms clients illuminates the contradictions between President Bush&#39;s rhetoric and the realities of current policies.

"Uzbekistan is an important partner," asserts General Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But, it is also an authoritarian regime with a woeful human rights record and a history of military excesses-including a major crackdown that killed hundreds of civilians a few weeks ago in the town of Andijan.

The relationship began with the war in Afghanistan, when Uzbekistan offered Washington the use of the Karshi-Khanabad air base. In 2002 and 2003, President Islam Karimov&#39;s government received &#036;45 million in U.S. military aid-- more than it had received in the previous six years combined. In addition, between 2001 and 2003, the United States sold Uzbekistan more than &#036;37 million in weapons and services.

The abuses of the Karimov regime are so egregious that even Washington was forced to withhold military aid in 2004. But the aid pipeline has since re-opened. Congress granted &#036;10.9 million in 2005, and &#036;4 million has been requested for 2006.

When the Uzbek military opened fire on protesters two weeks ago, killing as many as 500 civilians, U.S. military support of the past five years was partially responsible.

Closer to home, in Colombia, Washington has granted over a billion dollars in military and police aid, training and weaponry, despite the government&#39;s record of human rights abuses and the military&#39;s continuing support for the vicious paramilitary group United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC, for Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia).

For four decades, Colombia has been engaged in a civil war that has claimed the lives of at least 200,000 people and displaced another two million.

Since the establishment of the Andean Counter-drug Initiative in 2001, the Bush Administration has requested &#036;1.33 billion in police and military aid for Colombia on top of millions in military aid through other programs.

While not the only culprits, the Colombian military and police are responsible for the many of the human rights violations in Colombia, and have the worst record of any security force in the Western Hemisphere. According to the State Department, "some members of the security forces continued to commit serious abuses, including unlawful extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances."

As the cases of Uzbekistan and Colombia make clear, the time to impose greater scrutiny on U.S. arms transfers and military aid is long overdue. The first step towards a sounder and saner arms sales policy is to implement the underlying assumptions of U.S. arms export law, which call for arming nations only for purposes of self-defense and avoiding arms sales to nations that engage in patterns of systematic human rights abuses. Stopping arms to dictators is one of the best ways to promote the freedom and democracy that President Bush claims to seek.

SOURCE (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050602/promoting_democracy_or_fueling_repression.php)


Another source SOURCE (http://antiwar.com/)


We can also dip into the Interventionism of Latin America if you wish.





You consider the US a bigger threat than a lunatic who gasses, tortures amd murders thousands of his own people ?

*Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.*

I in NO Way condone the actions of Saddam however more innocent civilians have died due to the Invasion of Iraq than Saddam ever murdered.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 8 2005, 10:00 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Jun 8 2005, 10:00 PM)
Monty [email protected] 8 2005, 03:43 PM
I don’t really think there’s a comparison; one was invaded because it was a threat the other because it’s full of resources.
Germany was full of resources and Iraq was a threat to pretty much everyone. [/b]
With what weapons and what army? They couldn&#39;t even conquer Kuwait. Turn of Fox now&#33; And think of it, they were in 2003 in weaker then in 1991, because the majority of their army got destroyed and the chemical agents that they had bought from the US expired.

[Professor Moneybags]

Wow two guys that means he&#39;s a socialist, we&#39;ll pull an "american citizen" here and ignore the hundreds of labour organizers he had killed.

Just because he killed off rival socialists doesn&#39;t make him any less a socialist himself.


Questionable? The people of Iraq don&#39;t want you there.

Who did you ask ? Saddam ?


A peoples right to self -determination is not questionable.

:lol: You clown. How exactly can the Iraqi people have the "right to self dertermination" when it is run by a dictatorship that has rigged elections ?


Yes the United States kills and gasses it&#39;s own people, and has the worlds largest invading army.

I must have missed that. When did that happen ?


The notion that Saddam was a threat, the justification given by the US murderers, is rediculous.

Are you denying that Saddam was a threat to his own people ?


