BF2S Forums Guantanamo Bay Abuse - Revealed at Last

lowing wrote:

America was sound asleep on sept. 10 2001.......we were not in the middle east........so I am alittle confused why you think America taking the offense in this war is "meddling"...If you or they thought that we were going to sit back and get sucker punched for the 8th time you were both wrong.

the hitler card is not over played.it is very relevent to our discussion, and here is why, WW2 took place 60 yrs ago....allot of the people who witnessed it is still alive, the countries involved still exist...So by you telling me America is meddling in other countries affairs today and you wish they would stop........in order to stand by your statement ............I can only draw the conclusion that America was meddling in your countries affairs 60 years ago......are you prepared to say our meddling back then was a mistake? America should have minded its own business in Europe? Let a ruthless dictator take over your country.......You tell me that....and I will concede this whole discussion to you............But I will not let you argue that it was good enough for your country back then but it is wrong for someone elses country today....Too easy to say that when you are already liberated

Afghanistan is defined as in the middle-east, just one post ago we discussed briefly the west "meddling" in Afghanistan when communism had to be battled.
I also believe there was some incidents in Sarajevo/Bosnia/Serbia which also included a whole lot of muslims - those too may have felt agrieved...
I don't know which 7 incidents you'r refering to when you say you "won't be suckerpunched for the 8th time"

Your next statement is interesting to say the least...
You seem to think I'll tag any US involvement as meddling.. Why do you think that? have i expressed that view somewhere?!
Why you went to war is another picture and another discussion altogether. You walked into the European theater even when your beaf were with the Japanese - why did you?
You say: "America should have minded its own business in Europe?"
And I'll say: You/they did? - Do you think it wasn't in the US's interest to get Hitler dethroned?

Hitler had already taken over my country, you didn't stop him - you just went to war aginst him, as did we all... We were in the same boat (which incidently is why it was labeled a World War, which the middle-east conflict isn't)

Let me say it: I won't say that your "meddling" was wrong 60 years ago, I will say that you wern't meddling!"

Going to war is one thing, aiding another country in war is one thing
Trying to impose a totally alien set of rules and guidelines is something completely different!
You can't draw parallells between WW2 and the war in Iraq.

If you introduce WW2 and the way you kicked Hitler down from the throne, what if I introduce North-Korea? Why havn't you done anything about that country?
There's probably a bunch of countries in Africa where people gets slaughtered at some war-lords whim?!
I am, however, content in keeping this discussion confined to the middle-east conflict and different views on it and views on how to end it in the cleanest way for all parties.

lowing wrote:

Friluftshund wrote:

lowing wrote:

America was sound asleep on sept. 10 2001.......we were not in the middle east........so I am alittle confused why you think America taking the offense in this war is "meddling"...If you or they thought that we were going to sit back and get sucker punched for the 8th time you were both wrong.

the hitler card is not over played.it is very relevent to our discussion, and here is why, WW2 took place 60 yrs ago....allot of the people who witnessed it is still alive, the countries involved still exist...So by you telling me America is meddling in other countries affairs today and you wish they would stop........in order to stand by your statement ............I can only draw the conclusion that America was meddling in your countries affairs 60 years ago......are you prepared to say our meddling back then was a mistake? America should have minded its own business in Europe? Let a ruthless dictator take over your country.......You tell me that....and I will concede this whole discussion to you............But I will not let you argue that it was good enough for your country back then but it is wrong for someone elses country today....Too easy to say that when you are already liberated

Afghanistan is defined as in the middle-east, just one post ago we discussed briefly the west "meddling" in Afghanistan when communism had to be battled.
I also believe there was some incidents in Sarajevo/Bosnia/Serbia which also included a whole lot of muslims - those too may have felt agrieved...
I don't know which 7 incidents you'r refering to when you say you "won't be suckerpunched for the 8th time"

Your next statement is interesting to say the least...
You seem to think I'll tag any US involvement as meddling.. Why do you think that? have i expressed that view somewhere?!
Why you went to war is another picture and another discussion altogether. You walked into the European theater even when your beaf were with the Japanese - why did you?
You say: "America should have minded its own business in Europe?"
And I'll say: You/they did? - Do you think it wasn't in the US's interest to get Hitler dethroned?

