I think the point has been missed by both of you.

Guantanamo is/was a mistake - a terrible mistake. That was the point of the debate.
I'm happy to see that America has admitted it.

Trish, the link didn't refer to US Major General John Altenburg. I'd be interested to read more about his thoughts.

And, as usual, when afenton has nothing to say he resorts to low humour.

Get Curious!

It may have been your point of the thread, but is wasn't mine. Perhaps you failed to make it clear!
Only thing that's been made clear is that you can't tell a quote from a frog's ass.

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

Is that an attempt at more low humour?

If not, perhaps you could explain the difference and the relevance.

Get Curious!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa:
I think the point has been missed by both of you.

Guantanamo is/was a mistake - a terrible mistake. That was the point of the debate.
I'm happy to see that America has admitted it.

Trish, the link didn't refer to US Major General John Altenburg. I'd be interested to read more about his thoughts.

And, as usual, when afenton has nothing to say he resorts to low humour.

---

oops. I linked to the wrong story. Try this one.

Major General John Altenburg warns Australia not to accept Guantanamo Bay inmates

As far as the charge of 'mistake'... decisions were made on how best to deal with a terrorising force spreading its frenzied hate filled presence around the world with ever intensifying destruction. Lets put ourselves in the position of the decision makers of the time and ask ourselves, how best do we bring a halt to this evil and restore the world to the path of freedom and security? Guantanamo. The toppling of Hussein and the putting to ground of Al Quaeda. All these decisions have put the world into a more hopeful position. There is a sense of having regained the upper hand in the face of evil forces. And yet for all that, with this regained confidence in our right to speak and to live free, we are nothing but relentlessly critical of everything the US does. Talk about ingratitude.

Thanks Trish.

Get Curious!

Binyam Mohamed, Ethiopian prisoner in Guantanamo:
Refused refugee status in Britain;
Allowed (why, I haven't the foggiest) to remain in Britain;
Arrested in Pakistan, with a false passport, about to travel back to Britain - hopefully, headed for Scotland;
Travelled to Afghanistan "to get over a drug addiction, and also to see if the Taliban had made a better country of Afghanistan".
The US alleges that he: trained at camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan ( he certainly "visited" them) - with Richard Reid, who tried to down a trans-atlantic flight; fought in battles against Northern Alliance forces; intended to detonate biological bombs in the US.

He alleges that his confessions were gained by use of torture - an everyday occurence in many Muslim countries.

Place your bets, please, ladies and gentlemen.
Besides - who cares whether he was tortured or not?

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

"Besides - who cares whether he was tortured or not?"

Civilised people care.
People who repect the law care.
People who dislike sadism care.
People who believe in human rights care.
People who respect people care.

Get Curious!

A guy walked into a bar - he cared nothing for the law, for human rights or civilised people. That man was Binyam Mohamed.
A straight question for you: this guy is intent on killing you and your family - which, after all, is what this is all about - would you ignore evidence gained by torture, if it meant the difference between life and death for your family? Extremists have killed hundreds of thousands of non-sadistic, law-abiding, respectable, civilised human rights-respecting citizens of the world - from Iraq, Spain, England, Scotland, Wales, Pakistan, India, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Germany, Iran, Portugal, the US, Canada, Russia, Chechnya, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Bangladesh, Thailand, China, South Africa, Algeria, Kenya... you get the bigger picture - we're all targets - and you think the human rights of one person, or maybe a few individuals, is more important than the human rights of millions upon millions of potential victims?
You live in Glasgow, and Glasgow airport was targeted by extremists (as you know full well), yet the authorities have received information, by way of torture, that WILL lead to the prevention of an act of terrorism by extremists who are intent on killing hundreds, and preferably thousands of non-sadistic, law-abiding, respectable, civilised, human rights-respecting British citizens; they could include your family members. What are you going to do? Imagine that it IS your family: what are you going to do? Plead for the human rights of Mohamed? Yes or no? Don't tell me it's hypothetical, because the list of atrocities that tell us it isn't is almost endless. Yes or no? I vote no.
A guy walks into a bar and blows himself and everyone around him into a millions bits of unidentifiable flesh and bone - your children, my children, his sister, her brother, or aunt or cousin. You gonna defend his right to do that?
And THAT'S why Obama will do exactly as Bush did.



