Only open this thread if you want to know how stupid the 'war on terror' has become.

[eek.]

Didn't think I'd ever bother with a Guantanamo thread again in here either....
It's always reassuring to know that some of the finest minds in the world are involved in this 'war on terror'.

They've been in Guantanamo 4 years now.
The authorities know that they're innocent
The authorities won't release them.

---------------------------------------------------

The US Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by two Chinese Muslims who are seeking release from the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba.
The judges declined to hear their case because the men are due to have a hearing in a lower court next month.

A US federal judge has already said their detention is unlawful, but ruled that he could not order their release.

The pair - both ethnic Uighurs - were mistakenly captured as enemy combatants in Pakistan more than four years ago.

'Unable to return'

The US military determined a year ago that Abu Bakker Qassim and A'del Abdu al-Hakim were not "enemy combatants" as had been thought when they were captured in Pakistan in 2001.

However, the Bush administration says it cannot return the Uighurs to China because they would face persecution there.

It does not want to admit them to the US, and cannot find another country to take them

Beijing has frequently cracked down on Uighur dissidents, who are seeking autonomy in the country's north-western Xinjiang province.

The Chinese government accuses Uighur militants of waging a bombing and assassination campaign, and receiving training at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

The two men have been held at Guantanamo since June 2002. The detention centre has about 490 inmates, 15 of whom are believed to be Chinese Uighurs.

Their case could return to the Supreme Court after the lower court hearing.

Chinese President Hu Jintao is due to arrive in the US on Tuesday and will hold talks with US President George W Bush on Thursday.

Correspondents say the Uighur problem at Guantanamo Bay is illustrative of the complex issues facing the two leaders, but that it is unlikely either side will raise the subject at their meeting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4916784.stm

 

[Masxmenos]

War on "Terror" is kinda hokey. What is even Hokier is that e have now claimed war on a noun instead of a "Nation" (which I guess is a noun too).

Soon we will have a "war on oil" and a "War on Offbrand toilet paper". Should be interesting.

BDizz..

 

[PatPatriot]

They've been in Guantanamo 4 years now.
The authorities know that they're innocent
The authorities won't release them.

Well I know some of the ones they cut loose probably wish they were never let go because tthey are dead now.
These guys were arrested in an act of commiting war,and guess what,there is a war going on.....fuck them they should have been more careful who they associate with.
By the way eek don't worry I'll be gentle.

 

[Masxmenos]

Well I know some of the ones they cut loose probably wish they were never let go because tthey are dead now.
These guys were arrested in an act of commiting war,and guess what,there is a war going on.....fuck them they should have been more careful who they associate with.
By the way eek don't worry I'll be gentle.

hmmm...

You musta missed the title of the thread

BDizzle

 

[eek.]

I get the impression that the geniuses running things couldn't organise a piss in a toilet.


BTW thx for being gentle Pat.
This might be a good time to tell you about this glove puppet fetish I have...
...say hiya to Sooty....

 

[JMONEY+]

I can understand some of the points on both sides here.....but I still have not had one major thing explained to me.

If we are doing so bad at the "War on Terror", then why haven't we had a major attack on U.S. interests since 9/11/2001? I know some think that may be a weak argument, but I think it may just be common sensical.

You would think that it would be really easy for terrorists to attack here with all the ways they could get it done wouldn't you? Maybe we are not doing as bad of a job now as some may think.

Just interested in anyone's opinion on this.

 

[Masxmenos]

I can understand some of the points on both sides here.....but I still have not had one major thing explained to me.

If we are doing so bad at the "War on Terror", then why haven't we had a major attack on U.S. interests since 9/11/2001? I know some think that may be a weak argument, but I think it may just be common sensical.

You would think that it would be really easy for terrorists to attack here with all the ways they could get it done wouldn't you? Maybe we are not doing as bad of a job now as some may think.

Just interested in anyone's opinion on this.

Perhaps my college knowldge could help. A terrorist attack will be inevitable. So just because it hasn't happened in 5 years doesn't mean it won't in the future. We have "added" deterrents however, nothing can prevent 100%.

These attacks take many many years of planning. Logistics need to be in place and when one peice of the logitics puzzle is flawed, the whole operation can be jeopardized. The goal is to kill as many innocent people as possible .

