web analytics

THE ANGELS OF GUANTANAMO…

By ATWadmin On August 21st, 2008

Isn’t it REMARKABLE how many innocent men have ended up in Guantanamo? I mean the US armed forces must specialise in only capturing those who have no interest in terrorism and who seem to all manage to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Poor lambs and what rotten luck for them to be interned in the only gulag of our times where you put weight on. Everyone of these Gitmo gits follows the Al Queda instruction to claim to have been tortured whilst denying all knowledge of terrorism. It sickens me the way they are indulged and treated as heroes. Guantanamo must be truly blessed to have such a collection  of veritable angels whose only crime was to have been abducted by thos BAD Yanks, right? String em up.

115 Responses to “THE ANGELS OF GUANTANAMO…”

  1. Ahh so everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and even when proven innocent they are still guilty. Some logic there David.

  2. The story seems to indicate that the prisoner in question happens to be facing the death penalty. What could be the problem with allowing him to provide the Court that tries him with evidence of his claim that his confession was coerced? It is fundamental to basic legal rights.

    I don’t understand how some conservatives who think the Government always gets things wrong thinks they must always be right in this case.

    Give these people fair trials, if they are guilty, they should be punished, if not they should be releassed.

  3. dear RS,

    You sure your real name isn’t Michael Moore?

    These dirtbags are not civilian prisoners. they were captured on the field of battle by the military and are therefore WAR CRIMINALS and as far as I’m concerned they should all be:

    1) Stood before a wall.
    2) Blindfolded
    3) SHOT

    End of story.

    Heck, at least I didn’t suggest the Americans behead them.

  4. >>of veritable angels whose only crime was to have been abducted by thos BAD Yanks, right? String em up.<<

    Since the camp was opened, almost 800 men have been interned there. US intelligence was so good that they subsequently decided to release most of these terrorists without charge and now only 270 remain; a problem that admittedly would never have occurred if they’d "strung ’em all up" instead.
    More than a fifth of those remaining are already cleared for release.

    U.S. officials say they’ll going to put less than 100 men on trial and ultimately free the rest, so if you had your way, David, you would hang at least 700 men against whom US intelligence has no case.

  5. >>These dirtbags are not civilian prisoners. they were captured on the field of battle y the military <<

    You’re telling lies again, Eddie. Only a small percentage of them were capured "on the field of battle". Most were handed over – for a reward – by client states.

    >>and are therefore WAR CRIMINALS <<

    So, from lies you stumble on to non-sequiturs.
    What a goon you are!

  6. David,

    Well, they should be considered innocent until they are found guilty through due process.

  7. Eddie – Even if "captured on the field of battle" was true of all of them, and it is clearly not, how does that make them war criminals?

    Surely fair trials are the least we can do, unless we want to allow Castro the opportunity to say his system is the fairest on Cuba.

  8. War criminals are people who commit war crimes FFS.
    Fighting the US is not per se a war crime.

    (I’m not denying some of them are war criminals btw)

  9. Eddie,

    I disagree with your suggestions. No need for a blindfold for these Jihad scum.

    Others,

    Sorry, these guys were not fighting us in uniform. They were not fighting for any country. They fought us under than banner of Islam. They should be executed under a fluttering US flag. Far too much pussyfooting about on this. I am all for justice and due process but in a war, when you take up arms or in any way try to kill OUR side, you forfeit your life. Simple as that.

  10. David: Which ones were taken on the "battlefield?"

    In any event, we don’t execute enemey combatants in the field. It is against all of our military protocols.

  11. >>They fought us under than banner of Islam.<<

    How do you know? Because "OUR side" says so, right?

  12. Mahons,

    Their luck is so bad, They all appear to have been strolling through remote areas where the Taliban/AQ were trying to kill our guys. Naturally their presence in such locationw was accidental- or perhaps on a humanitarian mission? When you fight terrorists, you kill terrorists. If they are taken alive, they should promptly be tried and executed for opposing our forces. The ONLY mistake that I see in Gitmo is that Bush should have moved to try and execute them all years ago – once we had gained the intelligence from these "innocents" of course.

