A Larger Problem and an Old Problem

[SOS2008]

I've got to admit that I have looked high and low based on the whole 'quote', sentences and phrases and can't find a single reference.

Informal Logic, do you have a link?

TSM - I posted this with a link in a thread (before you started participating in PF). Without resources of how to find my original post now, I did some googling again and though various web sites make more direct reference, I found this from a reliable source:

Rice told Biden that although there were some "bad decisions," the end result is the measuring stick to use against the administration's decisions.

"I know enough about history to stand back and recognize that you judge decisions not in the moment, but how it all adds up," she said. "It's how Iraq turns out that ultimately matters."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/rice.confirmation/

Close "enough for government work" and in view of apparent unavailability of full transcripts, and debate regarding edited transcripts of The Condi Rice Secretary of State-Designate Hearings:

NYT Editorial Board: Anyone who watched the delicate rinse cycle applied to Condoleezza Rice by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, despite a jab here and there, could be forgiven for thinking that the future secretary of state was a newcomer to the Bush administration. With a few exceptions, the hearing was political theater.

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/opinion/19wed1.html&OP=56c151d2Q2Fw.cUwQ60Q25YuDQ25Q25ftwt007w0Q24wQ24mwQ25GQ7ErQ7EQ25rwQ24m.cQ60Q24qQ51f3i

Suffice to say, and I quote a remark by Senator Boxer: "Rice‘s loyalty to the mission of selling the Iraq war overwhelmed her respect for the truth."

 

[The Smoking Man]

Close "enough for government work" and in view of apparent unavailability of full transcripts, and debate regarding edited transcripts of The Condi Rice Secretary of State-Designate Hearings:

I think most people around here took exception to the fact that the original post when it says they were QUOTING Rice however what seems to have happened then is a very liberal 'paraphrase'.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Fair enough, I accept this comment but I still fail to agree with you.

Wrong. The Americans, and I keep reiterating this, would not blow themselves up! you persist on stating that these terrorists "defend" their country. They are committing terrorism in the name of their religion. Perverted ideologies cannot be seen as defending the country.

Damn right, I declare all of those who collude with Bin Laden as martyrs and terrorists.

Huh?

We're talking about the people interred in Guantanamo bay, right?

What do they have to do with suicide bombers?

Some of the stories have stated that these people just returned fire when fired upon. They didn't even know who they were firing back against because the force failed to identify itself.

I think alexandra has proved to you the exact type of person who is interred there along with the 'legitimate' terrorists.

You say they are all 'suicide bombers' and yet the flaw in that theory is that ... they are all alive. These people were merely caught returning fire or being in close proximity to those who did.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

We're talking about the people interred in Guantanamo bay, right?

What do they have to do with suicide bombers?

The problem with your examples, Guantanamo especially, is that it barely addresses the current issues, despite some terrorism being present nonetheless. I speak of terrorism as in general, in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

The Smoking Man

Some of the stories have stated that these people just returned fire when fired upon. They didn't even know who they were firing back against because the force failed to identify itself.

You once wrote in this thread that my bias was beginning to show, I'm also beginning to understand yours. You're attempting to intertwine Guantanamo with other countries such as Afghanistan and juxtapose, only you have failed, conflict situations.

The Smoking Man

You say they are all 'suicide bombers' and yet the flaw in that theory is that ... they are all alive. These people were merely caught returning fire or being in close proximity to those who did.

Not flawed anymore.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The problem with your examples, Guantanamo especially, is that it barely addresses the current issues, despite some terrorism being present nonetheless. I speak of terrorism as in general, in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

I do too. When innocent hostages are taken, I speak out against it. When people are picked up on the streets of Bahgdad and held without trial in an undisclosed location, I think it is terrible. I think it is the same with Afghanistan too.

The problem is, you have failed to acknowledge that the Guantanamo Prisoners are the first and longest held hostages of the war.

What do you call criminal incarceration with no charges but plenty of torture?

What do you call extrordinary rendition? Let's look at how it is used: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Not content with that, let's look at how you have violated sovereign Italian territory, kidnapped a person there and moved them internationally to a state that participates in torture. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aCibZ90.8k1Y

So how DO you define terrorism?

You once wrote in this thread that my bias was beginning to show, I'm also beginning to understand yours. You're attempting to intertwine Guantanamo with other countries such as Afghanistan and juxtapose, only you have failed, conflict situations.

Then perhaps you can explain to us just who those people are in Guantanamo?

Each person interred there without benefit of http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm is an excuse for the rest of the Middle East to distrust the USA and their actions in the area.

They state that they are there to bring about democracy and the rule of 'fair' laws into the area and yet Guantanamo Bay is being used to circumvent all those laws and the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of PoWs.

Does the statement of international and American law convince you of my 'bias' or your refusal to acknowledge that none of these prisoners have faced a judge or jury in 3.5 years of intenment betray yours?

Nobody here has ever stated that there should be a general release of prisoners from Guantanamo. They have all stated that trials should occur.

In the USA, you are unable to hold a prisoner for longer than 72 hours without charge.

These people, including Hicks, have been held as detainees as a result of the Afghan invasion for 3.5 years.

So, how have I failed to 'juxtapose' two things that by their very nature are direct results of one another?

Not flawed anymore.

No, still very flawed.

 

[DM]

QUOTES - The Smoking Man

The problem is, you have failed to acknowledge that the Guantanamo Prisoners are the first and longest held hostages of the war.

