closing guantanimoFollow

WOW. Thats all i can say is just....wow.

You're arguing a point that was a joke to begin with. Really, do we need to go back to the polish grammitical school again?

You're arguing scarcasim with (you're own twisted) logic.

Gbaji would be proud.

Var,

Ok, last time I'm doing this stupid dance with you.
You're point is NOT vaild becuase I was not talking about the FU[b]cking troops!! [/b]

I thought I explained that, moran. Twice now, actually.

Bigot.

Check this bad boy out. A Polish sausage restaurant/store! It's my new Mecca!

Not that I had an old Mecca, but still...

I've eaten there. They have a good lunch buffet.

They always have.

I did check it out and started drooling.

Then check out their online orders to see what they offer.

Then I saw the order fee of $20.

I so wanted to order a few items, but $31 for just 1 jar of pickles and 1 jar Sauerkraut? Now I just have to ask if any of my cousins live near one of their store and can ship a few jars to me.

Um... Actually, that's not what the Red Cross said about Guantanamo either. That was the paraphrasing that the author of the article wrote. The same author who clearly is biased.

Realize that the article you linked is an article about another article. The original article only said this:

The International Committee of the Red Cross has reportedly found prisoner abuse that amounted to "a form of torture" at a US military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

So, the words "a form of torture" was in the Red Cross report, but the original article doesn't say how the words were used, so all context is stripped out. The article you linked then transforms that short quote into the statement you used above.

You ever play the telephone game as a kid? That's what you're doing here. You're going to the end of the line and taking the final changed message literally. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

See. We could link this article. Note the change here. Note that this has more direct statements from the Red Cross itself:

In Geneva, the ICRC said it would neither confirm nor deny the New York Times report -- in which allegations of treatment tantamount to torture go further than what the neutral intermediary has publicly stated before about inmates held at Guantanamo.

Hmmm... See the confusion here is that the NY Times read the report from the Red Cross and *they* called the treatment "tantamount to torture". The Red Cross didn't. The NY Times article writer did. But, in typical rhetoric fashion, the fact that the Red Cross, "torture", and "guantanamo" were used in the same article leads everyone to believe that the Red Cross actually made those claims.

My point is that the entirety of the torture claims at guantanamo have been cooked up by various media sources attempting to make the story more then it is. Are the prisoners there subjected to interrogation techniques? Yes. Are those techniques questionable to the Red Cross? Of course. This is an organization that is dedicated to profiding comfort around the world. Does that mean that they are actually torturing prisoners? No. But if the media can play up the fact that the ICRC thinks that the line being used at Gitmo is a fine one, then of course writers at the Time will play that for all its worth.


And people like you eat it up. Worse, you quote articles written about articles writen about articles and take them at face value.


How about we look at the actual report.

Funny. Do a search for the word "torture". You'll find that it's used in almost every case to state that some interrogation techniques were "close" to being torture. Not that they could definatively state that they are. The other uses of the word in the document are historical in nature, in which they simply point out that the use of torture is not allowed under the GC. Again. Since the Red Cross does not actually state that torture is occuring, this is only significant in a "don't cross that line" sort of way.


Funny also is the allegations you linked. Did you actually read them? The ones where people were beaten all occured at other sites. Not at Guantanamo. If you want to argue that we need to take a look at detainment centers in Afghanistan and Eqypt (not sure why that one guy was sent to Eqypt unless perhaps he was wanted there for crimes unassociated with the US, in which case we can't be held accountable for turning him over). My point here is that once again, you have failed to show me a single verifiable instance of torture taking place in Guantanamo itself.


Look. I'm not arguing that some abuses did occur at detainment centers early on when things were just getting started. We had a lot of poorly trained people tossed into a job they really didn't know how to do. That's why we had abuses at Abu Ghraib and other locations. But those abuses were investigated and have been resolved. Find me an example of such things happening *today* or even in the last year.

And if we're talking about Guantanamo specifically, you need to find me proof that there's been torture occuring at that site. It's amusing to me how many articles will put the words Guantanamo and torture in their headlines together, but when you read them, you find that they're talking about prisoners currently being held in Guantanamo who were tortured at another location prior to being moved there. You'd almost think that those writing those articles were doing that deliberately to try to connect Guantanamo with torture. And you'd be right...




You have no way of knowing that. You're once again just assuming this because it's conventient for your argument.



No. What's causing that is irresponsible journalists who will deliberately twist words around to make it appear that this is what's happening. To write a headline saying: "New Guantanamo Bay torture allegations incriminate Australian government", but to include not a single bit of evidence of torture occuring in Guantanamo is misleading at best, and criminal at worst.