There are also many internal "national groups" that plan attacks too, you being black refer to them prrobably as "those crazy white racists"... the FBI refers to them as "Christian Indentity Fundamentalists (They have to be politcally correct) ... I prefer the former. But none the less they are terrorists and if you read some of their literature it is JUST as scary as these Muslim poo poo heads.

So terrorism is a really broad complex subject. The Patriot Act tries to cover all these areas to include Mafiosos but ends up creating a catch all that "Catches all".

If you had a 24 pack of bud and a few weeks, I would explain all this shit to you.

BDizz..

 

[eek.]

I don't want to sound like Doc here, but you've racked up well over 2000 dead since 9/11.

Once you add in the rest of the bodies from the private sector and wherever else, then you've got another 9/11 as far as the bodycount is concerned.


Now, if we call it quits at this point in time and drop the Liberal/Rightie stuff.

Do you see things improving over the next 5 years, or getting worse ?

Where would you put your dollar bet ?

 

[JMONEY+]

24 pack of Bud sounds good B.....let's get together this weekend and discuss it....LOL

Hey, good info. I do realize that we are vulnerable in many ways and it is inevitable that we get hit again. But, I do think it seems like there were probably a lot of chances that may have actually been successful for terrorists before 9/11.

 

[JoeContrarian]

Bdizzle, have you looked at the detailed chronology of all the attacks on U.S. interests throughout the 90s? This 'war' was not thrusted upon America the morning of 9/11. As controversial as some aspects of the Bush doctrine may be, it's hard to argue with the scoreboard.

Btw, the reason it's called "the war on terror" is because most people can't pronounce or spell 'islamofascism.'

 

[JMONEY+]

I don't want to sound like Doc here, but you've racked up well over 2000 dead since 9/11.

Once you add in the rest of the bodies from the private sector and wherever else, then you've got another 9/11 as far as the bodycount is concerned.


Now, if we call it quits at this point in time and drop the Liberal/Rightie stuff.

Do you see things improving over the next 5 years, or getting worse ?

Where would you put your dollar bet ?

That was kind of Doc-esque eek. LOL

I will not diminish the lives that were lost....but that part was not my point. However, I knew that would get squeezed into the coversation.

I would really like to think that things will get better over the next 5 years, but who knows. I know we have some tough times ahead, but I hope we can handle them well and then move some things in the right direction.

 

[kingbill]

They have to be careful letting guys out now, If I had 4 years of my life stolen because I was innocent. I would do what I could to do something worthy of going away for 4 years. These guys will be pissed, if they weren't terrorists, they will soon think about becoming Terrorists.

:machinegu

 

[studmuffin]

And others who were released because of a "lack of evidence" against them immediately returned to their terrorist ways, kidnapping and murdering innocent people in China.

 

[cussin'it]

Btw, the reason it's called "the war on terror" is because most people can't pronounce or spell 'islamofascism.'

Tell us another story Coulterian, please..

 

[Woody0]

If we are doing so bad at the "War on Terror", then why haven't we had a major attack on U.S. interests since 9/11/2001? I know some think that may be a weak argument, but I think it may just be common sensical.

1941.......2001 is 60 years.

If you don't have one by 2061 you're doing well.

 

[Masxmenos]

Bdizzle, have you looked at the detailed chronology of all the attacks on U.S. interests throughout the 90s? This 'war' was not thrusted upon America the morning of 9/11. As controversial as some aspects of the Bush doctrine may be, it's hard to argue with the scoreboard.

Btw, the reason it's called "the war on terror" is because most people can't pronounce or spell 'islamofascism.'

I probably don't know all of them in the 90's but most yes. In fact when i was stationed in Saudi Arabia at Prince Sultan AB we had a memorial for the Khobar towers bombing. But them you have Kenya/Tanzania, WTC 1993(?), etc etc. And not to mention all the ones on Israel, spain, and England too.

My personal opinion is we have spent less time/money investing on HUMINT and more investing on "war plans". You can hit the wasp nest but you really need to kill the queen IMO.

BDizz..

 

[Woody0]

The Chinese government accuses Uighur militants of waging a bombing and assassination campaign, and receiving training at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

So, since this is a war on terror why haven't they been charged and the Chinese invited to provide evidence. Or is it only certain terrorists that are a problem?