"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

A guy walked into a bar - he cared nothing for the law, for human rights or civilised people. That man was George Bush .
A straight question for you: this guy is intent on killing you and your family - which, after all, is what this is all about - would you ignore evidence gained by torture, if it meant the difference between life and death for your family?

Here's the difference between you and me: I believe that the more the west tortures people, some of whom may be terrorists, the more the west will be targetted by terrorists.

Yes, I will plead for the human rights of Mohammed and even though he may or may not be innocent, I believe that it is the right thing to do. I will plead for the human rights even of terrorists.

I believe that if we condone torture in order to achieve a particular end then torture will become accepted practice in any situation. And I don't think that torture is ever acceptable.

Does any decent human being condone torture? I don't think so.
Therefore, to my mind, you are not a decent human being. Although I believe you should be ashamed of yourself, I doubt you will because I doubt you understand the difference between right and wrong.

Torture is not just a word.
Think about it.
Torture is all about pain, severe pain, excruciating pain.
That my government condones it disgusts me.

And by the by, in the anger management topic, I am angry not that Mohamed was tortured but that the American government can interfere with the British judiciary.

Get Curious!

As usual, you refuse to answer my question, because you'd lose face. You know damn well that you'd do whatever it took to safeguard your family; and if you say you wouldn't, you're a poor example of a father. THIS I absolutely believe, and THAT'S why you don't answer.
You try to put yourself both with the law and above it. It's YOU who should be ashamed; you say I'm not a decent human being, yet it's me, not you, who wishes to protect not just my family but yours, while all you do is preach justice: where's the justice in doing nothing in the face of fanatics who wish nothing but death for about seventy per cent of the world's population? And what answers do you have? None, as usual!
And, also as usual, you fall for the propoganda which actually furthers the cause and strength of fundamentalism. "The more the west will be targetted". Oh, no doubt, so your answer is to accept whatever they say and do; which is the same conclusions you come to with Israel: Israel should do nothing in retaliation to terrorism, because if they do, they're furthering the cause of fundamentalism. The west is to blame because they don't simply lay down and die.
So when you say, "Here's the difference between you and me", I'm damn glad that Obama will be more like me than he is like you, because he now has the responsibilities that you, from the position of safety that your government and the US government has granted you, can deny your family the protection they should be able to take for granted.
And THAT'S why you refuse to answer any questions I ever put to you: you have no answers. On this issue, I'm with both British and US governments, and as far from you as I can possibly escape.
So, try answering the question, just for once. Let's see you say you'd ignore the evidence. And leave out the pathetic attempts at ignoring it.


Murder is not just a word.
Think about it.
Murder is all about ending lives completely
That my government does what it needs to to prevent it restores my faith.


The man who won't do everything in his power to protect and defend his family - whether above the law or not - is a sick individual.



"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

Your question is so utterly ridiculous that it cannot be answered.

i.e. Here's someone who may or may not have information. I'll torture him to find out.
Oh dear, he didn't have any.
Here's someone else who may or may not have information.
I'll torture him as well.
Oh dear, still nothing.
Ah here are 100 people who may or may not have information.
Torture them all!
Damn, still nothing.
1000 people more to torture.
Whoopee! someone has told us something.
That's a relief because now I can justify all that torture.

Give us a break.

Get Curious!

Such desperate measures to avoid a question; an "utterly ridiculous question". Naturally, you fail to take into account that this exact scenario is being played out every single day, of every year, but "it's a ridiculous question". My, what self-denial you are capable of. The intelligence services have prevented acts of mass murder - as opposed to your petty complaints of one sick individual being beaten up (allegedly, of course) - and did so with the help of those nasty little individuals like the law-abiding citizen you choose to defend being, allegedly, knocked around a bit.
Of course, it suits your silly, silly little post to suggest that the Guantanamo prisoners were all, allegedly, knocked around a bit - you would suggest that.
And the question remains: what would you ignore in the name of your family. The answer, of course, is almost anything; but that would mean admitting you're a fake, so you will never answer that very simple question.
Conscientiousness is with me, Bush, Blair, Brown and Obama, not you.