When journalists go out of their way to make the world believe that these things are happening, even when the evidence says something completely different it's no surprise that some percentage of the population out there will believe them. Stop taking headlines literaly. Read the actual information inside. You might actually learn something.

Sure. But "a form of torture" is a statement of opinion by whomever is writing the report. To some, not being able to talk on a phone is "a form of torture". That does not make it torture. That's the point here. Which you aren't getting.



No. Reality is reality. Perception is what you believe to be reality. That's what I've been trying to say all along. What's happening is that a handful of media outlets are changing your perception of reality by manipulating the information and how you recieve it. And you fall for it every time.

You say that every person leaving has said they were tortured. That is literally correct. However, none of them have said they were tortured at Guantanamo. Yet because clever media headline writers make sure to put the words "torture" right next to "Guantanamo", you believe that they were tortured there. No facts to support this belief. How does it feel to be so easily manipulated?



No. We haven't changed at all. What's happened is that the Liberals gained a ton of power and public support during the 60s, expected to keep that level of power and influence "forever", but over time the public has gradually moved way from them. In a panic, they're attacking every Conservative target they can. Look at the avalanche of anti-Republican "issues" that have come out in the last 5 years or so. It's not just about the war, it's about everything. What you're seeing is a side of US politics realizing that they've lost public support, not really understanding why, and trying *anything* to get it back. And the easiest way to do that is to attack the other side.

It's not about Guantanamo specifically. If the prisoners were being held elsewhere, that's where the issue would be. If there was no war, it'd be about something else. Taking blatantly politically oriented rhetoric at face fvalue is silly. Look at the actual facts being presented. You'll find that the evidence in support of the allegations are incredibly skimpy.

Take any 100 prisoners from any prison in the world. Have some interviewer ask them if they were tortured, or treated badly. Keep asking the questions in enough different ways, and you'll get 100 out of those 100 to say something you can quote and make look like they're all alledging that they were tortured. That's what's going on here.



Sure. But that perception is being generated by the media tail wagging the dog. They've created this story completely on their own. Start with an assumption of torture, and pursue the story hard enough, and eventually you'll get something you can write in a story that will support your assuptions.

Haven't you wondered at all why it is that every single one of those articles showed stories of detainees being tortured and beaten at other locations *before* being sent to Guananamo, yet instead of insisting that we investigate or close the facilities where this stuff actually may have happened, they're arguing for the closure of Guananamo?

If the goal really was to discover "the truth" why not talk about those other sites? Why not demand something be done there? It's *obvious* that this is politically motivated. Why put Guantanamo in the headline with the word "torture", but not even mention the locations where the torture these guys are reporting occured? Here you have a reporter doing a story on torture, but instead of talking about where it happened, he deliberately leaves that out, but makes sure to mention that theose who were tortured are now being held in Guanatnamo. And that's not just one story, that's every single one. At what point will you realieze that this is a large group of media folks essentially conspiring to enact their political agenda by manipuating the press?

Honest journalists investigating allegations of torture would at least mention *where* it happened, right? The *only* reason not to is if you don't what that information to distract from the target of the article. In this case, that target is Guantanamo. It's very clear that those articles were written, not to inform or reveal facts about allegations of torture, but to target negative attention at Guantanamo and the administration that runs it.



I would honestly hope that you would go back and read those articles. But this time, ignore the headline. Just read the qutoes and the "facts" in the artticle. Then tell me why the story is about guantanamo instead of any of a number of other locations. Just do that. Please. You might just understand what I'm talking about here. I'm not just trying to convince you of my position in this one argument. I'm hoping that you'll open your eyes a bit and see that it's not always a government that lies...

FOX NEWS UPDATE (June 19, 2005)

The prisoner abuse scandal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has been confirmed. Prisoners have been periodically tortured for information. The allegations toward U.S. soldiers stationed at Guantanamo Bay are false, however. The culprits and individuals responsible for prisoner abuse were subterranean trolls. Their relative small size allowed them to easily slip past the security and many checkpoints in the American base. Soldiers on guard would be unaware of the trolls infiltration because their attention was usually directed toward the television watching I Love Lucy re-runs.

During this time, the trolls would burst out of the ground and use magic lock breaking potions to open the security doors, where the prisoners were being held. The prisoners were then taken out of their cells screaming for help, but quickly silenced by headphones strategically placed over their ears playing high decibal gangster rap music. Apparently, Arabs are allergic to rap music, and immediately slip into a temporary coma when submitted to it. How the trolls knew this information is beyond this news station's knowledge, but Geraldo Rivera is actively working on revealing this information.