Where are the figures on French and Russian arms sales? that&#39;s a pretty serious accusation.

Mirage Jets ? AK47s ? RPG 7s ? Where do they they come from ?


The Americans have killed nearly a quarter of a million Iraqi Citizens how many did Saddam kill?

About four times that, asuming your figure is correct (I doubt it).


The US has killed people in nearly every country in the world, so which should be deemed a greater threat, an aggresser state, who has attacked hundreds of countries in the last half decade or a disarmed mid east dictator who has attacked two neighboring states?

You have a bit of difficulty understanding what makes someone an aggressor and what doesn&#39;t. But then, you are a socialist.


What about the Iraqi peoples right to self determination?

See above.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 10 2005, 04:18 AM
With what weapons and what army? They couldn&#39;t even conquer Kuwait.
Thanks to who ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 11:17 PM
I in NO Way condone the actions of Saddam however more innocent civilians have died due to the Invasion of Iraq than Saddam ever murdered.
:lol: See the post I made to Cormacobear.

[Socialistpenguin]

Thanks to who ?

Certainly not America, seeing as it was them who supplied the weapons to Iraq in the first place. There was even a court order for it. Don&#39;t believe me?
Watch
this (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pilger_breaking_the_silence_35mb.htm)

As for Galloway, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Dude, were you ASLEEP the week he trounced the American Supreme Court, or where you watching Fox News? He said he had only visited Saddam the same number of times Rumsfeld had, except Rummy was there to sell him weapons.

And in what way was Saddam a socialist? That&#39;s confusing, or maybe he&#39;s a socialist compareed to your standards.

As for people in Iraq not wanting the US there, I take the mass protests and insurgency as evidence enough.

Hmmm...your rather dubious meaning of the word agressor is worthy of mention. Saddam posed NO threat to the UK or US. Stop watching Fox.

I&#39;d post more, but tea&#39;s calling/

[LSD]

You clown. How exactly can the Iraqi people have the "right to self dertermination" when it is run by a dictatorship that has rigged elections ?

Again, then, I ask the question, does that mean that India has the right to invade Pakistan whenever it wants to?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 10 2005, 05:16 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 10 2005, 05:16 PM)
Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 10 2005, 04:18 AM
With what weapons and what army? They couldn&#39;t even conquer Kuwait.
Thanks to who ? [/b]
Are you saying that the reasons for war in 2003 were non-existant, because Iraq didn&#39;t pose a military threat? This is contradictionary to your initial stance that Iraq was a military threat to the US in 2003.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 10 2005, 10:14 AM

Wow two guys that means he&#39;s a socialist, we&#39;ll pull an "american citizen" here and ignore the hundreds of labour organizers he had killed.

Just because he killed off rival socialists doesn&#39;t make him any less a socialist himself.


Questionable? The people of Iraq don&#39;t want you there.

Who did you ask ? Saddam ?


A peoples right to self -determination is not questionable.

:lol: You clown. How exactly can the Iraqi people have the "right to self dertermination" when it is run by a dictatorship that has rigged elections ?


Yes the United States kills and gasses it&#39;s own people, and has the worlds largest invading army.

I must have missed that. When did that happen ?


The notion that Saddam was a threat, the justification given by the US murderers, is rediculous.

Are you denying that Saddam was a threat to his own people ?


Where are the figures on French and Russian arms sales? that&#39;s a pretty serious accusation.

Mirage Jets ? AK47s ? RPG 7s ? Where do they they come from ?


The Americans have killed nearly a quarter of a million Iraqi Citizens how many did Saddam kill?

About four times that, asuming your figure is correct (I doubt it).


The US has killed people in nearly every country in the world, so which should be deemed a greater threat, an aggresser state, who has attacked hundreds of countries in the last half decade or a disarmed mid east dictator who has attacked two neighboring states?

You have a bit of difficulty understanding what makes someone an aggressor and what doesn&#39;t. But then, you are a socialist.


What about the Iraqi peoples right to self determination?

