Posts by Matt Bryant

RE: Interesting

"....the CIA probably rented out a nearby house..." That's highly unlikley, I suspect the CIA stayed well-clear physically and relied on electronic means to recce the site. As shown by the Raymond Davis event, the Pakistani ISI keeps a very close eye on CIA operatives in areas where they might stumble on hidden terrorists. For their own good, natch.....

RE: JuleAss is not mad that FB is spying on people

Don't you mean because he can't make any money out of it?

RE: @Matt Bryant

"The truth, I think, is somewhere in the middle......" I sense a big "but" coming..... Sorry, didn't mean to imply you had a big butt! Ooh, there it is ".....US foriegn policy makes it all too easy to recruit more Hajis...." So, I'm betting there isn't a jihadi out there that can actually quote more than a few vague points of US policy, other than what they have been indoctrinated with. I'm betting you can't, seeing as you supply zero detail to back an argument that US policy is a cause of fundamentalist Islamism.

"....now a derogatory term, used by ALL the US soldiers I've met..." So what? Soldiers often seek to mentally-belittle their opponents by giving them insulting names, often without understanding the source of the name. "Towel-heads", "Gooks", "Huns", "Fritzes", "Jerries", "Eye-ties", "Frogs", "Limeys" - hardly groundbreaking. Please do pretend that every single US serviceman (and women), officers and all, would use the term"haji". I think you may find that the ones that do do not understand that a "haji" is someone that performs Haj. I think you would also find that most officers would sharply rebuke any US soldier using it, especially if they were in a Muslim country, as US servicemen are comprehensively taught what might offend their Muslim hosts. But don't let that stop you from painting all US soldiers as bigots.

RE: @Graham Wilson @@Matt Bryant

I suggest you join Graham down the library, you both have a lot of catching up to do.

"....America is currently absolutely terrified of terrorists...." Really? I speak to many Septics through work, almost weekly. They all seem to be getting on with their lives, they're not hiding in bunkers. True, they do have some worries about terrorism, but they also worry about paedophiles, about car-crime, about taxes. They worry about many things but they're still enjoying life. I think it is that you WANT to think they are crippled by terror.

"....You conflate "Islamic" terrorists with Islam..." Nope, I merely don't agree with the idea that Islamic terrorist groups are purely a by-product of Western economic actions, I see that the main cause is just fundamental Islamism. I do not lump all Muslims in together, and I did not call all Muslims terrorists or say they all support AQ. In fact, I regulalry point out to you morons that AQ and the Taleban and other Islamic fundamentalists target and kill far more Muslims than they do Westerners, and that they do so because many Muslims are not supporting them.

".....How does the call to convert "The World" to Islam differ from the Christian call to convert all the world to Christianity..." Nice try at painting Christians as just as bad as AQ. But, in truth, they are equally bad ideals. The difference is Christians have (largely) given up on the idea since the Enlightenment (you really need to go read up on that one with Graham), whereas people like AQ want to impose that idea on not only others but also on the existing Muslim states and peoples. Just because AQ are whacky enough to believe it doesn't make it any less of a threat, and understanding what drives them will help you relaise that "solutions" like withdrawl from Muslim countries will not stop AQ and other fundamanetal Islamits trying to attack us, it just makes it easier for them to do so.

"....do you prefer the American version of democracy, for instance?...." I do, seeing as it at least gives us choice and rule by agreed and changeable common law, as opposed to rule by a minority based on a ruleset that cannot adapt or be changed as society develops. Democracy is adaptive, it can allow for change and differences in opinion, whereas the type of extreme Sharia used by the Taleban had no options and no room for change. Personally, I like the idea that we can change our minds as we grow, others see that as a threat to the control they would like to impose on society. And before you try and pretend that we don't have control, please go and tell that to Gordon Brown, Michael Ignatieff, Sergolene Royal, etc, etc.