  13. Noel,

    It’s an inspired guess. That and the fact they all want clean copies of the Koran untouched by filthy western hands..right?

  14. "I am all for justice and due process but in a war, when you take up arms or in any way try to kill OUR side, you forfeit your life. Simple as that."

    Not once you’ve been captured.

    The residents of Gitmo are either: a) prisoners of war – in which case they should be treated as such; or b) they are possible terrorists – in which case they should face due process.

    Which is it?

  15. Presence in a war zone is not a capital offense, and insisting so not only diminishes our own longstanding standard of justice and military protocols. It is a propoganda coup for the actual terrorists that they could never have achieved on their own.

    As I recall, not all of these folks were even taken in a war zone.

    Fair trials is the only way around this problem. And as Noel pointed out some of these people have apparently been released as the evidence against them was nonexistent.

  16. They were all on holiday or a language course exchange. They will go free, you cannot keep them locked up forever. Of course they will finish their holidays and collect their language certificates.

  17. If anyone ever learned the lesson of how to turn terrorists and criminals into martyrs surely it has to be in NI. Even if you want to abandon our core sense of justice hy give them such a propoganda tool?

  18. Maggie,

    You’re right! I think they are all angels though and my only wish is to ensure this status upon them sooner rather than later.

  19. Turning terrorists into corpses is a tad better tha n turning them into role-models. Northern Ireland proves that.

  20. David: Which is why world sentiment favors Republican, not Unionist, interests in NI. When you stray from your core system of justice, you assist the terrorists, not harm them.

  21. Mahons –

    What are you talking about? The republicans’ core system of justice is abducting a mother of ten and putting a bullet in her head for the crime of aiding a dying soldier. It involves killing as many civilians as possible in countless atrocities over decades. Is that why the "world sentiment favors Republican, not Unionist, interests in NI."? Well the world can get stuffed in that case.

    And republicans can forget about trotting out some line about the SDLP and other ‘peaceful’ republicans since they never pass over an opportunity to tell everyone that terrorists deserve to be in government because of all those votes they received.

    That’s republican justice, backed up by a spineless British government which surrendered to a bunch of two-bob psychopathic killers and admitted it to Seamus Mallon, who was told that the government wasn’t talking to them because they didn;t have any guns. Some justice.

  22. Pete
    How come world sentiment favours republicans here in NI?
    Clue: answer the question?

  23. D’oh
    We’re all cheese-eating surrender monkeys
    Percy *slaps* himself on the back of the head

  24. Pete – The world can get stuffed as you say, but look whose sharing power in NI and tell me who is really getting stuffed? What I am talking about is turning a criminal like Bobby Sands into a martyr. What I am talking about is when faced with a serious threat governments who step outside of their own laws undermine themselves, not the terrorists.

  25. Mahons,

    What "the world" favours and what is right are not always the same thing. Killing terrorists is a good thing in my book, capturing them less good. I follow the line that the only good terrorist IS a dead one and whether the world likes it or not is of no import to me. I also think that you need to differentiate between Republican and Nationalist views in the NI context. The "world" seems pretty anti the US these days – is it right?

    I agree entirely with what Pete says – faux justice is no justice.

  26. Mahons –

    Bobby Sands killed himself and he becomes a martyr to republicanism – sorry, I can’t see how ‘we’ turned him into a martyr.

    In any case he ended up dead and can’t kill anyone – good.

    As for what the world thinks, I know alright – the French and Russians and Chinese and countless others are incredulous at our civility and forebearance in the face of psychopathic mass murderers. Most countries of any means would have wiped out the terrorists and half of the republican population.

    And you’re kidding yourself if you think European nations favour republican interests. If NI is torn away from the UK, the black flag will go up in Spain over the Basque region and Catalonia. It’ll go up in France over Corsica and Brittany. Italian seperatists couldn’t wish for greater encouragement. Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany are unnatural states cobbled and held together only by law and not tribal loyalty. These countries do not want a precedent set over here.