See above.
When 90% of the left wing don&#39;t consiider you a socialist, and youdo a signifigant amount of business with the USA, these are pretty good indicaters you&#39;re not a socialist.

No I looked at the millions who said they didn&#39;t, and I looked at all the press that hasn&#39;t been put throught the US conservative filter. What do you base you opinion that they do on?

They can overthrow the dictator themselves. Or in the case we are discussing, they have the right to not be invaded and occupied by a foriegn power.

THe United states has the death penalty does it not? I&#39;ve never attempted to take an acedemic look at those whove been killed in protests or connflict with the state thanks I&#39;ll start researching the facts immediately.

What do you base you estimate of Iraqi casualties on. You see our statements are full of research and proven facts supporting our claims, you&#39;ve yet to provide a single peice of peer reveiwed imperical evidence supporting even one of your statements. You might as well be saying the sky is blue if you don&#39;t have the scientificly acredited evidence.

[Professor Moneybags]

When 90% of the left wing don&#39;t consiider you a socialist,

He&#39;s an embarrasment to you ? Not that appeals to popularity shine any truth on the matter.


and youdo a signifigant amount of business with the USA,

Such as what ?


They can overthrow the dictator themselves. Or in the case we are discussing, they have the right to not be invaded and occupied by a foriegn power.

I&#39;m sure the victims of Nazi Germany would have loved to have you in charge of the allied forces.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 04:58 PM
Again, then, I ask the question, does that mean that India has the right to invade Pakistan whenever it wants to?
Are they any better than each other ? I doubt it. Bush, however stupid, is far more moral than Saddam.

[Professor Moneybags]

Are you saying that the reasons for war in 2003 were non-existant, because Iraq didn&#39;t pose a military threat?

The Taliban didn&#39;t post a military threat either. However, Iraq was bankrolling nuerous terrorist groups, particularly Palestinian ones (as well as several parties calling themsleves "communist").


This is contradictionary to your initial stance that Iraq was a military threat to the US in 2003.

Not to the US it didn&#39;t. I don&#39;t recall saying otherwise. Not that you need a reason to overthrow any dictatorship.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 11 2005, 12:50 AM

and youdo a signifigant amount of business with the USA,

Such as what ?


They can overthrow the dictator themselves. Or in the case we are discussing, they have the right to not be invaded and occupied by a foriegn power.

I&#39;m sure the victims of Nazi Germany would have loved to have you in charge of the allied forces.
selling oil, and buying an army.

You know hitler called the french resistance, terrorists, and insurgents.

At least my country didn&#39;t sit it out to see which side was winning before fighting hitler.

[Professor Moneybags]

Certainly not America, seeing as it was them who supplied the weapons to Iraq in the first place. There was even a court order for it. Don&#39;t believe me?

I don&#39;t recall the US ever manufacturing AK47s and T72 tanks.


As for Galloway, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Dude, were you ASLEEP the week he trounced the American Supreme Court, or where you watching Fox News?

I don&#39;t know if it was just my imagination, but his mannerisms resembled Milosevic&#39;s when he was in court.


He said he had only visited Saddam the same number of times Rumsfeld had, except Rummy was there to sell him weapons.

Keep repeating it. I&#39;m sure It&#39;ll come true eventually. :rolleyes: It&#39;s funny how we never actually see any of these US weapons isn&#39;t it ?

Yes, Galloway was on Saddam&#39;s bank roll (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA16004). You should have seen Tony Benn&#39;s interview just before the war- according to him, the sun shone out of Saddam&#39;s ass and when the gassing of the Kurds was mentioned, he became angry and aggressive and wouldn&#39;t believe any of it. It was pathetic.


And in what way was Saddam a socialist? That&#39;s confusing, or maybe he&#39;s a socialist compareed to your standards.

Denial of individual rights.


Hmmm...your rather dubious meaning of the word agressor is worthy of mention. Saddam posed NO threat to the UK or US.

Someone who gasses their own people are agressors.


I&#39;d post more,

Don&#39;t bother.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 11 2005, 08:06 AM

Are you saying that the reasons for war in 2003 were non-existant, because Iraq didn&#39;t pose a military threat?