I have made it perfectly clear that I condemn what has happened with those hostages.

What do you call criminal incarceration with no charges but plenty of torture?

Again, made it clear.

So how DO you define terrorism?

This question could be an interesting topic of discussion. It is very much based on perception.

Then perhaps you can explain to us just who those people are in Guantanamo?

No, you tell me, what are they to you? you have argued that there isn't terrorism in Guantanamo.

Does the statement of international and American law convince you of my 'bias' or your refusal to acknowledge that none of these prisoners have faced a judge or jury in 3.5 years of intenment betray yours?

And you think I advocate such actions? how many times do I have to reiterate that I do not support the above incarcerations?

These people, including Hicks, have been held as detainees as a result of the Afghan invasion for 3.5 years.

And again, I'll just make it more unequivocal for you; I'm not a devotee of what has happened to the likes of Hicks, I condemn these unjustices!

So, how have I failed to 'juxtapose' two things that by their very nature are direct results of one another?

Iraq and Afghanistan are much more rife with terrorism. You simply cannot argue with that. It's a fact. Unjust trials and incarcerations is a flawed statement. There are more racist killings on behalf of the US troops than incarcerations and trials. Have you forgotten that?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I have made it perfectly clear that I condemn what has happened with those hostages.

Again, made it clear.

I suggest you re-read your post #65:

Funny, I thought we were discussing the people interred in Camp X-ray. You just declared them Martyrs and terrorists again by 'extrapolation' and you know damn well they have determined as neither legally or in fact.

Damn right, I declare all of those who collude with Bin Laden as martyrs and terrorists.

Then, you were informed of the presence of Hicks.

No, you tell me, what are they to you? you have argued that there isn't terrorism in Guantanamo.

Now I'll call you a liar.

And you think I advocate such actions? how many times do I have to reiterate that I do not support the above incarcerations?

Again, I refer you to your post #65.

And again, I'll just make it more unequivocal for you; I'm not a devotee of what has happened to the likes of Hicks, I condemn these unjustices!

Again, I refer you to your post #65.

Iraq and Afghanistan are much more rife with terrorism. You simply cannot argue with that. It's a fact. Unjust trials and incarcerations is a flawed statement. There are more racist killings on behalf of the US troops than incarcerations and trials. Have you forgotten that?

Tell me DM, how many people would you kill if your father, brother or son was being held in a foreign prison with absolutely no sign of him being removed.

How many collaberators and troops would YOU take out? How many of your family would sign up to a terrorist cell with you?

The trouble with you, DM is that you see no 'cause and effect' when it comes to US actions because to you, like most people in the USA, fail to see your catalog of errors as anything but a series of things that have caused you to say 'oooops' while most of the people there see them as staws stacking up on their camel's backs.

Yeah, all the people like Hicks have relatives too... and guess where they are.

Sure they are the people helping Al Qieda ... can you think why?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The problem is, you have failed to acknowledge that the Guantanamo Prisoners are the first and longest held hostages of the war.

I have made it perfectly clear that I condemn what has happened with those hostages.

LOL ... Aren't 'hostages' held by criminals, DM?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

LOL ... Aren't 'hostages' held by criminals, DM?

Great equivocation. Since you addressed "trials", I assumed these hostages were being held by criminals that would happen to be dubbed Americans by you.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

The trouble with you, DM is that you see no 'cause and effect' when it comes to US actions because to you, like most people in the USA, fail to see your catalog of errors as anything but a series of things that have caused you to say 'oooops' while most of the people there see them as staws stacking up on their camel's backs.

Is that right? the biggest trouble with you is that you relentlessly fail to see the number of innocents brutally tortured and killed by Al-Qaeda. Some of which happen to be reporters. Now tell me, Mister, just where is this "cause and effect"? catalog of errors? I don't even advocate what the Americans did in the first place. Now tell me you're not ignoring what I thought you read over and over again.

The Smoking Man

Yeah, all the people like Hicks have relatives too... and guess where they are.

To many others, the same applies.

The Smoking Man

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Terrific ideology.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

May i interfere?

Terrorism isn't just Al Qaeda's fault, terrorism was caused by extremetism and other forms of such similarities..

americans can be therrorists, because come to people in their own places and threat their lives, innocents die and a new terrorism form arise...

Moreover it was a problem ever since humans exist, the mere thought of forcing ur conviction on others, is terrorism, but how to do it is the only difference, dicatators are terrorists, cause they force their own beliefs and policies...Gettin involved in a war to convince people with ur believe and win the fight physically is terrorism, and this is worse than invading a place for just food and water...

Terrorism is the language of rigid stiff minded people who get more power to force their ideology...

Every father beating his children to force them doing things they don't believe in is a terrorist...

It's nothing new, and Al Qaeda aren't the only ones.

 

[SOS2008]

So now the Bush administration no longer uses the term "war on terror." Now it is the "war on Islamic radicalism." Yes, a crusade by "Christian radicalism" is so much better. It wouldn't be in part due to the UN's desire to have a global definition of terrorism (which would include state terrorism) by any chance?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Terrific ideology.

Worked for the US when they supported Saddam and he was fighting Iran.

Didn't even seem to mind at the time he was using gas on the Kurds and Iranians either.

That only became a problem later ...

Sort of like stinger missiles and OBL