Newsweek Lied, People Died

dlowan wrote:

Oh - how interesting - NO chance?

I am inclined to believe you - but I would be interested to see wherre you said therre was nio chance the Koran was mishandled.

I never said there was no chance the Koran was mishandled.

0 Replies

Edited.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Do you think it's time for Tom Tomorrow to do an encore, Mr McTag?

Sure why not. But this is an irony-proof zone. These people are in extreme denial.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Terrorists cut off heads of innocent people, fly airliners into skyscrapers, detonate car and truck bombs next to buildings, and blow themselves up in crowded coffee houses. So the guards at Gitmo mishandled a few Korans. BFD.

This is impressive rhetoric, but you just said that terrorist behavior is a relevant benchmark for how the US ought to treat their prisoners. You think it should treat them better than this benchmark, but still, their behavior is a benchmark for you. Dlowan, I and the others -- the people you call "anti-war-leftists" -- believe that the ethics of terrorists ought to be completely irrelevant to our Western ethics, so that's why we take exception with you.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Terrorists cut off heads of innocent people, fly airliners into skyscrapers, detonate car and truck bombs next to buildings, and blow themselves up in crowded coffee houses. So the guards at Gitmo mishandled a few Korans. BFD.

This is impressive rhetoric, ...

Why, thank you.

Quote:

... but you just said that terrorist behavior is a relevant benchmark for how the US ought to treat their prisoners. You think it should treat them better than this benchmark, but still, their behavior is a benchmark for you. Dlowan, I and the others -- the people you call "anti-war-leftists" -- believe that the ethics of terrorists ought to be completely irrelevant to our Western ethics, so that's why we take exception with you.

Yes, I understand this. Thus my post.

0 Replies

We know that the majority of inmates at Guantanamo Bay are not guilty of anything at all.
They are not terrorists, but they are being terrorised, and abused.
And this treatment is the best possible recruiting device for further muslim extremism.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Oh - how interesting - NO chance?

I am inclined to believe you - but I would be interested to see wherre you said therre was nio chance the Koran was mishandled.

I never said there was no chance the Koran was mishandled.

Indeed - if you read my post, it asks where, while I am inclined to believe that you said what you claim here:

"Now, given that it never crossed my mind that there was a chance there was no mishandling of the Gitmo Korans"

you said it?

I more recall you saying we should not believe terrorists - or alleged terrorists, as you called them later - under pressure, as I reacll.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:
... but you just said that terrorist behavior is a relevant benchmark for how the US ought to treat their prisoners. You think it should treat them better than this benchmark, but still, their behavior is a benchmark for you. Dlowan, I and the others -- the people you call "anti-war-leftists" -- believe that the ethics of terrorists ought to be completely irrelevant to our Western ethics, so that's why we take exception with you.

Yes, I understand this. Thus my post.

Fair enough. As I remember, you said in this post that you want us to get some perspective. How about this for perspective? Every year in America, traffic accidents kill about 15 times as many Americans in America every year, and I think a similar multiple applies for injuries, extremeties cut off etc. By bringing the per-capita number of accidents down to West European levels, America would cut down the number of traffic victims by 5-10 9/11s a year. Thus, increasing traffic safety is a much more important project by the only measure that counts: human lives. Yet nobody declares "war on traffic hazards". And certainly nobody contends that the war on traffic hazards makes any human rights irrelevant.

With this in mind, let me offer this for perspective: Contrary to what people are saying here, terrorism is not really a big deal, and that includes 9/11. There are bigger deals than it out there -- traffic accidents, diabetes, and others -- and the only reason they are not coming through is because they are harder to televise. It has nothing to do with their relative importance. I respectfully submit the perspective that if those bigger deals don't merit decreased respect for human rights -- and we agree that they don't -- neither does the deceptively labelled "war on terrorism".

You, Tico, are about to sacrifice your human rights to a reality TV show. Forgive us for not doing the same.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

We know that the majority of inmates at Guantanamo Bay are not guilty of anything at all.

You know that for a fact? Please provide a reliable source because I know you would never tell a lie.

0 Replies

The USA is the leading country in freedom and democracy, since of course you are guilty until all Republicans prove you innocent.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
... but you just said that terrorist behavior is a relevant benchmark for how the US ought to treat their prisoners. You think it should treat them better than this benchmark, but still, their behavior is a benchmark for you. Dlowan, I and the others -- the people you call "anti-war-leftists" -- believe that the ethics of terrorists ought to be completely irrelevant to our Western ethics, so that's why we take exception with you.