"....Two illegal invasions of Iraq...." Oh, please do try and provide any proof that they were illegal! The first was with full UN support, the second was with carefully-crafted UN resolutions even if it didn't have full UN support. If either had been illegal then one of the far smarter handwringers in the States would have found a way to bring Bush, Cheney and co to court by now. Please give up on that very tired and completely debunked blather.

".....Iran...." What, just the country? Please at least try and supply an argument, or were you just skim-reading "Rebellious Themes for Dummies"?

".....Guantanamo Bay...." Once again, no arguments. I can supply arguments for and against Gitmo, you seem unable to do anything other than repeat buzzwords and catchphrases, probably no more than just secondhand ones too.

".....Google "Yankee go home"...." I think what is really needed is for you to do some real education, starting with some history reading, rather than blindly accepting what a Google search throws back at you. That's even if you got round to doing the Google searches yourself. I have a sneaky suspicion that all your "thougths" have been handed to you in a neat bundle of preconceptions.

"....The problem is, the USA believes that "What is good for America is good for the world"..." Actually, Afghanistan is a case in point for completely the opposite. After the Russians were ejected, the US and West left Afghanistan to its own devices. Afghanistan settled back into a mess of corruption and nepotism. It was then the meddling of Pakistan, paranoid that India would gain some form of ascendency in Afghanistan and "steal it like they did Kashmir", that led to the rise of the Taleban. If the West had stepped in at an earlier date and stopped the Afghan government deteriorating into the corrupt mess that let the Taleban rise, then we might have avoided the whole problem, but you same handwringers squealled and whined at the idea and the politicians didn't do it. The next time you accuse the Yanks of being "self-righteous", please consider what might have been if Western politicians had had the courage to stand by Afghanistan.

RE: @Kobus Botes

"....Wow... that would be like looking at neighbourhoods in which the only way to succeed in life is to deal drugs, and deciding to raise literacy and employment rate...." Spot the handwringer! So, how do you explain away the fact that education is available to just about all kids in Western countries? Opportuinity is there, as shown by people like Sir Alan Sugar. My own Dad started out from a poor London area, was drafted as an infantry soldier, trained to be an engineer, worked hard and retired owning a large engineering firm. No-one gave him any more of a chance than anyone else in his neighbourhood, and he admits that in his youth he did some stuff that wasn't too bright, but he made the decision to try and better himself. Conveniently excusing all drug dealers of their ability to make choices is delusional. Same goes for those that CHOOSE to follow people like Bin Laden. Whilst I'm sure you mean well, you really need to get some perspective on human nature.

RE: @ Matt Bryant

".....Ummm... why do you think Iran's view of USA changed from the most beloved foreign nation in, say, 1951, to The Great White Satan (TM) twenty years later?....." Oooh, spot the agenda! What has this got to so with Sunni Islamist terrorists like Al Quaida, whom actually consider Shia Muslims like the majority of Iranians "non-believers"?

"....Hint: Operation Ajax..." Whilst it may have been CIA-funded, it was Iranians doing it to other Iranians, so other Iranians could stay in a position of power. Nice try at pretending it was all just us nasty Westerners.

".....goading Saddam Hussein into attacking Iran...." Ever stop to think that Saddam didn't need much encouraging? Or that Iraq already had disputes with Iran and other neighbours (hint - Kuwait) over boundary disputes? Once again, Saddam was not a Westerner, and those Iraqis that willingly supported him were not either. But, once again, don't let that stop you from absolving any one but the West of any guilt.

"....financing and supporting the Taliban..." The West actively supported many parties in Afghanistan to help them eject the Russians. After the Taleban rose to dominance and imposed their rule the West funded and helped the Northern Alliance (that would be native Afghans) in fighting the Taleban. Iran funded and assisted the Taleban, and provided a sanctuary and support for AQ operatives when they were driven out of Afghansitan. Iran is still funding and supplying arms to the Taleban and to "rebels" in Iraq, which are mainly used to attack local Muslims. Nice try, but more than a bit revisionist.