  27. David – One of the reasons the world is anti-US these days is the foolish policies at Gitmo.

    As for killing terrorists, that is an abstract consideration. By your position all the Gitmo prisoners would have been executed, even though we’ve come to find that many had no evidence against them whatsoever. That isn’t what we stand for.

    World opinion should not be determinative, but it is a substantial factor and can not be brushed aside so causally.

  28. Mahons,

    Define "world opinion" to me and I will tell you whether or not I think it is substantive or not.

    One of the reasons the world is anti-US is because you fought back after the terrorists attack on 9/11.

    Is the world right to demand US acquiescence in the face of terror onslaught?

  29. Pete – Use of excessive force, misuse of the justice system and selective enforcement of the law deeply wounded British credibility in NI and helped, not hindered, the IRA.

    Same thing here in Gitmo, our overreaching, embracing of Soviet era interrogation tactics and secrect prisons have given the terrorists sympathy they never would have enjoyed.

  30. David – I know your daughter isn’t the only smart one in the Vance family so I won’t patronize you with a definition of world opinion.

    The World isn’t demanding U.S. acquiescence in face of a terrorist threat (indeed much of the World is cooperating with us in regard to that threat). Our standing among our allies in the world has suffered as a result of the misdeeds of this administration, including its extrajudicial efforts which have failed vividly.

  31. This statement proves the idiocy of the left:

    The story seems to indicate that the prisoner in question happens to be facing the death penalty. What could be the problem with allowing him to provide the Court that tries him with evidence of his claim that his confession was coerced? It is fundamental to basic legal rights.

    I don’t understand how some conservatives who think the Government always gets things wrong thinks they must always be right in this case.

    Give these people fair trials, if they are guilty, they should be punished, if not they should be releassed.

    Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 02:46PM | mahons

    As a lawyer this thinking makes sense to Mahons, and if the police had grabed these guys he would be right.

    These people are prisoners of war, they were taken on the battlefield. If you going to hold Miranda Rights and civilian rules of evidence to the taking of prisoners on the battle field you give our soldiers one choice and one choice only.

    Kill everyone, take no prisoners

  32. also I have to ask Mahons where are the cries from the left for Russia to have trials for the Georgians that they are parading around in blindfolds at gunpoint?

  33. What have those ‘innocents’ who were released done since their internment in Guantanamo? Were there not four detainees released to Franch authorities and not heard of since?

  34. Great comments from Pete Moore

  35. Troll – If as you say they are prisoners of war (a status I note you did not afford them previously) then they are protected by the Geneva Convention.

    But I think you just messed up your terms in your rush to kill everyone. Perhaps when suggesting others who have opinions contrary to yours are idiots you might count to ten.

    We don’t have to abandon our standards, are core sense of justice and our military protocols.

    There is an insistence that all of theses peopel were captured on the battlefield when that is apparently not the case. In addition, many have been released with apparently no evidence against them. If things had taken your way, they would be dead.

  36. Mahons –

    I disagree. The misuse of force or the judiciary cannot wound British credibility in NI. You may as well say the same about US credibility in California and Texas and New Hampshire. NI is no less a part of the UK than those states are a part of the US.

    Given the evil intent and ferocity with which republican terrorists murdered as people as possible, we have acted with astonishing restraint.

    You’re not even talking about the easily swayed in your point. You have in mind those who can only be dubious about NI’s status or who are suspicious of the US in the first place and whose opinion, therefore, is worthless.

    There are plenty of dupes in here alone who worship the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah. If how we behave so easily swayed others don’t you think the sheer barbarity of these groups ought to cast doubts in the minds of these fools?

    Of course it doesn’t. Samir Kuntar was released a month ago by the Israelis. His crime was to murder an Israeli father before holding the man’s four year old daughter by her ankles and smashing her head to pieces on a rock. When back in Lebanon he received a hero’s welcome.

    It’s about time these sensitive souls who feel brutalised by Gitmo and Bobby Sands starving himself started looking elsewhere. They won’t and you know it. They didn’t utter a peep when Kuntar was released because these are the type of half-wits who were happy to see him walk free while pointing the finger at us for every damned thing we do.

    Argue about what should and shouldn’t be if you like, but I’m beyond caring what others think.