Yes, I understand this. Thus my post.

Fair enough. As I remember, you said in this post that you want us to get some perspective. How about this for perspective? Every year in America, traffic accidents kill about 15 times as many Americans in America every year, and I think a similar multiple applies for injuries, extremeties cut off etc. By bringing the per-capita number of accidents down to West European levels, America would cut down the number of traffic victims by 5-10 9/11s a year. Thus, increasing traffic safety is a much more important project by the only measure that counts: human lives. Yet nobody declares "war on traffic hazards". And certainly nobody contends that the war on traffic hazards makes any human rights irrelevant.

With this in mind, let me offer this for perspective: Contrary to what people are saying here, terrorism is not really a big deal, and that includes 9/11. There are bigger deals than it out there -- traffic accidents, diabetes, and others -- and the only reason they are not coming through is because they are harder to televise. It has nothing to do with their relative importance. I respectfully submit the perspective that if those bigger deals don't merit decreased respect for human rights -- and we agree that they don't -- neither does the deceptively labelled "war on terrorism".

You, Tico, are about to sacrifice your human rights to a reality TV show. Forgive us for not doing the same.

Your reduction of the importance of beheading, car bombs, suicide bombs and flying airplances into buildings, to that of a traffic accident does not surprise me. It is the same logic that says stepping on a Koran at Gitmo is a terrible unjustifiable act but would say nothing about a Christian being shot in Saudi Arabia for carrying a bible. Excuse me if I ignore your logic as being typical of leftist thinking

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

Excuse me if I ignore your logic as being typical of leftist thinking

You are excused. Happy ignoring!

0 Replies

Well, the 'traffic deaths' metaphor escapes me as well (kinda).

Besides, I thought most Europeans traveled by train Smile

Out of curiosity, though, my research found there are indeed some 38,000 or so traffic fatalities annually in the US. There's also some 221 million vehicles -- driving 2.8 trillion miles per year.

I'm not sure how many of those traffic accidents involved thugs wearing ski masks.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Then there are those of us who have only been requesting Newsweek get its facts straight before it prints inaccurate stories. The Newsweek blurb was inaccurate on many levels. That fact hasn't changed.

if you substitute "bush admin" for "newsweek" in the above statement, you have what is irksome to the president's detractors.

and while i agree with you that the, umm, savagery of beheading and bombing doesn't stand equal with making someone sit in the dark or peeing on a book, it is the fact that we have not charged these guys with anything. that is problematic for me. and to continuously hem and haw about guantanamo and how they may or may not be enemy combatants or if they're without a uniform or insignia, therefore, no geneva accords due them, is not only fatuous, but inconsistant with the whitehouse comments that publishing pix of saddam in his smalls does violate the geneva convention. wtf ?

as was pointed out, by dlowan i think, the bush administration loves to play the game, among others, of "deny, confirm and dismiss". it's a pattern that emerged quickly with them. as has the habit of releasing anything controversial late on friday afternoon, such as the current flap.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Fair enough. As I remember, you said in this post that you want us to get some perspective. How about this for perspective? Every year in America, traffic accidents kill about 15 times as many Americans in America every year... With this in mind, let me offer this for perspective: Contrary to what people are saying here, terrorism is not really a big deal, and that includes 9/11. There are bigger deals than it out there

You, Tico, are about to sacrifice your human rights to a reality TV show. Forgive us for not doing the same.

i'm sure you'll get blasted for this one thomas. Laughing

i don't think most americans realize or understand that europe and the u.k. have been targeted by "terrorists" for several decades by middle eastern extremists along with the continuous events courtesy of the i.r.a. i don't that much about it, but i also have read a little about the early anarchists and their love of bombings.

somehow, the oklahoma bombing doesn't seem to register as terrorism in quite the same way.

which, i believe, is why the american public so easily accepted that launching on iraq would "fight terrorism". "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is the rallying cry, right ?

however, this morning alone, two governmental types saying that the american people are mistaken in believing that foreign terrorists are in the majority in the iraqi insurgency.

one of the guys stating this was alexander haig. hardly a liberal by any stretch.

so the "them" that our guys are fighting in iraq is...wait for it... iraqis. an iraqi resistance to be more precise (resistance not really having a good guy or bad guy connotation. it just "is" ).

so i'd have to agree with you that the "war on terror" (gawd, i really hate that term...) is deceptively labeled.