The Taliban didn&#39;t post a military threat either. However, Iraq was bankrolling nuerous terrorist groups, particularly Palestinian ones (as well as several parties calling themsleves "communist").


This is contradictionary to your initial stance that Iraq was a military threat to the US in 2003.

Not to the US it didn&#39;t. I don&#39;t recall saying otherwise. Not that you need a reason to overthrow any dictatorship.
The taliban was attacked, because they hosted Bin Laden and refused to hand him over. Iraq was invaded, because they formed a "military threat" to the US. You are contradicting the official reasons for war.

Nor does your argument make sense. Saudi Arabia has far more tight bonds with militant Islamic groups, branded as "terrorist", then Iraq ever had. The same goes for Pakistan. Yet, they were not invaded.

What makes Saddam Hussain&#39;s Iraq a dictatorship and more of a terrorist then the US? Note that the US is responsible for more deaths then Saddam Hussain.

No, there is nothing wrong with overthrowing dictatorships, but the replacement should be a massive improvement. Now the military regime in Iraq, has thus far proofen to be even worse then Saddam Hussain&#39;s dictatorship.

[Professor Moneybags]

Nor does your argument make sense. Saudi Arabia has far more tight bonds with militant Islamic groups, branded as "terrorist", then Iraq ever had. The same goes for Pakistan. Yet, they were not invaded.

They should have been, as should Iran. In case you hadn&#39;t noticed, I&#39;m not running the US so don&#39;t be surprised if the government does something contrary to what I believe in for different reasons.


What makes Saddam Hussain&#39;s Iraq a dictatorship and more of a terrorist then the US?

The fact that it practices terrorism.


Note that the US is responsible for more deaths then Saddam Hussain.

Garbage.


No, there is nothing wrong with overthrowing dictatorships, but the replacement should be a massive improvement.

Uh oh, an imperialist. You will need re-educating.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 600.000 Iraqi&#39;s in 20 years of dictatorship. The US caused half a million deaths by DU contamination and several hundreds of thousands in the two gulf wars. The US "outkills" Saddam Hussain significantly. Plus, add to this that a lot of kills that Saddam Hussein made, would have been impossible or a lot harder without US help. Had it not been for US gas, then Halabja wouldn&#39;t have happend.


The fact that it practices terrorism.

What kinda terrorism did it practice and how is this different then what the US does. Be specific.


Uh oh, an imperialist. You will need re-educating.

Do not spam. If you have nothing usefull to say, then don&#39;t say anything at all. Plus how is my statement wrong? Would you back up an alternative that is even worse then the status-quo?


They should have been, as should Iran. In case you hadn&#39;t noticed, I&#39;m not running the US so don&#39;t be surprised if the government does something contrary to what I believe in for different reasons.

Yet, they support these dictatorships. The US has a very close relationship with Saudi Arabia. Why do you think they do that?

[LSD]

Are they any better than each other ? I doubt it. Bush, however stupid, is far more moral than Saddam.

What, so now it&#39;s about "morality"?

I thought you said that dictatorships don&#39;t have the right to sovereignty. Well, Pakistan is a dictatorship and India is democratic. So, again, does India have the unconditional right to invade Pakistan?

If not, why not since you contend that all dictatorships do not have sovereignty?

[Socialistpenguin]

I don&#39;t recall the US ever manufacturing AK47s and T72 tanks.


You&#39;re thinking a bit too small. Think gas. Think biological agents.


Keep repeating it. I&#39;m sure It&#39;ll come true eventually. rolleyes.gif It&#39;s funny how we never actually see any of these US weapons isn&#39;t it ?

Well, actually, it&#39;s correct, as both Galloway and Rumsfeld visited Saddam twice. Another source to incriminate Rumsfeld is www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html)

You make frequent reference to this interview, is there an online version I could see it please?