  37. .. you give our soldiers one choice and one choice only.Kill everyone, take no prisoners..

    And actually Troll that should have been the preference. Leaving no time for the self righteous platitudes of grubby human rights lawyers. It would have been much simpler for the soldiers to have taken the lead in the field of battle.

  38. I don’t see too much action on behalf of Georgian prisoners from the right or left. It is against the GC for the Russians to parade them around in that manner and the international world should be condemning that. But last time I checked we Yanks never believed matching the Russian treatment of prisoners of war was a sufficient standard for us.

  39. Mahons –

    In addition, many have been released with apparently no evidence against them.

    Maybe you should tell foreigners that. They might like you again.

  40. Allan -a fair point, some of those released have in fact proven to be bad characters, some returning to terrorist activities. It makes you wonder what the competence in arbitrary release is going on.

  41. Pete – we’ll have to agree to disagree on the NI point.

  42. We are a nation of laws and civilian control of the military. We do not permit our troops to shoot people willy nilly with little or no justification.

  43. actually I was giving your side the benefit of calling them POWs

    What they are is illegal combatents which in every other conflict were summeraly shot or hung on the spot, but since 5 leftists in black robes confferd POW status on them they are POWs NOT Criminals

  44. Yup. Soldiers follow rules of combat in the field. Assume the justification, apply the rules and pull the trigger. Unless of course every death in Iraq at the hands of US soldiers has been ‘willy nilly’ so far.

  45. Mahons –

    I’d really like to know from the Left, for once, if the Geneva Conventions apply. Let’s have a yes or no from that quarter.

    If it’s no, then enemy combatants (who I doubt are signitories in any case) have no rights under them.

    If we’re reaching to military code and tradition, fine. Let’s also tell the Supreme Court to butt out.

    If it’s yes, the conventions apply and those combatants are POWs, then the conventions allow for POWs to be held until hostilities cease, and this could be a very long war on terror.

    Let’s have some robust thinking from the Left for once.

  46. your asking a bit much from the left Pete. Thinking and facts mean nothing it’s all how it feels that counts.

    They feel they are helping the poor by giving them handouts, never mind that the amount of poor never decreeses, they feel they are serving justice giving rights to illegal combatents never mind once freed they turn around and kill again.

    It made the Lefty feel that he did the right thing, Facts and consequences never play into it.

  47. ‘Kill everyone, take no prisoners’

    Totally agree with troll here. Keeping prisoners just ties up more military manpower having to guard the arab rats to begin with.

  48. William

    Comments like that are wrong and unhelpful.

  49. that is your spin william, My statement was that the decisions of the left offer that as the only choice to the soldier on the battlefield

  50. Troll: Actually I don’t think there are very many conservative members of Congress or the Court or even the President calling for your fringe right position of "battlefield" executions. So your attempts to lay blame for a system of fair trials on the left, while appreciated by them, failes utterly.

  51. Pete – you’ll have to ask "The Left" then.

    I happen to believe the GC apply here, and even if they do not, then the prisoners are still entitled to certain core protections noted in the GC in terms of a trial and detention. For a guy who works himself into a lather over state enforcement of traffic violations you give the State a pretty free hand on this.

  52. Have all the prisoners in Gitmo been taken on the battlefield? I think not. What do the terrorists want most? They want us to abandon our values. It is our values and freedom they hate and some of yo uare playing right into their game.

  53. What do the terrorists want most? They want us to abandon our values.

    Not true. They want most to kill us and to subjugate us,to break our will and to do the same to our friends. Don’t think for a second that they care much about our values and our affection for courtroom antics.

  54. Are all killings in war "battlefield executions" now? That really is lefty spin and a half.

  55. Of course they do Phantom, our freedoms prevent their nihilistic worldview from spreading. They aren’t going to subjugate us, they know that. But if they isolate us, or create a situation where they can portray themselves as the resistance against the great superpower then they’ll grow support among those most vulnerable -namely those populations suffering under the type of systems some wish to impose in Gitmo.