"....shooting down a passenger airplane with 290 people (66 of which children), as US Navy obviously isn't trained to see the difference between an A300 Airbus and Mig-21...." And yet more already debunked bilge! The A300, Iranian Air Flight 655, was not in range of eyesight, so it wasn't a matter of "seeing the difference". The A300 was using a dual civil-military transponder (because trigger-happy Iranian AA often shot down their own civil aircraft), which meant that electronically it "looked" like an Iranian jetbomber. The Airbus was sent up 27-minutes late, despite the Iranians knowing there was a possible incident ongoing in the Gulf, from a base that was also home to F-14s that did pose a threat to USN ships, and after the Americans had announced a protection zone around their naval vessels. The USS Vincennes, which fired the SAMs that shot Flight 655 down, was chasing Iranian patrolboats that had attacked an USN chopper, and was in the area to provide air-defence against Iranian jets. And then we have the whole reason the USN was in the area in the first place - because the Iranians had been using jets and boats to attack international tankers. The USN crew actually believed they were under attack when they accidentally killed those civillians, whereas AQ and the Taleban target and kill civillians by choice. A bit of context sure goes a long way, no?

RE: @Matt Bryant

".....US cultural imperialism--music, movies etc...." What, so it's alright to blow people up because you don't like their music or movies!?!? Please, that's the biggest load of garbage going! What you didn't say was the music and movies might inspire repressed people (like the Afghanis under the Taleban) to want more than the uber-strict Sharia allows, which is why those that would seek to impose social control through Sharia see them as a threat. Why do you think countries like North Korea forbid their people from watching foreign TV? Why do you think so many countries used to ban the BBC World Service? It's kinda hard to convince people they're living the life of Reilly when they see better or hear different.

I know the Fwench get pretty annoyed about American "cultural imperialism", but I don't remember them flying jetliners into skyscrapers because of it. I think the way some people go on and on about French cuisine is overblown, but I don't suggest suicide bombers go blow up Parisian resteraunts. And don't get me started on ballet - if you want it, you go watch it, and you can fund it too, but I'm not going to kidnap you and hack your head off live on the Internet just because I think ballet is a waste of time.

"....trade...." Ah, this is the bit where we're supposed to feel guilty about being successful, more economically developed. Apparently, that whole "capitalist greed" thing is bad, no? So, the fact that the all those Western children in capitalist countries have access to education and medicine is bad and we should all return to the Stone Ages because some people want to live like it's 632AD? Please consider that at one point in history it was the predecessors to the Arabs that had the leading civillisations on Earth, had cities and trade that dominated a vast area, whilst places such as London and Manhattan were marshland. There will always be one country or group of countries that will have an economic edge over others, you just have to look at the current rise of China to see that. You may also want to consider that the rebels in places like Egypt are asking for the jobs and freedoms they see in the West, not a return to 632AD.

"....There are also big issues such as long-held Arab resentment as a consequence of Western powers directly meddling in middle-eastern affairs after WW1...." And whom did we "inherit" a large chunk of the Mid East from? The Ottoman Turkish Empire, an empire that rose to dominate the region due to superior economic and military prowess. Strangely enough, you never hear the Arabs moaning about when the Turks were in charge. Or about if it was unfair when the Arabs themselves conquered the Arabian peninsula, most of the Mid East and North Africa, when they were quite happy to do a little "cultural imperialism" then and repress all the societies and religions in the region. Seems more like sour grapes to me. Can I demand all the old colonial conquests be given back to England because it upsets my "cultural sensibilities"? Yeah, I'm sure you Aussies would go for that!

".... these were further exacerbated 50 or so years later when the US marched in to clear Saddam out of Kuwait....." At the request of the Kuwaitis, after Saddam invaded a sovereign state, and we had the military support of many neighbouring Arab countries. Oh, I see what the problem is - you only think it's "an illegal invasion" if it's done by us nasty, capitalist Westerners! I'm beginning to suspect there's a little bit of suppressed Aussie rage at being an ex-colony so dependent on another ex-colony (the States).