Hitler had already taken over my country, you didn't stop him - you just went to war aginst him, as did we all... We were in the same boat (which incidently is why it was labeled a World War, which the middle-east conflict isn't)

Let me say it: I won't say that your "meddling" was wrong 60 years ago, I will say that you wern't meddling!"

Going to war is one thing, aiding another country in war is one thing
Trying to impose a totally alien set of rules and guidelines is something completely different!
You can't draw parallells between WW2 and the war in Iraq.

If you introduce WW2 and the way you kicked Hitler down from the throne, what if I introduce North-Korea? Why havn't you done anything about that country?
There's probably a bunch of countries in Africa where people gets slaughtered at some war-lords whim?!
I am, however, content in keeping this discussion confined to the middle-east conflict and different views on it and views on how to end it in the cleanest way for all parties.

All of those other countries Bosnia..etc........also Samolia...........we were trying to stop mass genocide....sorry for trying to interfere.......but seemed someone needed to.........As a matter of fact, America should holds it head in shame for not interfereing in Rwanda.....

ya going to war to aid another country is 1 thing......going to war to impose our set of rules on someone else is another.........<--------huh??........In this case the only rule that we imposed is......."it is against the rules to infiltrate our country and kill thousands of American with commerical airliners into our buildings"...OOPS they broke the rule....

the other problem with your post and your attitude toward us is this.........you say WW2 involved the whole world and that is not the case here............well .....terror in europe, terror in america........terror in the middle east.....terror in South America, Terror in Australia...........Could you pleaseeeeeee tell me again how this war on terror isn't a world war??and way you don't think any of us should combat it???

you see I am alittle fuzzy still how this war is different than WW2 ......Ruthless band if radical leaders bent on the destruction of its neighboring countries and its allies attack many cites, kill millions of civilians, destroy cities, and push its will on other cultures..............hmmmmmmm now, you tell me which war I am referring to

Sure, let me get back to you tomorrow - I'm off to bed right now
Cheer up, it's only a discussion...

RAIMIUS wrote:

The US was involved in the Middle-East long before 9/11.  In fact, we are involved in almost every part of the world to some extent.  Many of our current problems stem from our foreign policy during the Cold War.  The US took the view that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  While this worked in taking down the Soviet Union (for which I am Happy), it left a lot of angry people around the world.  We supported many unjust Dictators in order to combat the USSR. 

Also, I heard that one of Bin Laden's main issues (stated issues anyway) is that the US stayed in Saudi-Arabia after the First Gulf War.

In reference to the US's lack of care about Africa, it is not of vital importance to our future...this is sad, and I wish we did pay more attention to the peoples of Africa, but the US government does not see a large benefit in helping at this time (other than humanitarian aid publicity).  This is sad, but logical.

The difference in fighting terrorism now is that the US is reacting with serious force.  In the past we used small scale retaliation to let people know that we were not happy, or we retaliated covertly.  Now, we are using very public actions to defeat/punish terrorism.

well said

Friluftshund wrote:

You have to agree this isn't the optimal solution (but you have to deal with everyone if your going to deal with one - says so in their culture)

I agree completely.  Violence is never the ideal way to deal with a situation.  It is just that sometimes it is the most effective way.  Also, sometimes violence is better than the alternative.

Friluftshund wrote:

I'll take your "Iran has tried building up a force to conquer Iran" is to mean "conquer Iraq..."
Yes - there is little love lost between Iran and Iraq, they have been at eachothers throats since the muslims broke out of the Arabian peninsula. And your 100% right about the "insurgents" which they arn't - they are mercenaries most of them, they move from country to country looking for work. (read: mamlûks)
I'll also say that I don't give much for what the President of Iran is saying - I'll explain in my next remark.