0 Replies

forgot to mention that more than one person in america is ready, willing and able to fritter away their constitutional rights without need these days. Shocked

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

We know that the majority of inmates at Guantanamo Bay are not guilty of anything at all.
They are not terrorists, but they are being terrorised, and abused.
And this treatment is the best possible recruiting device for further muslim extremism.

What?! How can you possibly be assured of that? What utter tripe!

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Oh - how interesting - NO chance?

I am inclined to believe you - but I would be interested to see wherre you said therre was nio chance the Koran was mishandled.

I never said there was no chance the Koran was mishandled.

Indeed - if you read my post, it asks where, while I am inclined to believe that you said what you claim here:

"Now, given that it never crossed my mind that there was a chance there was no mishandling of the Gitmo Korans"

you said it?

Deb, if you read your post, you will find that you didn't say what you intended to say. But to answer your newly articulated question, I didn't say it anywhere. You can't be surprised to learn that I don't write everything I think on the pages of A2K. I am quite familiar with prison guards and detention facility staff, and I am very aware of their propensity to acquire a "bad attitude." It is a natural job for a sadist, after all.

Quote:

I more recall you saying we should not believe terrorists - or alleged terrorists, as you called them later - under pressure, as I reacll.

I did say that, and I believe it to be true. Do you find my position to be inconsistent? I don't. The fact that I'm not surprised to hear there were a few isolated instances of "mishandling," does not mean I must believe a terrorist, even if only a "suspected" terrorist, when they claim mishandling of a Koran. In fact, it appears many of them did lie, or were only regurgitating stories told to them by their imprisoned colleagues.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
... but you just said that terrorist behavior is a relevant benchmark for how the US ought to treat their prisoners. You think it should treat them better than this benchmark, but still, their behavior is a benchmark for you. Dlowan, I and the others -- the people you call "anti-war-leftists" -- believe that the ethics of terrorists ought to be completely irrelevant to our Western ethics, so that's why we take exception with you.

Yes, I understand this. Thus my post.

Fair enough. As I remember, you said in this post that you want us to get some perspective. How about this for perspective? Every year in America, traffic accidents kill about 15 times as many Americans in America every year, and I think a similar multiple applies for injuries, extremeties cut off etc. By bringing the per-capita number of accidents down to West European levels, America would cut down the number of traffic victims by 5-10 9/11s a year. Thus, increasing traffic safety is a much more important project by the only measure that counts: human lives. Yet nobody declares "war on traffic hazards". And certainly nobody contends that the war on traffic hazards makes any human rights irrelevant.

With this in mind, let me offer this for perspective: Contrary to what people are saying here, terrorism is not really a big deal, and that includes 9/11. There are bigger deals than it out there -- traffic accidents, diabetes, and others -- and the only reason they are not coming through is because they are harder to televise. It has nothing to do with their relative importance. I respectfully submit the perspective that if those bigger deals don't merit decreased respect for human rights -- and we agree that they don't -- neither does the deceptively labelled "war on terrorism".

Sure, let's declare war on traffic accidents. How ought we do that? Rolling Eyes

I many lefties think terrorism is not a big deal. That was, after all, the view held by our former President Clinton. Thankfully, our current President doesn't share that view.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:
We know that the majority of inmates at Guantanamo Bay are not guilty of anything at all.
They are not terrorists, but they are being terrorised, and abused.
And this treatment is the best possible recruiting device for further muslim extremism.

What?! How can you possibly be assured of that? What utter tripe!

Utter tripe it's not. It's actually true.

1. They are not terrorists. No charges have been laid.

2. They are being illegally abused, in several different ways, and are being terrified.

3. A no-brainer the next bit, is it not, that such treatment will engender huge resentment through the muslim world. The perception is they are there because of having muslim beliefs, and following muslim teaching. whether that is right or not, it is making the job of recruitment to fundamentalist ranks that much easier. They are under attack. (remember the days after 9-11 in the States? You felt under attack)
You just decided to attack the wrong people. But there were plenty of volunteers.

Utter tripe yourself.

0 Replies

Newsweek Lied, People Died

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know