".....Anton Ivanov is directly referring to this in his above post 'They did not create it, they improved it'....." So there was never any strife in the Mid East before us Westerners got involved then? And everything since must be our fault? What a load of uneducated baloney! Ignoring the acquisitive conquests of the Greeks, the Romans, or even the Byzantium Empire, I suggest you go read up on the history of how Islam "spread", even in the Saudi peninsula. As a clue, it wasn't by knocking on doors and asking "Have you found Allah?" You may want to check out something called the Sunni-Shia schism and the impact it had on Islamic history, as well as the impact it is having today in modern Islamic states. I also suggest you read up on the more recent history of the Mid East, where countries like Egypt invaded the Sudan simply because they claimed it was historically under ancient Egyptian control. An all-Muslim affair, no Westerners involved, thanks. Actually I don't suggest it - getting some facts might be too much of a shock to you.

"....Let's be clear on this, the border between Kuwait and Iraq was forced on the locals by outsiders...." Neatly sidestepping the fact that Kuwait was a UN-recognised country, and that the surrounding Arab and Muslim countries (even Syria) sent military forces to help kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Also neatly avoiding the fact that borders are usually set by the controlling powers of the day - you just have to look at Europe and the borders that overlap ethnic groups. Want to "redistribute" Belgium, just to please the Flemish? How about Holland, you want to give bits of that back to the Germans? Poland, Finland, Spain, France - the list is endless. Or how about you grow up and deal with the realities of today instad of looking for excuses in the past?

"....whereas the remnants of the Ottoman Empire...." The Ottoman Turks sided with the Kaiser's Germany in WW1. They lost, they were beaten. I think you'll find that it's quite usual for the victors to set the agenda after a war. Please explain how you think it would have been better if we'd left the Turks in charge of the Mid East, considering the Turks weren't native to the area and were themselves an empire that had conquered the region by force? Even worse, in Islamsists' eyes, under Kemnal Attaturk they also had a policy of securalism as Attaturk recognised the burden that Islam had placed on development of the Middle East compared to the West. Our own Western development was hindered by religion, it wasn't until the Church was demoted from a position of supreme authority that we really got a scientific and economic revolution going. It was called the Age of Enlightenment - more reading for you!

"....How would the US take it if some nation came along and forced all states west of the Mississippi to be seceded to Mexico?..." Probably not well, especially as the US has recognised borders which mean international law would be on their side. They also have enough force to deal with it themselves. After all, as the saying goes; winners have jet bombers, whilst losers have suicide bombers.

RE: but the war is already lost

Hoooboy, it really is crawling with the uninformed here! I know it's fashionable to hate the Septics, but at least try and display your prejudice with an ounce of sense, please.

".....the war is already lost...." Really? Did I miss the bit where Sharia got instituted across the West? Where our women had to wear the burkha by law and all non-Muslims had to pay an extra tax for not thinking right? Strange, I remember hearing the local church bells last Sunday, but surely they'd all be stopped if Bin Liner and co had won? You completely failed to appreciate that Bin Liner and chums have one outcome - the World accepts Islam whether it likes it or not, no other choices, and definately no recourse to that nasty democracy stuff. Seeing as we seem to be having a wave of democracy across the Mid East and North Africa, you could say we're winning a lot more than the jihadis. Having to put up with tedious airport security checks seems a lot better than two in the head, so I think I can proclaim us the ongoing winners, thanks.

"....The only way to win a war against terrorism is to sit around a table with the terrorists and negotiate on what the best way would be to remove the conditions that gave rise to the war in the first place - abhorrent as it may seem....." Touchingly twee and naive, but also incredibly stupid. For Osama and co, the "cause" is two things - the existing Islamic states (such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Turkey, etc) are "corrupted" and not unified into a Caliphate of "real" Muslim style (under the "inspirational" leadership of Caliph Osama, natch), and then that the uber-Caliphate has not subdued the rest of the World to their will. Anything short of that is job not done for the jihadis. All this gumph about just wanting Western soldiers out of Islamic countries is just stage one, not the jihadi end game. We could withdraw all out troops from Asia and the Mid-East tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference. Chance is they would fail to take the existing Islamic states as many Muslims do not share the jihadis' desire for extreme Sharia and a return to the Dark Ages. And to give you an idea of what Osama wanted, the only country he viewed as correctly Islamic was Afghanistan under the Taliban.