 

[Masxmenos]

So, since this is a war on terror why haven't they been charged and the Chinese invited to provide evidence. Or is it only certain terrorists that are a problem?

America's problem is that we generalized it. We say a "war on terror" however it is a war on "islamafacism" as JoeC puts. Otherwise we would be fighting the Basque Seperatists, The IRA, FARC, The Sandanistas, Marcos and his crew in Mejico, etc etc.

The reason Mr. Danger generalizes it is for safety... today's terrorist may in fact be tommorow's ally. Weren't we opposed to the Nicaraguan terroists in the 1980's with Reagon but so soon we have "forgotten" as they are gaining more power? Very interesting indeed. I wish I could fast forward time and see.

BDizz..

 

[Masxmenos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista

Get yo' learn on!

BDizz..

 

[Masxmenos]

Guide to the Nicaraguan elections
Daniel Ortega
A new-look Daniel Ortega hopes to win back power
Nicaraguans go to the polls on 4 November to choose between a former revolutionary and a businessman whose assets he confiscated, report BBC Monitoring's Charlotte Eimer and Mike Rose.

Latest opinion polls predict a very close race for the presidency between the former revolutionary leader and president, Daniel Ortega, of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the ruling Liberal Constitutionalist Party's (PLC) candidate, Enrique Bolanos.

Mr Ortega, who introduced radical socialist policies when president during the 1980s, is campaigning on a theme of love and reconciliation.

Mr Bolanos, who was briefly imprisoned and had his assets seized when the FSLN came to power in 1979, was vice president until he resigned to run for the presidency.

Turn out

The elections for president and members of the National Assembly may be overshadowed by a low turn out.

A recent report by the International Republican Institute criticized the electoral authorities for their "inability or lack of willingness to ensure the participation of all Nicaraguans in the elections".

Voters
Population: 4.5 million
Electorate: 2.7 million
Universal suffrage at 16
The report said such failings "reduce the level of trust in the electoral process, which in itself already causes concern".

Business leaders fear a victory by Mr Ortega could lead to an outflow of capital and investment, while Washington admits to "serious reservations" that a Sandinista victory could change the strategic balance of power in Central America, to the detriment of US trade and security interests.

Corruption

However, many Nicaraguans criticize the 70-year old Mr Bolanos for failing to fight corruption in the current administration, led by President Arnoldo Aleman.

Parties and presidential candidates
Liberal Constitutionalist Party (PLC): Presidential candidate Enrique Bolanos; Vice-presidential candidate Jose Rizo
Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN): Presidential candidate Daniel Ortega; Vice-presidential candidate Agustin Jarquine
Conservative Party (PC): Presidential candidate Alberto Saborio; Vice-presidential candidate Consuelo Sequeira
In the last general election, in 1996, Mr Aleman decisively defeated Mr Ortega in the battle for the presidency by 51% to 37%.

However, he found it harder to overcome problems like unemployment, now estimated at over 50 per cent, corruption and an economic downturn.

There have also been acute food shortages in many parts of the country, caused by widespread crop failures in the wake of severe drought and flooding.

Economic gloom

Commentators believe that the current economic climate will leave little room for manoeuvre whatever the election result. The situation has been exacerbated by the US recession and the aftermath of the 11 September terrorist attacks.

Among Nicaragua's women, many feel left out of the political process. Women's leader Marvis Jiron complained: "We have no political power of our own".

"We have no participation in the political arenas, the men are the decision-makers. Electoral Law itself favours men, as they lead the political parties," Ms Jiron says.

1996 elections
Liberal Alliance, headed by the PLC: 51 per cent
FSLN: 38 per cent.
Nicaragua is a constitutional democracy with executive, legislative and judicial branches.

The National Assembly comprises 93 deputies, 90 of them elected from departmental and national party lists, while three are held by the unsuccessful presidential candidates.

In total, 19 parties are currently represented in the National Assembly, either independently or as part of an alliance.

According to Nicaraguan law, political parties that do not win at least one seat automatically lose their legal status and must repay government campaign financing.

BBC Monitoring, based in Caversham in southern England, selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages.