Guantanamo: the American Gulag

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Angela Harlem said:


I have always admired your steadfast dedication to this topic, but mainly because of the patience and tact you argue your points with. I have no doubt this thread has been reporte already and actions will be taken if they haven't already against the personal slights to you.

But without going into any personal attack, why do you state this, the quoted section? Do you think those opposing it are not seeing it, or do you feel they do not agree with the legal standpoint, the international security, and the moral justification?

I understand why the Bush administration considers the invasion of Iraq to be legal, necessary and moral and I totally agree with their view point.

Many people around the world though don't understand the Bush administrations justification for war or simply disagree with it. I'm not really sure if its more one than the other or a general combination of both. Certainly, the administration could be at fault for not being the best at communitcating its justifications to the outside world which could certainly contribute to a lack of understanding on the part of others. But, media and prevailing anti-American biases may also prevent there from being a better understanding of the Bush administrations justifications for war in other countries. In May of 2005, this does not come as a surprise given all that has happened in the past two years.
 
Dreadsox said:


Shame on those who have to continuously ruin memorial threads.

If you fit the bill so be it.

Oh well thank you, you couldn´t get any clearer. If you mean that I of all persons am ruining threads around here it might be better to take a break from posting in FYM and share my wisdom elsewhere.

Go ahead, have a few more memorial threads, and if you can offer a slight varation in the ongoing dead discussion about UN resolutions

However, I won´t post anymore in threads certain discussion partners create if my presence, criticism and thoughts are not appreciated.
 
Aren't the pair of you grown men?


STING:
I think there's more grey in the opposition, than there is in the support. You might be right about the media and bias, and I do think there is at least some misunderstanding on the administration's justification. This is going to sound terribly naive and hippy-ish, but I do think people are getting sick of wars. Many think society is now advanced enough to avoid it when at all possible. I'd hate to think anyone actually disagrees with the bringing down of Saddam. Peace protesters no doubt also have issues with his rule. That it took another war to remove him is something people aren't happy with. They might also agree though that there was little choice. Sometimes there is little choice. But they wont necessarily be happy with all our troops doing the necessary dirty work. We remember our fallen troops before us, we dont want more in next year's memorials. I know you are very blacvk and white in your approach, but some people just do not like to accept war as necessary. You might call them naive. They might call war barbaric. I'm not sure. I'm somewhere in the middle. I dont like Bush, nor war. I do like Saddam no longer being in power. I was always pleased that would be one of the outcomes of entering Iraq. Frankly, whether he had the weapons or not is almost irrelevant now. Once the US and co decided to enter, it was redundnant. He'd never use them if he had them, and only time would show whether democracy would flourish. It really doesn't have to matter much. The fact that the US authored the resolution allowing entry is also moot. It is like writing your own permission slip at school.
Regardless of all this though, good thjings have come out of it all. It isn't straight forward ignorance to question some of the process though. Or anti-Americanism, I dont think.
 
STING2 said:

4. I'll ask this again, Have you read what the FAQ/RULES of this forum says about infering that someone is a 5 y.o., mentally insane, stupid, or any other similar comments?

Its a pity when any one suffers the consequences of failing to follow the clearly stated rules of the forum in regards to such matters.

Honey, don´t dare trying to badmouth me.

I wasn´t saying or infering you are 5 y.o.
I asked: Or do I have to explain it to you like to a 5 y.o.?

I didn´t say you are mentally insane . I asked you because it is one of many possiblities, I pointed out a few possible reasons, including that this is a mantra you repeat. Go tell me a few more possibilities. I asked for a reason.

I also didn´t say "you are stupid". Indeed, the contrary is true: I told you I think you use quite a simple argumentation technique: repeat until it stucks in the reader´s mind. Quote: STING2, on a personal note I can´t believe you are too stupid to understand that. I think you want to..."

The Nixon one was an actual joke regarding the Deep Throat events. If you fail to understand it, that´s not my problem. But if I can´t talk to you like as if we were drinking a few beers in a bar - and believe me, in live discussions I can be just as provocative as here - then it´s just better if we don´t talk to each other at all.
 
Dreadsox said:


Shame on those who have to continuously ruin memorial threads.

If you fit the bill so be it.

Shame on those who would seek to censor memorial threads, and prohibit discussion.

Shame on those who would malign and slander the motives of people like Hiphop, me, and others who would seek to question on occasion certain US actions, as "anti-US" people.

Shame on those who would close their ears to constructive criticisms of their own countries.

Shame on those who would fail to realise that freedom of expression is non-negotiable.

If you fit the bill so be it.

P.S. And applause and respect to Deep, Irvine, Pax, Verte76, Melon and others who are patriotic Americans but also have the commonsense to realise that constructive criticisms of US foreign policy, do not mean that the person expressing them is some kind of terrorist sympathiser or knee-jerk anti-US person.
 
Last edited:
:lol: It might have been that I started that reply with what might be deemed as an equally immature response when I asked if they were both grown men...Or my history of arguing with nbc over religion (irrationally probably to him (and to me as well, if I'm honest, at times)) in the past...Or I just dont know lol.

I'll, um, leave now lol.
 
In the year 2005, we are, unfortunately, very quickly moving to a moment in time (we're probably already there) where portable technology enables us to destroy millions of human lives in the blink of an eye. The U.S. has had this technology for a long time and has chosen not to use it. But we couldn't be certain about Saddam's or Iraq's intentions. And it turns out that we were wrong - no WMDs. But it was after 9/11 and we had the guts to go in there with or without the U.N.'s blessing. We made the call. Was this a guy that we wanted to trust? No. The bottom line is we don't have the time anymore to wait to find out if someone is the next Hitler or if someone just might be crazy enough to send his henchmen over to explode a nuclear suitcase in New York or somewhere else. And absolutely yes, that is very much defense.

Why has Bush reacted the way that he has? He is not imperalistic. And thank God, the guy doesn't care about what the polls say. He knows that this isn't 1945 or 1990. What he does understand is that we are rapidly heading towards nano-technology. And that is what this is about. Others have their heads buried in the sand. It is the combination of PORTABILITY and technology that is new and quickly progressing. That is the problem and that is what we are smart enough to TRY and guard against.

We are dealing with a time issue here. It's a race against time. We can't look in every briefcase or laptop. In a post 9/11 world, we don't have the time or even a minute to sit around and wait any longer, to hope that the problems and the fanatics within the Middle East somehow work themselves out. That was yesterday's plan, the plan of the last decade, of the last century and that plan didn't work. Time isn't our friend here.

So, it's called freedom. It might not be perfect, it might not work but if there is a better plan, I would love to hear it. Please share it.

And civil liberty? I sincerely hope that all at Guantanamo are treated fairly but if I'm weighing that fear against my fear about another few thousand dead in NYC or a few million - I chose to protect NYC. We might not be perfect in our actions but we are protecting ourselves and considering the lesser of two evils. Once again, this is defense. Every day, I worry about horrific events happening in downtown Los Angeles and downtown Manhattan. Far more horrific than anything that will happen to anyone at Guantanamo.

I applaud our servicemen and servicewomen and our president for leading and remembering the lessons of 9/11.
 
financeguy said:


Shame on those who would seek to censor memorial threads, and prohibit discussion.

Shame on those who would malign and slander the motives of people like Hiphop, me, and others who would seek to question on occasion certain US actions, as "anti-US" people.

Shame on those who would close their ears to constructive criticisms of their own countries.

Shame on those who would fail to realise that freedom of expression is non-negotiable.

If you fit the bill so be it.

P.S. And applause and respect to Deep, Irvine, Pax, Verte76, Melon and others who are patriotic Americans but also have the commonsense to realise that constructive criticisms of US foreign policy, do not mean that the person expressing them is some kind of terrorist sympathiser or knee-jerk anti-US person.

If you think I fit this bill....then clearly you do have not been in FYM long enough....I will now start my day off with a laugh. Thank you.
 
Wow three pages and only one person made a little blip about the actual subject at hand.

But at least we got to hear about resolutions and verifiable disarmenment, I mean it's been awhile.

Oh and we got some personal attacks thrown in there for fun...so yeah I guess it's FYM at it's norm.:|
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Wow three pages and only one person made a little blip about the actual subject at hand.

Hmmmm...Could it be an attempt to divert attention from the fact that a respected human rights organization is lambasting their beloved Bush administration's actions?

Nah, it couldn't be. :wink:
 
pax said:
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that Amnesty is exaggerating or lying.

Actually, the burden is on AI to substantiate a "gulag" claim.

I believe that some have already posted the dissimilarities.
 
While I agree with what AI stands for and respect what they do, it is an exaggeration to say Guantanamo is the American gulag. The atrocities committed by the former Soviet Union are far worse than anything the U.S. has done the last few years with its prisoners.

Having said that, the U.S. has not handled things very well in certain aspects of holding prisoners, and I believe that our leaders directly involved in those situations are to blame.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


Honey, don´t dare trying to badmouth me.

I wasn´t saying or infering you are 5 y.o.
I asked: Or do I have to explain it to you like to a 5 y.o.?

I didn´t say you are mentally insane . I asked you because it is one of many possiblities, I pointed out a few possible reasons, including that this is a mantra you repeat. Go tell me a few more possibilities. I asked for a reason.

I also didn´t say "you are stupid". Indeed, the contrary is true: I told you I think you use quite a simple argumentation technique: repeat until it stucks in the reader´s mind. Quote: STING2, on a personal note I can´t believe you are too stupid to understand that. I think you want to..."

The Nixon one was an actual joke regarding the Deep Throat events. If you fail to understand it, that´s not my problem. But if I can´t talk to you like as if we were drinking a few beers in a bar - and believe me, in live discussions I can be just as provocative as here - then it´s just better if we don´t talk to each other at all.

I strongly suggest you read the Faq/Rules of the forum and what it says about making such personal remarks and then you can explain to the Mods how such remarks are consistent with the rules of the forum. Any personal remarks made in here are supposed to be strictly respectfull. Angella Harlem, a former Mod, has already alluded to the fact that your remarks were not in keeping with the Faq/rules of the forum.
 
Last edited:
Bono's shades said:


Hmmmm...Could it be an attempt to divert attention from the fact that a respected human rights organization is lambasting their beloved Bush administration's actions?

Nah, it couldn't be. :wink:

Right that has always been the tactic of sting, nbc, wanderer or myself.
 
phanan said:
While I agree with what AI stands for and respect what they do, it is an exaggeration to say Guantanamo is the American gulag. The atrocities committed by the former Soviet Union are far worse than anything the U.S. has done the last few years with its prisoners.

Having said that, the U.S. has not handled things very well in certain aspects of holding prisoners, and I believe that our leaders directly involved in those situations are to blame.

One of the most intelligent posts I have seen in recent days.
 
I´m not replying to people on my ignore list. Just for the record, I have friendly and very respectful contact with some of the Moderators here. Apparently those who have attacked me in the last two days and try to malign and slander my motives will have to find another member they can hassle.
 
As to return to the topic:

"Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time," Amnesty Secretary General Irene Khan said.

Khan has the right to use expressions that will grant the cause as much publicity as possible. It doesn´t reduce the importance of the cause. AI is used to bad press by oversensitive American conservatives (only oversensitive when it´s about their pimples, not when it´s about attacking and bombing the hell out of other countries), so I guess they can handle that.

To replace the cry for justice, trials and human rights with a contra-cry for less effective AI publicity is immoral. The discussion whether Guantanamo or a Soviet Gulag is worse, is complete and utter nonsense.

Better be happy that noone said "the concentration camp of our time".
 
Last edited:
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
AI is used to bad press by oversensitive American conservatives (only oversensitive when it´s about their pimples, not when it´s about attacking and bombing the hell out of other countries), so I guess they can handle that.

To replace the cry for justice, trials and human rights with a contra-cry for less effective AI publicity is immoral. The discussion whether Guantanamo or a Soviet Gulag is worse, is complete and utter nonsense.

Better be happy that noone said "the concentration camp of our time".

:up: :up: :up:
 
I do not think that Amnesty International deliberately goes after the US, it is on the whole one of the most balanced organisations out there. I do however think that the media is not nearly as balanced, statements like 'gulag of our time' are taken up without context and sound plain dumb.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
As to return to the topic:

"Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time," Amnesty Secretary General Irene Khan said.

Khan has the right to use expressions that will grant the cause as much publicity as possible. It doesn´t reduce the importance of the cause. AI is used to bad press by oversensitive American conservatives (only oversensitive when it´s about their pimples, not when it´s about attacking and bombing the hell out of other countries), so I guess they can handle that.

To replace the cry for justice, trials and human rights with a contra-cry for less effective AI publicity is immoral. The discussion whether Guantanamo or a Soviet Gulag is worse, is complete and utter nonsense.

Better be happy that noone said "the concentration camp of our time".

Oh, I agree. I just dislike how everyone, no matter what the organisation or political affiliation, uses exaggerated statements to gain that publicity. I hate it when Republicans do it, I hate it when Democrats do it, and I hate it when everyone else does it. I understand why they do it, but to me the truth works much better, even if it doesn't get the same amount of publicity.
 
pax said:

Up Up Up AI's ASS.

If AI believes that they deserve their day in court I support that. I believe I have continuously said throughout the past four years, AI is wrong in trying to classify the prisoners at Guantanamo as POW.

They are not POW's. They are members of a terrorist organization. Our judicial system, while slow, will move on this situation and come to a conclusion of the status of these people. I have faith that this will happen.

I also believe that if there are abuses at GITMO, the court system will sort it out. If AI decides that the words of people coming out of AG, people who were suspected terrorists, belonging to an organization that has commited an act of war on my country, so be it. And trained to cause damage to the reputation of the US, AI chooses to take their word for it.

Calling it a GULAG is junk. Totally JUNK. It is inflammatory and innacurate. Designed to cause political pressure, and trouble when the press just weeks earlier put out a FALSE story.

Just as the people involved in AG, who did abuse prisoners, are being prosecuted, so will the people at GITMO if there is ANY truth to it.
 
phanan said:


Oh, I agree. I just dislike how everyone, no matter what the organisation or political affiliation, uses exaggerated statements to gain that publicity. I hate it when Republicans do it, I hate it when Democrats do it, and I hate it when everyone else does it. I understand why they do it, but to me the truth works much better, even if it doesn't get the same amount of publicity.

And again, a voice of reason.
 
Dreadsox said:

Just as the people involved in AG, who did abuse prisoners, are being prosecuted, so will the people at GITMO if there is ANY truth to it.

Any truth or any proof? I'm not trying to stir, but do you think those at AG would have faced any prosecution if those photos weren't on the front page of every newspaper in the world?
 
Okay, Dreadsox, just in case you didn't know. "Up up up AI's ass" really is totally not appropriate. You're entitled to feel any way you like about AI's statements, but you know you wouldn't take it well if someone said something similar about an institution with which you actually agree.

So cool it, please.
 
pax said:
Okay, Dreadsox, just in case you didn't know. "Up up up AI's ass" really is totally not appropriate. You're entitled to feel any way you like about AI's statements, but you know you wouldn't take it well if someone said something similar about an institution with which you actually agree.

So cool it, please.

Point taken...

That was cooled down from my original post, probably a good thing I deleted it..

Guess I am still steamed beyond belief about things that have been said in here and in other threads.
 
Back
Top Bottom