If a prisoner resisted the headphones being put on, he would then have a noose put around his neck, stripped naked, and taken on a tour around the base site while being led by a troll in costume dressed as a female human. The mere thought of such excruciating torture rendered most prisoners helpless, and they reluctantly accepted the headphones with loud rap music.

Each prisoner was then dragged unconsciously back down to the underground laboratory of the trolls that reside near the earth's core. Each prisoner was also replaced by a forged dummy prisoner so as not to arouse the suspicions of American guards. The dummy prisoners were ill-formed however, because the trolls knowledge on humans is severely limited. When spoken to, the dummy's only response would be "I am being tortured, I wish to speak to a representative of the American media or the Red Cross." This line would be repeated over and over again to American guards attempting to interrogate them until the representative was supplied.

When the real prisoners reached the underground laboratory they would awake to be in a large contraption, with a bright light shining directly into their eyes, preventing them knowledge of their surroundings. Photos taken by our undercover troll photographer have not yet come back from Cuba, they will arrive in Florida on the next rowboat full of Cuban refugees. A series of tests have been confirmed to have been performed on each prisoner. They were forced to look at various pornographic magazines, and their responses were measured carefully by the trolls. Each prisoner was also subjected to various sized **** probes, as well as hollow tubes, where gerbals would be allowed to freely invade their **** cavity.

It seems that many of the prisoners were also required to lay naked on each other in a massive pile of human flesh. The goal of this particular experiment is beyond any of the analysts in this department. Each prisoner was confirmed to have been subjected to intense sexual activity with female trolls, some as many as 10 times per day. They were forced to watch as water was deliberately spilled on a copy of the Quran, a holy book of Islamic culture.

When prisoners reached their personal limit of torture, they were required for the next several months to perform medial tasks, such as moving boxes back and forth, calisthenics, or clearing out the air vents that allowed air from the earth's surface to reach the subterranean cavities of the underground. Any word on a possible rescue operation from the joint American coalition has yet to be heard. Reporting live from Guantanamo Bay, I'm Lisa Winslow.


Edited, Sun Jun 19 17:45:43 2005 by PraetorianX

but but


Dey tuuk 'er jeerbs!

Sigh.



You're right. When I have the government on one hand, saying that no torture is going on, and I have a bunch of nutjobs saying it is, I tend to err on the side of the government. Silly me.

What happened to the vaunted "innocent until proven guilty" concept? Does that only apply to people you agree with politically? I know. It's utter madness to assume that someone is telling the truth unless you have some kind of firm evidence that they're not.

Again. Where's the proof. Every single "source" for your allegations is simply a news agency "claiming" that torture is happening there. It's a freaking media circle jerk. Each is repeating what the other said, because they don't want to miss the news cycle, but not one of them has produced anything but the flimsiest evidence to support the allegations.

Even worse, they aren't actually *making* any allegations. The NY Times article didn't actually say there was any torture going on in Guantanamo. They just wrote a story about some other people who said there might be, and then added in a bunch of information about torture that happened in other undisclosed locations.

But that's "proof" for you? Sheesh. Let's hope that you never face a jury with people who think like you.




Yes. But do you also see the flaw in assuming that since you can find a couple examples in history where these sorts of allegations were made and it did turn out to be this massive conspiracy that therefore anytime allegations like that are made the same thing must be going on?

It's the tail wagging the dog. That's it. If enough people write stories about the possiblity of torture in Gitmo, then lots of people will think it's happening, and there will be a big media cycle and everyone will make tons of money on it. But the evidence of this is incredibly scant. The Red Cross was given access and could not state officially that they saw any specific instances of torture nor could they confirm any allegations of torture. Certainly, if the Red Cross had been allowed in a **** concentration camp in 1942, they would not have been so timid with their descriptions, right? So isn't your comparison a *huge* exageration? Yeah. I think so.



Sure. It *might*. The problem is that our modern media works on the assumption that the modern media audience has the attention span of a fly. See. If they make the allegations, or just write stories about them, they will get ratings and make more money. If it turns out down the line that nothing of the sort happened you will never hear about it. Ever. It's not like 5 years from now, when all facts are available, some investigative reporter will do a story about how there really wasn't any torture going on in Gitmo. You'll only ever hear anything if it turns out that the media was right in it's guess.

And of course, they know that in 5 years, you wont remember or care to follow up on the story (unless it turns out they were right, in which case they get another story and more money from the sheep). It's a wonderful scam. They don't have to proof anything. They just have to keep feeding the public innuendo and rake in the money. If they make 100 guesses and allegations, and 99 of them are wrong, the only one you'll hear about is the one they were right on. That's why it's incredibly stupid to allow a news cycle to make up your mind on something.