  56. Mark: No. Battlefield executions were called for by Mr. Troll.

  57. Mahons –

    I happen to believe the GC apply here, and even if they do not, then the prisoners are still entitled to certain core protections noted in the GC in terms of a trial and detention.

    If the Geneva Conventions apply then the detainees taken from the battlefield are POWs. The holding authority is specifically forbidden from trying them, but they may be held until hostilities cease.

    There’s your case.

    The invoice is in the post.

  58. I disagree

    The guys with the M16s are keeping their worldview from spreading

    And the leaders of some of these groups think in thousand year timeframes. I believe that world domination under a caliphate is their aim- first gaining control of the Muslim world, then reaching outward to the west to subjugate it.

  59. our freedoms prevent their nihilistic worldview from spreading

    Do you mean the ones we, the West, emphatically showed the world in World War 2? Because if so we seem to have had an adverse effect, what with modern terrorism leaping into the realms of suicide now.

    They are certainly laughing at us.

    What was it Chemical Ali said about our general noble approach to values prior even to Gitmo?

    "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them! the international community, and those who listen to them"

  60. He didn’t mean battlefield executions as in line them against a wall and shoot, as you implied Mahons. You misrepresent him. He meant fight it out on the battlefield fully. Leave it to soldiers. Rather than even consider taking prisoners and shovelling them up into this crazy legal anomaly.

  61. Mahons wants to spin the consequences of his political sides actions. the left has made the holding of prisoners no longer possible by the US military.

    The two options are kill everyone on the field or turn the prisoners over to a friendly nation like Saudi Arabia to hold and question them.

  62. Pete – Since the Mission is Accomplished and the surege is a glorious success (stiffles laughter) I presume then they can be released.

    Mark: Reading the thread in its entirety you will find calls for execution without trial. If Troll merely meant simply take no prisoners as a policy on the battlefield, that isn’t our nation’s policy. We don’t leave these decisions to soldiers.

    And what of those taken not on the battlefield?

  63. No Troll, our nation’s justice system has done that. But you don’t want to abide by it when it goes against you.

  64. I’d also note that the prisoner who is the subject of the article cited in the post was not captured on the battlefield.

  65. He’s an Ethiopian refugee to GB who was arrested in Pakistan. Wonder what he was doing there?

    The only reason this discussion is taking place is because the administration very consciously picked the specific designation of combatant/non combatant status, instead of the traditional POW, for detainees in order to extract intelligence information from them without being monitored or held to GC standards.

    I have no sympathy for any terrorist or terrorist associate enabler, let them all hang. But, many innocent people were rounded up and held for years on little more than an angry neighbor’s accusatory finger, a political enemy, or someone looking to make a few bucks from a bounty fee.

    Since the courts have ruled, let the man have his trial and present his evidence.

  66. No? Iraq has been a bloodbath then.

  67. Excellent Pete

  68. No Mahons the court violated it’s mandate by euling on prisoners held outside the US.

    They were held outside the US for that reason. The court is in violation of of it’s constitutional mandate.

    The Supreme Courts job is to interpret law not make law like it has done in this war. The 5 judges should be removed.

  69. Why not just kill the judges, that is your usual solution.

    In any event the Court ruled and the Adminstration said it would abide by the decision. The other judges disagreed but not one has called for the removal of the other 4 which is about as wacked out a postion as you could take.

  70. you give our soldiers one choice and one choice only.Kill everyone, take no prisoners..

    that should have been the preference. Leaving no time for the self righteous platitudes of grubby human rights lawyers. It would have been much simpler for the soldiers to have taken the lead in the field of battle.

    Indeed Alison. You could create special units to carry out the task.

  71. Pete: I can peel off some of your support by asking you what are your thoughts on the Queen’s role in all this?

    How about this one prisoner. Daphne correctly notes the questionable travel activities. Clearly his travel log calls into question his motives, but he was not captured on the battlefield. Rather he was taken not by US troops, but taken in Pakistan and apparently turned over to the US. Do we execute him without trial. If he made a confession due to torture, do we allow it to be used at his trial?

  72. no the problem with the courts especially the supreme court is not a wacked out position.