And in what way was Saddam a socialist? That&#39;s confusing, or maybe he&#39;s a socialist compareed to your standards.
Denial of individual rights.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: That&#39;s fucking hilarious&#33; That&#39;s the funniest thing I&#39;ve ever read&#33; You must laugh yourself silly writing this, I do just reading it&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol: Ahem.


Someone who gasses their own people are agressors.

Correct, even with US-bought weapons. The thing is, these weapons were sold and used to and in Iraq, I don&#39;t know, a good 10 years ago at least. Also, with the stringent sanctions on Iraq, that prevents them from gathering even the most basic medicines for curable diseases because off a threat that it could be turned into a "WMD", it is very difficult for Iraq to purchase WMDs.

A note to people about Professor Moneybags: He is a raving idiot, do not take him seriously, as you will encourage him. He will drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 11 2005, 01:47 AM


What makes Saddam Hussain&#39;s Iraq a dictatorship and more of a terrorist then the US?

The fact that it practices terrorism.


The US has a far greater record by any definition of terrorism.

Poor Moneybags. :( I haven&#39;t seen a beating like this since I stuffed a banana down my pants and let loose a monkey. :lol:

[Socialistpenguin]

Poor Moneybags. sad.gif I haven&#39;t seen a beating like this since I stuffed a banana down my pants and let loose a monkey. laugh.gif

:blink: :blink: :blink: Is that your idea of a good time? Just kidding. :P :D

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I don&#39;t recall the US ever manufacturing AK47s and T72 tanks.

Actually the US does manufacture Ak&#39;47&#39;s. To the real point, your statement is a totally useless one. If you recall correctly, they supplied Ak-47, RPG&#39;s and other soviet equipment to Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.


Poor Moneybags. sad.gif I haven&#39;t seen a beating like this since I stuffed a banana down my pants and let loose a monkey. laugh.gif

:lol: love the quote.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 11 2005, 12:41 PM

I don&#39;t recall the US ever manufacturing AK47s and T72 tanks.

Actually the US does manufacture Ak&#39;47&#39;s. To the real point, your statement is a totally useless one. If you recall correctly, they supplied Ak-47, RPG&#39;s and other soviet equipment to Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.


Poor Moneybags. sad.gif I haven&#39;t seen a beating like this since I stuffed a banana down my pants and let loose a monkey. laugh.gif

:lol: love the quote.
Let me see. No.

AK-47 is a military full auto weapon. There is no civilian market in the USA for these weapons. So, NO, there are no AK-47 manufactured in the USA. There are SKS manufactured in the USA. These are semi-auto only non-military weapons, these are NOT the type of weapons that showed up in Afganistan.

The AK-47 is Russian or Soviet bloc manufactured.

Let me see? Soooooo, the Russians sold Ak-47 to the US, to be handed over the the Afgans fighting Russians?????

[Socialistpenguin]

AK-47 is a military full auto weapon. There is no civilian market in the USA for these weapons. So, NO, there are no AK-47 manufactured in the USA. There are SKS manufactured in the USA. These are semi-auto only non-military weapons, these are NOT the type of weapons that showed up in Afganistan.



:blink: :blink: Eh? What odd reasoning. Just because there is no civilian market for a weapon, does not mean it is not manufactured. That&#39;s like saying the US doesn&#39;t manufacture tanks because there&#39;s no civillian market for them. And besides, these weapons weren&#39;t meant for civillians, they where meant for the mujaheddin to overthrow the fully-democratic PDPA government in Afghanistan.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

American Ak;47&#39;s. http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models?country_id=5

The Ak-47&#39;s, SKS&#39;s, RPG&#39;s etc given to the mujahideen however were not US produced, but bought from factories in Egypt and China.

The two are not really related, I wanted to disprove his assertion that AK-47 are not produced by the US.

[Commie Girl]

America-Ak 47 Manufacturers


This company has become the largest manufacturer of AK-47 and AK-74 American-made rifles in the US. Since their start AUSA has sold thousands to civilian, police and government agencies.

Source (http://www.globaltrades.com/companyinfo.html)


Dont make statements so easily disproven&#33;

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I like the AK-47, but the AK-74 is a steaming heap of crap.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It&#39;s very good for it&#39;s price. A mob&#39;s favorite choice of arms.