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

Ok. I'll answer yours if you answer mine.
"would you ignore evidence gained by torture...?"
If somebody told me something I could not ignore it - that's obvious and ridiculous.
That's like saying don't think of a pink elephant. Can't ignore the fact that you're thinking of a pink elephant.
Ridicuous.

Now tell me.
You're happy to torture one person, I know that, but how many will you torture before even you think it is wrong?

Get Curious!

Asa, you've gone up in my esteem: you admit you would ignore torture if you gained from it.
See? it wasn't so difficult.
The trouble is, of course, that by ignoring it, you are condoning it. There are no grey areas.

I'm off back to work, then I promise I'll answer yours; it won't take long.

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

No, there's a difference.
I would not torture anyone even if I knew they had information.
It would seem that you would torture anyone whether you knew they had any information or not.

I cannot ignore something that somebody tells me - which seems to be your disingenuous question. NOBODY can ignore something that is told to them.
So I will not condone torture and if you think that your ridiculous question suggests that I do - think again.

Get Curious!

Luckily for your wife and kids, Asa (since you wouldn't ever, even if your childrens' lives depended on it, condone torture), the common sense brigade now includes Obama. See, either he lied on the issue, te help get His Royal Egotisticalness into the White House, or he's become a wiser man.
You, on the other hand, will always pretend that life and death decisions are to be toyed with - used to give an appearance. Me and Bushy, and now Obama, all realise that life - even yours - is worth giving a fanatic a good pasting for.
Oh, ain't that simple, is it not? How many of those released from Stalag Guantanamo have gone on to commit murder or launch attacks (again) on their release? Certainly more than enough to carry out a few more suicide bombing attacks on Glasgow airport - the same airport that your wife and children have flown from, I guess. Just think: they could've been at Glasgow airport - waiting to fly out to Baghdad to protest against suicide bombings (where the population is still seeing life under a freely elected government [of the people...etc.] as preferable to that under Saddam), when...WHAM! they're scattered to the winds. Luckily for them, information may have been gained from placing a nasty wet cloth over the face of someone who knew something about that attempt to slaughter innocent Scottish civilians; the only 'person' actually killed was a terrorist...uh, sorry: doctor (since he died before he was given a trial).
But you wouldn't condone a black eye in the name of them, would you?

Luckily for your wife and kids, there are the Presidents of the United States of America to make their lives a bit safer. Me, I'm with Obama.

Afenton, at first you made me really upset but then I realize that I can't stand QL without you (like Obama, I am becoming wise and join Afenton/the only right & realistic side). This reminded me of a fantastic TV series 'Heroes' ... at first this President's pet girl (who is apparently been working too hard pushing papers and not being realistic) wants to shut down the confinement that chained up these men/women with special superhuman power. Then she saw what one of them can do, frozen a person and shattered them to pieces - that changed her naïve little mind really quickly!

Come to think of it, we are a cast of heroes.

You could be the Pupet Master. Your super power is controling people and make them think the way you want.


Asa could be this naive fat dude who is way too optimistic in saving the world.


I could be this really stupid good looking guy with no substance ... who put it all together and chics with big boobs dig.

One question though, what should we do with the human rights people?

Afenton, I suggest you move to America and live here for a while before you either endorse or denigrate Mr. Obama.

Oh, so I can't have an opinion on the subject because I don't live in the US. I ain't been to the moon, but I know it ain't made of cheese!
What brilliant debating. No wonder the place is dead.

p.s.
Blown you out, has she, Max?

quote:

Originally posted by Asa:
Now tell me.
You're happy to torture one person, I know that, but how many will you torture before even you think it is wrong?

afenton replied, "I'm off back to work, then I promise I'll answer yours; it won't take long" Posted 02-09-09 06:39 AM