    It is a basic building block of the conservative movement that the courts have violated their constitutional mandate.

    If you had studied the constitution in law school instead of case law you might actually understand the seperation of powers

  73. The poor lamb had left the UK and was captured travelling between Pakistan and Afghanistan, trying to resolve his .. ahem.. personal drug problems. That’s his story and it is just one more instance of Islamists laughing in our face as we lack the resolve to do what is necessary. In this case, execution.

  74. David, we have to give the druggie his trial now. The courts have ruled that we can’t execute him before he has a fair hearing.

    Pakistan seems like a strange choice of place to shake your addiction, don’t y’all have free medical detox programs in GB?

  75. Troll – I have forgotten more Constitutional Law than you could learn.

    David: Execution without a trial first? I don’t harbor illusions about the guy, but aren’t we better than mere executioners.

  76. The Courts have ruled on the law. It is the law that says the government can’t just pick someone out, even someone we believe to be a guilty person, and simply execute them without a trial.

  77. unfortunately mahons these critters here are either not smart enough to see your point, or they just don’t care.

    The latter would put them at the same level as those they seek to murder.

  78. Mahons –

    He’s an Ethiopian picked up in Pakistan – the Queen has no concern.

    If you mean what would her role be if he was a Crown Subject, he’d still be under US jurisdiction. If that means he ends up in front of a firing squad, so be it.

    If that Subject served a jail term, the Queen ought to instruct her constabulary and prosecutors to pick him up on return and investigate.

    If he’s shown to have conspired against his country, we hang him.

    Evidence gained via torture is no evidence. What constitutes torture,’coercive’ interrogation or just interrogation is a whole other bag of ferrets, suffice to say that the usual suspects regard a stern look from a prison guard as a psychological terror.

    Before looking at the link the name ‘Clive Stafford-Smith’ came to mind. I first heard of this lawyer 20 years ago when he campaigned to get capital punishment overturned in Texas. He forgot about that when the Gitmo money pot was set up.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case you can be sure that justice is furthest from his mind. He’s a radical activist lawyer devoted to damaging the US via its own legal system. He hates your country and the Gitmo detainees are his Trojan horses in his fight against you.

    His goal here isn’t truth or justice, it’s destroying the ability of the American people to wage war in their own defence by tying up their military in so many legal strictures it cannot operate effectively.

  79. Pete – sorry, the Queen line was a private joke to amuse myself. Consider it a distraction.

    As for the prisoner’s lawyer, I don’t know of him, he may very well be an obnoxious greedy self-promoting sob. I am sad to destroy your illusions but the profession has a few such gents. But his lawyer’s not on trial, the prisoner is, can’t we let him have a fair trial, if he’s guilty he’ll swing.

  80. >>Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case you can be sure that justice is furthest from his mind. <<

    Oh, what a beast, Pete! You mean he isn’t interested like we are in whether this guy is really guilty or not?

  81. Mahons –

    Fine, stick him in the dock.

    What’s bemused me these last few joyful years is how the collective brains of the world’s finest scumbag activist lawyers never seem to arrive at the obvious question – just what have cases like this to do with the US military?

    Ethiopian or not, since when has the writ of the Pentagon run to Pakistan? Let the Pakistanis extradite him to the US if they wish, but if I conspired here in England against France I wouldn’t expect to see a bunch of Frog paratroopers on my doorstep twirling handcuffs.

  82. Noel Cunningham –

    No, he isn’t interested in the slightest. To him the Abduls and Mohammeds in orange jump suits are human chaff worthy only to be used for political ends.

  83. http://www.imgfreehost.com/out.php?i21574_innocent.jpg

  84. Pete – Lawyers representing the prisoners include American military lawyers, and they tend to be among the world’s most conservative people. However, they recognize the importance of the rule of law. We can be the terrorists without resorting to illegalities.

  85. Pete Moore

    Great stuff

  86. ‘If they are taken alive, they should promptly be tried and executed for opposing our forces.’

    ‘Sorry, these guys were not fighting us in uniform.’

    Ill-informed and frankly laughable comments. So in any war all captured enemies must be executed because they opposed you David.

    As regards fighting in uniform, not really up on the protocols of an insurgency or guerilla war are we David. I expect you think the french resistance deserved execution by the Nazi’s, because they didn’t waer uniform.

    Again people on here fail to address the reasons why the USA was attacked on 9/11, one of the priciple reasons being the policies the US follows in the Middle east. You can kill all the bad guys you want, theres always gonna be more willing to take their place. You kill their reasons for violence, we might finally get somewhere.

  87. RS –

    Get up off your knees you spineless grub and say what you think.

    What you think is that 3000 people were murdered on 9/11 because the US doesn’t cut Israel off at the knees and allow its annihilation.

    Say it. Say that you want the US to abandon Israel and allow the slaughter of 4 million Jews.

    Don’t be coy, Leftist fool. Be a man and be honest. Say you want the jews wiped out.

  88. Pete, if you really need that orgasm that bad, say it yourself, record it and you can play it back to yourself all night.

  89. Pete, indeed Israel is one of the ill-advised policies the US would be better adviused to rethink. But my you do hyperbole well.

  90. RS –

    Indeed that early night is an idea your parents should have revised.

  91. Noel, have you lost your mind?

    Pete concisely laid out the current state of affairs, summed up the consequences brilliantly, showed the blind the obvious holes and spanked the hell out of most on this thread with his breadth of knowledge on the topic.

    I would expect you to be raking RS over the coals for his leftover, nasty, trite remarks. I expect better from you, my friend.

  92. From hyperbole to demonstrating his mastery of wit and repartee. This man knows no bounds.

    Daphne if addressing the folly of certain aspects of US foreign policy is nasty or trite, you must hate current affairs, in which case i suggest you throw on another Sex in the City dvd and settle yourself.

  93. >>Noel, have you lost your mind?<<

    Daphne, people are calling for mass killings of people here, including of defenceless and inevitably innocent people.

    Not satisfied with all that blood, when RS suggested that US ME policy was to blame for 9-11, PM said it was because he wanted to see a second holocaust!

    I should think I’m holding my fire.

  94. "…folly of certain aspects of US foreign policy is nasty or trite, you must hate current affairs, in which case i suggest you throw on another Sex in the City dvd and settle yourself."

    If I wanted mass shallowness I would RS, instead I read your remarks. They’re much more entertaining, if one’s seeking simple, bombastic ignorance.

    Since your new here, I’ll clue you in……we’ve all had this discussion about 357 times over the past two years. You’ll excuse my lack of full engagement on the issue, been there, done that.

    Pete Moore and Mahons have the most compelling arguments on the topic, you should shut up and listen.

  95. If the United States are fighting a war against another Soverign Nation then those captured must be treated as Prisoners Of War. When the cessation of hostilities with those Soverign Nations ceased, like the have against Iraq and Afghanistan, then the POW should have been released.

    If they capture people whilst not fighting a war against another Soverign Nation, like the ones captured in Pakistan or since the end of hostilities against Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not Prisoners of War but are civilian prisoners and whilst in American custody have to be treated under the rules of the American Law including the Constitutional protection where by the state will not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

    Those who were captured whilst fighting in the early years of the War in Afghanistan or Iraq need to be released as that war is over while those who weren’t captured in Iraq or Afghanistan or have been captured since the ceaseation of hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, need to be tried and if convicted, punished accordingly, but if found not guilty, need to be released.

  96. Daphne –

    You’re a true lady. Much more of that and I’ll have you dusting off that 10-gallon hat for me.

    Noel Cunningham –

    RS has had long enough to deny it. Not only that, the ‘indeed’ from RS in his 11.40pm gives the game away. For all the supposed hyperbole, I’m right about him and what he thinks is good for millions of Jews.

  97. ‘..if one’s seeking simple, bombastic ignorance.’

    You seem to be fond of labelling others as ignorant or nasty or simple, yet the issue i raised is perfectly valid. US foreign policy needs to be debated, you obvioulsy feel out of your depth with the topic and so resort to playing the man instead of the ball.

  98. ‘RS has had long enough to deny it.’