".....America's behaviour, unfortunately, was what gave rise to the war in the first place...." How, exactly? Please provide even the flimsiest reasoning behind that accusation? Don't you think that extremist Islam had something to do with it? Please, before you embarass yourself any further, go and read up on some of Osama's background, including the people that influenced him such as Sayyid Qutb and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

RE: One battle surely won....

".....but the cause of his and many other Arabs' animosity and hatred toward America and its allies...." OK, I'll bite, seeing as I have no doubt the reply will lead to plenty of unintended humour. Just exactly what is it you think the West has done to excite all the Islamists? I'm assuming you think it must be something we've done, that we must all admit to and display our guilt publicly, for there to be an end to the hatred you are convinced it caused? I'm really on a solid bet when I also guess you think the Islamist beliefs and mindset have nothing to do with the problem!

RE: OpenVMS 8.4 supports a wide variety of Integrity hardware, not just BL8x0 i2 blades

Confirmed, I sent the list to one of our resellers and they checked with hp. Looks like hp will have to update their Quickspecs and IBM will have to send TPM some new FUD.

RE: I invoke Godwin's law and claim my five pounds

".....The jews were not a national army...." One would have to point out that the Jews were not at war with the Germans or the Nazis, that they were a religeous group living in Europe. They were selected as scapegoats by the Nazis to justify the "inexplicable" failure of the Germans to win WW1. Many Jews were active and committed German citizens and had even fought for the Kaiser in WW1. You are taking a completely different case and trying to apply it to a completely different set of circumstances. Please think long and hard before trying again.

RE: The Matt Bryant situation

Sadly, it is very obvious that you are not equipped, either mentally or informationally, to conduct a proper debate. I'm suspecting that's because dissent is just so unacceptable in your tiny circle of the hip and fashionably-outraged. If you can't stand the heat....

RE: @ Bryant: "And internment is a standard practice during wartime"

You are presumably aware, even in your deluded state, that Al Quaida (or the Taliban) does not represent a particular country, does not have a formal army with a uniform, nor a legal set of rules of engagement (though they will claim their "understanding" of passages in the Koran give them their rules of "warfare"), nor does it have any way to negotiate a ceasation of hostilities? AQ does have two stated aims - the "liberation" of all existing Mulsim states, to be joined in one big Caliphate, with the second aim of using that Caliphate's forces to wage perpetual war on the non-believers until the Caliphate is dominant Worldwide. We're not setting the terms of the "endless war", it was forced upon us by the Islamists.

RE: Re: RE: RE: The Guardian a bit hypocritical?

"....Really? Am I?.... Yes, you inplied the experience of beign incarcerated in Gitmo, no doubt with "torture" thrown in, was going to make terrorists out of innocent the few internees.

"......Yes, not every person released from there has claimed they were tortured. That doesn't mean that none of them were tortured....." What you're saying is you actually don't know how many were tortured, that you admit that claims have been exaggerated (by people like you) and that - for all you know - true "torture" (which you have still failed to define) could have been so unusual as to have affected less than 1% of the internees. From postings on the Web from US agencies had to admit to Congress or other authorities cases where "more intensive interrogation techniques were used", I can find only six individuals that were Gitmo internees. If you can do better then please supply some details, rather than just ranting on with wild and unfounded allegations.

"....As for the Red Cross "had to concede that" it was "just propaganda", perhaps I misread this...." You missed more than just that, you also missed that the Red Cross could not find one single case where physical evidence corroborated any of the stories given by inmates. Wild tales of extensive beating in Gitmo and "secret prisons" could not be backed up by any sign of physical abuse. The Red Cross report amounted to just internees' (that's Taleban and AQ fighters and leaders, always likely to be telling the unvarnished truth, right?) allegations. Whilst there has been much hot air from the anti-Gitmo crowd around the report, it has so far supplied no legal foundation for anything more actionable than the bleating you are producing. Please supply details of any legal case made against the US using the Red Cross report that has gotten anywhere? Oh, you can't, because even leading handwringers like lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith know that it has zero legal value.