Yes, yes; and thank you for pointing out that I do not review my texts before I post them.  Iran had been, and still is, trying to infiltrate Iraq to create another religious nation.  They are doing this religiously, militarally, and politically.  By religion, they are sending very religious young souls to 'take over' mosques.  In Iraq, whenever we found a very young Imam, we found him preaching very anti-US sentiments.  We also found Iranian Identification on him.  They also sent military advisors, usually to the same areas, to form militias and even independant military formations, to fight for their religious state.  And they funded a politial faction whose goal is to create a religious state.

Friluftshund wrote:

It's our responsibility... Well - What can I say? No, it's not - we helped them get rid of a dictator, here you go, here's your free country - rebuild it. That's all we need say. But we persist, we want to stay and we want to help, and if they don't want our help - well, they don't exactly have a choice now do they?
As far as the country being lawless, I'll stop you right there - it wouldn't be since they still have Sharía (the holy law) to govern them. And another dictator probably wouldn't ascend because the people now knew what to look for.
"They can only stop fighting when they are weak...Peacetreaty until..." - I'm dying to see where this comes from in the Quran.
Danegeld? never heard of that one - but it piqued my curiosity, what is it?

I disagree, and I think it IS our responsibilty to help create a stability, if only to ensure we don't have to come back in 15 years.  If we left it in a state of chaos, Iraq would have been a breeding ground for more terrorist recruitment, and would create the perfect enviroment for the most violent and viscous person to take control.  Would the Iraqis put up with it?  Yes.  Why?  Because that is how they are used to it.  Hussein shot his way to control, and the Iraqis would unhappily accept another who would do the same, if only because that whoever did it would BE the most vicious person.  Who would stand up to him?

An example of why to stay and help rebuild is Germany.  After WWI, the allies ruined Germany with repaiment programs in order to cripple its warfighting capability.  But they also created an envioment that enabled Hitler to gain influence and power.  And I think the rebuilding programs went pretty well in Germany and in Japan.  Granted, it took YEARS to complete; we are still in early days in Iraq.

As for Danegeld.  In Europe during the times of the vikings, some towns who didn't want their town burned, looted, and their women raped, would set aside a portion of all the towns wealth and put it at a location outside of town.  The theory was that the vikings would come and be satisfied with this offering.  And sometimes, it worked.  The vikings would take the riches and move to the next town.  But then the vikings ALWAYS came back, because they knew that town would be easy pickings.  And if they weren't satisfied with the offerings, they would wreck the town anyway.

Vikings were also called Danes, and Geld is German for money.

Another quote I prefer is "Millions for defense; not one cent for tribute," which is from early American history.

lowing wrote:

Hey Marconius, an update for you!!

you should be happy to know that Tom Fox ( the Christian peace activist ) was found shot in the head with signs of torture by your poor innocent "insurgents". Now, he was tortured to be sure, but I am betting it wasn't near the brutality the Americans have been showing our POWs. You know, burlap bags over their heads and posing.

The koran commands muslims to kidnap people.

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5).

Looks like he didn't repent and they killed him...

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Friluftshund wrote:

All they want is to preserve their own way of life and happiness from our interference.
^^ that's the opposite side of your claim.

First of all we should try to find out why they are doing what they are doing, could it be they are raging against what they perceive as an attack on them?
If so, what would happen if we stopped attacking? This is a solution which really hasn't been explored fully. take Iraq for example: "We need to stay and finish the job" <---- admirable quote, but why? Why do we need to stay there and further aggravate things?

I'm no fortune-lady, but who is to say that if we all pull out of Iraq and let them be happy isn't the way to go?

Will that mean they have won???
First of all: so what?! What if they "win"? Can't we swallow some pride in order to stop the war?
Second: It might not necesarily mean they win, it could mean that we'll stop losing people.

You need to get your head out of your ass.