    To deny what? So to advocate a change in US foreign policy is to now be an anti-semite seeking a second holocaust?????? Utter nonsense, and quite typical of zionists. like I said, hyperbole. Please keep er lit.

  99. Daphne – thanks. I agree, Pete is a worthy adversary, even though we certainly don’t agree. Plus he’s funny. Sorry Pete, I hope the compliment doesn’t compromise you with the more rabid righties.

  100. Noel, I think you’re picking easy allies. Go for the high ground. You are so much better than that – you’re incredibly fierce and quite knowledgeable on these issues. I have very few men from the left that I appreciate for their intellectual acuity, you’re one of them. Please don’t start hanging out with hot-headed baby men.

  101. Whilst I don’t agree with RS on the cause of 9/11, US policy in the Middle East has not helped. It has enabled Islamic Fundamentalists to recruit by listing legitimate grievances caused by the United States. While I believe that 9/11 or a similar event would have happened anyway, the actions of successive American governments made it easier for Al-Qaeda to form and convience young Muslims that their cause was just.

    I also disagree with Pete’s assessment of the situation. There is a difference about complaining about Israeli aggression and supporting Mass Genocide of the Jewish people living Israel. Israel can be put on a short leash to avoid conflict in the area but still not left to the wolves.

    What needs to happen in Israel is for the creation of the Two States. If the Palestianian’s had a country that they could call their own it would lesson the calls of the radicals in Hamas.

  102. Rs, you seem to read selectively. Maybe you should apply yourself to the entire thread before you make asinine comments about me.

  103. "What needs to happen in Israel is for the creation of the Two States. If the Palestianian’s had a country that they could call their own it would lesson the calls of the radicals in Hamas."

    Crap, Seamus. It won’t happen. The Pali’s in charge don’t want it to happen, it would dry up their power and money.

  104. Daphne – set tasers to stun.

  105. seen this on youtube
    Bill o’reilly freaking out.. brill

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE&feature=related

  106. I agree with Daphne (02:01) – The Palestinian Authorities (such as they are) have no interest whatsoever in achieving any sort of "viable two-state solution" in the region. Indeed, the Pal. Gov’t is pretty much just a puppet-show, a front which is funded (and weaponised) by Iran and Syria, with the deliberate intention of making Israel look like the "aggressor", when it (Israel) responds to Palestinian indiscriminate rocket attacks upon civilian areas with carefully selective targeted responses.
    The media laps all this up and reports it as "Israeli aggression", and many fall for its lies.
    And the victims of this puppet-show are both ordinary Israelis and ordinary Palestinians, the vast majority of whom have no inherent quarrel with each other and want nothing more than a quiet, peaceful life, like all of us.
    I pity the poor, indoctrinated Palestinians. If only they would turn their military aggression towards the real source of their slavery (ie, their own rulers) rather than towards Israel (the supplier of their water, energy and crops) then how different things might be…

  107. Feeling full mag tonight Mahons. I despise blind arrogant stupidity. Dumb newbies trying to yank chains they can’t even begin to reach on their pink tippytoes pisses me off.

    They will have to suffer the fire, we’ve all gone through it. It’s easier now, the real tough bastards have retired.

  108. Adios Daphne. Tommorrow, as another Southern Belle said, is another day.

  109. I forgot to tip my hat to the Troll. Both Troll and Pete Moore argued brilliantly.

  110. ‘Indeed, the Pal. Gov’t is pretty much just a puppet-show, a front which is funded (and weaponised) by Iran and Syria’

    Blissfully ignorant of the fact that Fatah is enabled and supported by the USA and Israel.

  111. >>ordinary Israelis and ordinary Palestinians, the vast majority of whom have no inherent quarrel with each other and want nothing more than a quiet, peaceful life, like all of us.<<

    Oh yeah!

  112. Shhh, Noel, the west isn’t meant to see such pictures. Israelis are all peace-lovin hippies man who just want to grow oranges and dragon fruit man.

    I take it the JDL refers to that fine bunch of gentlemen…the Jewish Defence League’

  113. Another one

  114. Another example of friendly settlers meeting their Arab neighbours in Hebron