"....Of course there's the small fact that the US Government only allowed the Red Cross access to the detainees *provided* that any reports they made were kept confidential and only given to the US Government...." Yet, amazingly, you can quote the report! Sounds like the Red Cross weren't very good at keeping their end of the bargain, could that be because many of the bleedinghearts at the Red Cross went out looking for something to beat up on Gitmo with? Surely even someone as obtuse as yourself would have to admit that the Red Cross would have included any evidence it could find, so their complete failure to provide scientific proof justs show their failure?

"....you skew the logic to assume therefore that *all* those captured, including those at Guantanamo Bay *MUST* be Taliban!...." Nope merely exposing the stupidity of your claim that large numbers of the Gitmo internees are innocents. You failed again to show anything that even implies more than a half-a-dozen are innocents, and then you have zero prove of their innocence as you have no background info on any of them to support your rantings. Your whole diatribe is based on nothing mroe than emotion and has zero proveable substance.

"....It is *you* who are so determined to justify the actions of the US...." Wrong again! What I am is determined not to let the uniformed pass off their views as gospel, just because they think they are morally superior. You could be talking about the ongoing legal battle between Oracle and Google, if you shouted such unfounded idiocy I would feel driven to expose the lack of substance to your arguments. In truth, I simply cannot stand the emotional and uniformed trying to batter others to their point of view, and you have demonstrated that you are both deliberately obtuse and very uninformed.

RE: @Ian Michael Gumby

"......Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!....." In between howls, please go look at sites like http://wn.com/US_Soldiers_Charged_With_Murdering_Afghans, which has many items on US servicemen that were charged following criminal acts in Afghanistan. Now please identify one jihadi that got even told off by Bin Liner or Mullah Omar for targetting civillians.

".....that the truth came out...." The heavily-edited "truth" stil showed the Apache crew acted in accordance with the RoE and also confirmed with a senior officer that they were cleared to engage with lethal means. The Wikileaks version, despite trying to show the crew in the worst possible light, did nothing more than confirm those facts. Oh, and it did whip the easilly-duped into a fashionably-outraged frenzy, and gave St Julian's bank balance a healthy boost.

".....I doubt I'll bother posting again in response...." Don't tell me, you're also going to thcream and thcream until you're blue in the face? Please don't take out your childish rage on any of the other children in the nursery that may have played with your favourite dolly in your absence.

RE: Sir

".....I reckon my hobby horse is faster....." I'm not so sure your prowess at hobbyhorse riding is something to brag about.

"......I am simply stating that treating humans like animals doesn't do anyone any good....." Once again we have an unfounded allegation - please state how the detainees are being "treated like animals"? As I understand it, one of the complaints that has been made previously by the detainees was they were putting on weight because they weren't used to getting the three square meals a day they were getting in Gitmo!

"....I'm certain the US Gov. have access to plenty of reliable drugs...." And again the lack of background research shows. Drugs can be both time consuming and very dangerous to the subject, to the point of causing premeanent brain damage and longterm mental illness. And then there is the problem of reliability of the information extracted from people that may have been trained to repeat false information if drugged (a standard technique thought to have been taught to some jihadis back in the days when they were fighting in Afghanistan for the CIA). The waterboarding technique was used because it was simply the most effective, quickest and most reliable method available. The fear induced was so strong that interrogators found even those trained in anti-interrogation techniques (like Sheikh Muhammed) could not stomach it. It also has the lowest risk of actual physical injury, though the court is out on the longterm mental effects of repeated sessions.