The Qur'an tells muslims to kill and go to war to fight for Islam:  Quran, chapters (Surahs) 9:5; 2:191; 2:193; 3:118; 4:75,76; 5:33, 8:12; 8:65; 9:73,123; 33:60-62. 

"Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens..." (Quran 47:4).

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)," (Quran 9:123).

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful," (Quran 9:5).

"O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand," (Quran 8:65).

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers, (Quran 2:191).

Nice - quote me some verses that preach peace and respect please..

imortal wrote:

I agree completely.  Violence is never the ideal way to deal with a situation.  It is just that sometimes it is the most effective way.  Also, sometimes violence is better than the alternative.

It is almost, almosty never an effective way - It will almost always come back to bite you in the ass...

imortal wrote:

Yes, yes; and thank you for pointing out that I do not review my texts before I post them.  Iran had been, and still is, trying to infiltrate Iraq to create another religious nation.  They are doing this religiously, militarally, and politically.  By religion, they are sending very religious young souls to 'take over' mosques.  In Iraq, whenever we found a very young Imam, we found him preaching very anti-US sentiments.  We also found Iranian Identification on him.  They also sent military advisors, usually to the same areas, to form militias and even independant military formations, to fight for their religious state.  And they funded a politial faction whose goal is to create a religious state.

Yes, I'll wager they did - and if Iraquis wern't preoccupied with whatever, they might just kick them out, as they don't like eachother very much.

imortal wrote:

I disagree, and I think it IS our responsibilty to help create a stability, if only to ensure we don't have to come back in 15 years.  If we left it in a state of chaos, Iraq would have been a breeding ground for more terrorist recruitment, and would create the perfect enviroment for the most violent and viscous person to take control.  Would the Iraqis put up with it?  Yes.  Why?  Because that is how they are used to it.  Hussein shot his way to control, and the Iraqis would unhappily accept another who would do the same, if only because that whoever did it would BE the most vicious person.  Who would stand up to him?

Why would they need to recruit terrorists if they didn't have anything/anyone to terrorise? Sure, thay took Saddam lying down, and probably would another, it was utopia of me to think a benign leader would suddenly emerge and steer them towards peace and the global village.
However - US presence in Iraq to ensure stability is an oxymoron, US presence in Iraq is part of why there is instability.
And a further response to your statement about Iran trying to create a new religious state in Iraq. They will succeed more rapidly as long as there are western soildiers in Iraq. You know - uniting against a common enemy? Sad fact, but very often it's good if they'd just carried on with civil war. Innocents would suffer yes, but so do they today, the main reason is that they would be too preoccupied with eachother to be able to wage war on us..

imortal wrote:

An example of why to stay and help rebuild is Germany.  After WWI, the allies ruined Germany with repaiment programs in order to cripple its warfighting capability.  But they also created an envioment that enabled Hitler to gain influence and power.  And I think the rebuilding programs went pretty well in Germany and in Japan.  Granted, it took YEARS to complete; we are still in early days in Iraq.

That's not factoring in that Germany had/has very similar culture to the rest of the west, Iraq does not...

imortal wrote:

As for Danegeld.  In Europe during the times of the vikings, some towns who didn't want their town burned, looted, and their women raped, would set aside a portion of all the towns wealth and put it at a location outside of town.  The theory was that the vikings would come and be satisfied with this offering.  And sometimes, it worked.  The vikings would take the riches and move to the next town.  But then the vikings ALWAYS came back, because they knew that town would be easy pickings.  And if they weren't satisfied with the offerings, they would wreck the town anyway.

Vikings were also called Danes, and Geld is German for money.

Nice, didn't know that.. I did susoect it had something to do with danes yes - those pesky danes

imortal wrote:

Another quote I prefer is "Millions for defense; not one cent for tribute," which is from early American history.

How about "All my money for diplomacy"?