[Socialistpenguin]

Yes, but I hear that the price of the bullets is very costly.

[cormacobear]

Do any of you Remeber the Iran Contra scandal. There are dozens of cases of the CIA buying AK-47s on the Black market.

That&#39;s why they needed the drug trade, untraceable money. Because if Joe &#39;arms dealer&#39; Smith cashes a checque the exact same size as a CIA budget deduction, they wouldn&#39;t have to hold congressional hearings to find these things out.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 11 2005, 05:29 PM
American Ak;47&#39;s. http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models?country_id=5

The Ak-47&#39;s, SKS&#39;s, RPG&#39;s etc given to the mujahideen however were not US produced, but bought from factories in Egypt and China.

The two are not really related, I wanted to disprove his assertion that AK-47 are not produced by the US.
Ok ok ok.

AK-47 made in USA? and the CIA bought them from Egypt instead to give to the Muj?

Why?

With the potential of a FORGEIN supplier spilling the beans of a USA (CIA) customer buying guns to give to the Muj? Would it be much simpler to buy US AK-47s?

BTW full-auto weapons have been very strictly controlled and watched since 1986.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Does anyone know what the Gitmo prisioners eat?

I envision in places that torture prisoners, the prisoners eat rats they catch. You know like the Hanoi Hilton. Are the gitmo prisoners starving? Also has anyone died of dysentery or cholera at gitmo? I envision places that torture prisoners as foul places where gysentery and cholera is rampant. You know like the Hanoi Hilton.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:43 PM
Does anyone know what the Gitmo prisioners eat?

I envision in places that torture prisoners, the prisoners eat rats they catch. You know like the Hanoi Hilton. Are the gitmo prisoners starving? Also has anyone died of dysentery or cholera at gitmo? I envision places that torture prisoners as foul places where gysentery and cholera is rampant. You know like the Hanoi Hilton.
Both are cases of massive human rights violations.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Jun 16 2005, 12:49 AM--> (CrazyModerate @ Jun 16 2005, 12:49 AM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 11:43 PM
Does anyone know what the Gitmo prisioners eat?

I envision in places that torture prisoners, the prisoners eat rats they catch. You know like the Hanoi Hilton. Are the gitmo prisoners starving? Also has anyone died of dysentery or cholera at gitmo? I envision places that torture prisoners as foul places where gysentery and cholera is rampant. You know like the Hanoi Hilton.
Both are cases of massive human rights violations. [/b]
You mean the prisoners at gitmo are eating rats?

Do you mean thier cells are full of human excement and disease?

That is where torture usually happens. You know.

[LSD]

You mean the prisoners at gitmo are eating rats?

No.


Do you mean thier cells are full of human excement and disease?

No.


That is where torture usually happens. You know.

It&#39;s where it often happens, but it&#39;s hardly a prerequisite.

In the twentieth century a lot of first world countries have realized that it pays to have a good "face" when one is torturing. Well fed prisoners with clean looking cells helps maintain a good image.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 16 2005, 05:02 AM

You mean the prisoners at gitmo are eating rats?

No.


Do you mean thier cells are full of human excement and disease?

No.


That is where torture usually happens. You know.

It&#39;s where it often happens, but it&#39;s hardly a prerequisite.

In the twentieth century a lot of first world countries have realized that it pays to have a good "face" when one is torturing. Well fed prisoners with clean looking cells helps maintain a good image.
Oh.

Has the Red Cross and Red Crescent interviewed the prisoners for abuse? How is this information that abuse is going on getting out? After all on the surface it is clean and tidy right?

How do YOU know that torture is going on? Like you said, there is a clean and good face on the surface of it?

Ok no starvation.

Ok no disease.

Then what is going on there? They are prisoners, give me a break. Even in non violent and low risk prisoners there is going to be manhandling, proding, head locks, kicking, wrestling, shoving, and pushing to get prisoners to comply. Is that what you are complaining about? Is that abuse?