".....it's barbaric...." So, you're OK with what, "harsh interrogation techniques"? So it's not alright to waterboard someone, but it's OK to put them in stress positions for extended periods? How about playing loud rock music in their cells during daylight hours? Would you be OK with interrogators shouting in their faces, or are you expecting genteel conversation over a cup of tea? Face it, interrogation of any form is not going to be "nice".

RE: RE: RE: Oh come on you must be a troll.

Whilst refreshingly short, your attempt to formulate any form of counter is as equally comic as the rants posted by your like-minded handwringers. Please return when you have something of worth to say.

RE: Sir

"......For the record, I have no illusions about the world being a fair place. I'm sure there are people in Gitmo that deserve to be there, but when you debase others, you debase yourself....." You're sinking your own boats here! First you claim to understand the World isn't black-and-white, but then you leap to condemn those that have to make difficult choices and perform actions which they probably also don't like doing. You don't consider the context - the Gitmo authorities believe that keeping certain dangerous people locked up and interrogating them prevents further deaths, whereas the detainees you whine over have in many cases expressed their desire to kill in the name of their cause. Even by the furthest stretch there is no way for you to pretend releasing all the current Gitmo detainees bears no risks, especially as at least 150 of the lesser detainees have since gone back to fighting. No, you have completely failed to realise the World has many shades of grey between the black and white extremes. Maybe the noise from your hobbyhorse clunking round the room is too distracting?

RE: Re: 9-11

COmeon, at least try and put up some form of argument, that effort is simply laughable!

".....I'm sure everyone here agrees that 9/11 was a terrible act....." Can you be certain? Sure, I do, and I'm sure many other posters do to, but plenty of people around the World supported Bin Liner and co. Do you want me to link to video of Palestinians dancing in the streets and handing out sweets (a traditional Arab way of celebrating) when seeing the 9-11 news? Best not to assume everyone shares your values and morals, otherwise you may make the mistake of assuming they will behave in a manner you would. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't strap on a suicide bomb and blow up a Sbarro, or shoot an anti-tank missile at a schoolbus.

"....If you're saying that Guantanamo is also a terrible act, then it seems you're in agreement with people here...." I'm saying Gitmo probably is not as terrible as made out, and it would also seem the lesser of the evils given the choices - release the detainees and risk them going back to killing; hand them over to local authorities in countries that have death as a legal recourse; or try them in the US and risk introducing extreme Islamists into a prison system already thought to have a problem with radical conversions. The prison idea is also fraught with the possibility that a detainee might claim refugee status or asylum, and I'm sure you wouldn't want an ex-Taleban or AQ bomb-maker moving in nextdoor to you, no matter how "rehabilitated" he claims to be!

"....If the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, then it's either a criminal matter, or straightforward kidnapping...." You are simply pointing out the legal limbo these people fall under. The majority of known Gitmo detainees (I can't say all as I don't know for every single one) are there with the tacit approval of their own governments, or the Afghan government if captured in Afghanistan, so kidnapping doesn't apply. Bizarre as it may seem, your country "owns" you, and if they do not formally object to the actions of another country then you're stuffed, you have to fight local law. You may recall that the British givernment had to be prodded into formally asking for the return of some of the British detainees. As Assnut found out, thinking what applies legally in his home country would apply abroad is not a good idea, especially if that home country doesn't see fit to intervene on your behalf.

The US law doesn't have provision for enemy non-uniform combatants not of a soveriegn country the US is in a declared war with. If there was a simple legal answer then the Obumbler would have closed Gitmo in a snap, even pretending Bush Jr would have been able to keep it open. All legal attempts to close Gitmo have failed so far, and a lot of smart people have been trying to find legal ways to close it for years.

"....Yes, they don't wear uniforms...." Actually, to be recognised as a militia all you have to do is wear a common and recognised symbol of that militia, such as an armband. Oh, and you also have to represent a soveriegn country at war with the other sovereign country. Guess again!

"......(The point of the Geneva Convention was to give extra rights and protections. It's sad to see people use it to argue the opposite.)...." The GC is to give protection to people in times of war. It is not some coverall set of laws to allow religious fruitcakes to blow up someone they dislike simply becasue they don't follow the version of Sharia the fruitcakes subscribes to. It is sad to see the uninformed using it in their blather.