Friluftshund wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

lowing wrote:

Hey Marconius, an update for you!!

you should be happy to know that Tom Fox ( the Christian peace activist ) was found shot in the head with signs of torture by your poor innocent "insurgents". Now, he was tortured to be sure, but I am betting it wasn't near the brutality the Americans have been showing our POWs. You know, burlap bags over their heads and posing.

The koran commands muslims to kidnap people.

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5).

Looks like he didn't repent and they killed him...

Hm.. They killed him, an innocent man - whoops! Straight to hell with them...

how dare you ! You will be censored for sure

Friluftshund wrote:

That's right, you can - but given your attitude here I'd venture to say you wern't "taking the piss"

It's neither here nor there for you to 'venture to say' anything. You're the underdog here. It's entirely reasonable to 'take the piss' out of something without hating it. Bald men, fat people, people who drive sports cars, etc, etc, etc are routinely lampooned and laughed at without being hated.

Friluftshund wrote:

Nice interpretation of what I said - Muhammad isn't a terrorist, he's dead...

To quote myself, "Muhammad WAS [ie. past tense] indeed a terrorist. He WAS the first Muslim terrorist. Refer to the Hadiths for evidence."

Friluftshund wrote:

- Xanthpi--> Immigrants show respect for the country that takes them by either staying and adapting or by leaving. The host does not alter to suit the immigrants at the expense of it's original citizens.
- Friluftshund---> By "altering and adapting" we can all learn and be better for it
- Xanthpi---> Yes you're absolutely right. Putting restrictions on free speech is always a good thing. Not.
There is no logical link between being able to learn from others and to putting restrictions on free speech

The host country does not benefit by adapting to Dark Ages practices such as Islamic Law, stoning and polygamy. Or restrivting free speech (which is what Muslims want). The inferior-culture-people adapt to the superior culture, not the other way around.

Friluftshund wrote:

It doesn't work that way, better you realize it now. And your teaching of Islam isn't worth shit.

It's neither here nor there what you may or may not think. Facts are not changed by individual opinion.

Friluftshund wrote:

Great, then do a little investigative research and locate where you saw it, because I think your either lying, or there's more to the story than what you claim.

It's neither here nor there whether or not you think I'm lying. You do not change facts by believing them to be lies.

Friluftshund wrote:

Why?

If you were clever AND honest, you'd not only be able to learn about Islam but you'd be honest about it too and we wouldn't be here arguing.

Friluftshund wrote:

Why?

So that they can learn about Islam and then may understand the nature of the threat.

Friluftshund wrote:

Yeah, we'll be alright - and you'r welcome to follow.

Why thankyou.

herrr_smity wrote:

it was a response to this
You don't know what I know or don't know about Islam, your assuming..
You don't know what I know or don't know about my own country, your assuming..
When you state something you prove it, simple as that - otherwise, you'll just have pulled it out of your ass.

I don't need to prove it by posting links. The truth of any matter is not affected in any way by the posting or otherwise of links. Like I've said a million times - go and read the Qur'an and Hadiths. Everything you need to know is contained within.

herrr_smity wrote:

And directing my attention towards a bunch of blogs? I wouldn't be surprised if that's where you got your info from as it's horrendously one-sided, and in many places misguiding and wrong.

But hey - whatever floats your boat..

Well you'll have to stay ignorant then.

Friluftshund wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

iphtnax wrote:

I never saw that site before but it was a good find. I skimmed through it and it seemed to be accurate. Everyone should read it. All the bits I read can be backed up by reference to the Qur'an and Hadiths.

lol how about this then                 
http://archives.usemycomputer.com/index … piracy.jpg
my ridicule of you didnt seem to Cathe on

Jævlig bra!

This is the internet, not Scandinavia. So speak internet language.

herrr_smity wrote:

what about the 10,000 Iraqi's who died during the war. are there blood worth less then american blood

Well compared to the 50,000 Iraqis which were dying [by torture and execution] under Saddam, according to your own figure of 10,000, that's a net saving of 140,000 Iraqi lives since the war began.

dude, next time one post ok.