Look at the facts.



Sigh. Wrong pretty much accross the board.

- This administration isn't doing anything different on global warming then every administration has done for the last 50 years. You're arguing an assumed exception where one does not exist.

- Lied about Iraq? How? I'll refer you to the downing street memo, which clearly shows that those "in the know" believed that Iraq likely possessed WMD. Enough so that it appeared in the minutes of a high level meeting as an issue to consider when invading.

- Economists were almost universally in agreement that the economy in 2000 was poised on the brink of recession. Cliton had a "record surplus" because he taxed at a record rate. The year he had his highest surplus, government revenues as a percentage of GDP were 21%. The year Bush ran his highest deficit, that number was 16%. It's not that one government spent more efficiently. Bush just took less of your money. It doesn't particularly take any skill to have a surplus if you just raise taxes...

- Defense spending? Well. We are in a war you know. Also, you are aware that between 2001 and 2004, spending on defense increased at a lower rate then spending on Medicare and Medicade. Again. You're arguing by implied exception. By not including defense spending in relation to other spending, you make it seem *huge*. But that's a bit of deception on your part (or more likely whomever you got your information from).

- Look. You'd be hard pressed to find any major corporation that does not have "direct ties" to one or both political parties. Again. Arguing by implied exception. You're implying that the Bush administration is the only one ever to have connections to companies (false), and that somehow it's unusual that companies that will make money by fulfilling services in a time of war (like Halliburton) will have connections to one or both political parties. Do you know which company held the Pentagon contract before Halliburton? Do you know for a fact that that company has any fewer "contacts" in washington? If you don't, then your arguing a point thas has no relevance. You have to show that Halliburton is an exception to the "norm". If you can't, you have no argument.

- Ah yes. The "Fox news is a propaganda machine". Really? Is Fox news owned by the Bush administration? Does it recieve directions from the government? No? Then what you're basically saying is that any news agency that doesn't report the news the way you want them to is "bad". Isn't that chilling? So much for "freedom of the press".



As opposed to people who abandon reason to follow the first jingoistic thing that comes their way? Look. I'm all for investigation. I'm all for finding out "the truth". I just don't agree with the current method of just assuming that the government is always doing wrong, building up as huge a following for that belief as possible, and then when the facts start to come out that you maybe don't have it right, just switching to the next news cycle and ignoring it. And I really think that people who fall for that time after time need to reasses exactly who is lying to them.

I guarantee you that you've been mislead by your news service many times more often in the past few years then you have by your government. The fact that they occasionally get something right is not an excuse for shoddy journalism.



Again with the assumptive based conclusions. You haven't proven that. You just assume it. Sure. let's just ignore 11 years of violations of a *huge* list of resolutions by Iraq. Let's ignore 5 years of the US Congress stating that Iraq was a threat. Let's ignore all of that and pretend that the only reason we went to war was to secure oil.

If all we wanted was cheap oil, we'd have just gone along with the oil for food scam. Oh wait! Some US companies did. Well that kinda blows the whole "government in the pocket of the oil companies" conspiracy theory, doesn't it? So which is it? Were our oil companies pushing to keep the US out of Iraq so as to reap the profits from Oil for Food? Or where they pushing to get the US to invade Iraq so that they could make more money in an as-yet-undetermined scam? Heck. If this is so obvious, could you please outline exactly which US oil companies are going to make millions off the war and how? Clearly, if you're so convinced that's what this was all about, it shouldn't be a problem for you to explain how they're going to get that money, right?

Heck. If the US oil companies were going to make millions (heck Billions!) of cheap and plentiful Iraqi oil, why on earth did they just fight a huge Congressional battle over opening up the ANWAR for drilling? The profit per barrel from oil there has got to be pretty darn low given that it's not that great of an oil field in the first place (and it'll be 10 years or more before they even know how much there is much less start to make any money off it). Does that make any sense? It's not like oil drilled there will compete with the cheap stuff they'll be getting from Iraq assuming your theory is correct.


And that's what I mean when I say you aren't thinking things through. You just parrot whatever some Liberal talking head told you and don't even spend a minute thinking about how ridiculous it is. You're totally willing to buy a story hook line and sinker simply because someone on the TV told you so. Sheesh. Start thinkng for yourself!



I'll say the same thing to you. The sooner you realize that your sources of information (ie: the media) have no vested interest in telling you the truth and every interest in simply presenting information in a manner designed to arrouse the highest level of emotional response from it's viewers/readers, the better off you'll be.