"......Do you wear a uniform right now?...." I'm not representing a country at war with another, so a pointless argument. However, if I was at war, say representing Britain as a militia member fighting some other sovereign country (who? the US, the Chinese, the Russians?), I'd be pretty careful up-front to make sure I could claim to be a proper PoW by following the rules and at least wearing the minimum uniform element required. Oh, and I'd also make sure I was representing a sovereign country legally at war with the invading force from another soveriegn country (like, duh!). Not just blowing up people in another country because some mullah told me doing it would get me my 72 virgins in the afterlife. Oh, did you forget that many of the jihadis caught in Afghanistan aren't Afghani?

RE: Geneva Convention

<Yawn> Nice try, but the Geneva Convention applies to sovereign countries at war and the soldiers and civillians of those sovereign countries. You have to be a soveriegn country (and recognised as such by the UN is the benchmark) to be a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which is why the Taleban (and AQ) are not signatories. We are not formally at war with Afghanistan. The Taleban and AQ members (or suspects, if you prefer) detained in Gitmo are not PoWs as they are not uniformed soldiers of a soveriegn country we are at war with. To be counted as a militia you also have to be fighting for a sovereign country at war with another soveriegn country. It's like taking international shipping law and trying to apply it to a dispute over a car theft - it doesn't apply. Nice try, but completely wrong.

The Geneva Convention WOULD apply if Bush Jr had declared war on Afghanistan rather than just on the Taleban, and seeing as the Taleban were the recognised power (at least by states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) largely in control of the country at the time it would make legal sense. Then, any captives could be declared PoWs either as uniformed soldiers or as militia, and you would be right. But, Bush Jr was advised that this was not a good idea as it was hard to form a legal argument for war with Afghanistan as the 9-11 attack was by AQ, and the Taleban were merely accused of sheltering and protecting AQ rather than being proveably complicit in the attack. The result is the compromise of declaring the Taleban as the "enemy" via the UN resolutions against sheltering terrorists, but without any proper and legal declaration of war, the invasion havng the declared aim of clearing up the AQ training camps in Afghanistan and removing the Taleban from power. The result is the legal limbo under which the Gitmo detainees have been kept.

You also forget that the Geneva Convention would definately not cover AQ members captured outside Afghanistan. Some of the remaining detainees are supposedly AQ operatives and leaders caught in Pakistan and other countries (some of them being victims of the other fave froth point, rendition). If we were at war with Afghanistan and AQ was legally accepted as an arm of the Afghan administration (the Taleban), then the non-uniformed members "captured" outside Afghanistan could be classed as spies. But the wartime sentence for spying can be death, so you probably don't want to go there.

Try again, if only because it makes me laugh!

RE: @Matt Bryant

Well off-topic, but what the heck.

"....Are you supporting the US governments behaviour or trying to justify your own?" So, everyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint must be a "war-criminal" in hiding? Very objective! Try sipping the Kool Aid instead of gulping it down.

Your reply is a long-winded denial of the simple facts - the territory of Northern Ireland was under British law UK Parliamentary control before the start of "the troubles" and remained so after the 1998 Agreement. Politicians elected to the "devolved" Northern Ireland Assembly are still part and parcel of the Whitehall apparatus, which is what was Britain's objective all along. The IRA objective was that Northern Ireland should be absorbed into Southern Ireland and be completely free of British control. A simple comparison shows the Brits "won" as they restored order and prevented control of Northern Ireland falling into Southern Irish hands, whilst the IRA definately had to abandon their priciple objective (i.e. they "lost", even if they don't admit defeat). Politicians from all sides will sell it as they think their communities want to hear it, but the comparison of before and after show the Brits "won". Apologies for the reality check if you are Irish and have swallowed the version from your politician where the IRA "won".

A major factor was the change in views of the Southern Irish, who started thinking a lot more about Ireland and its own economy rather than backing a protracted war. The hope is peace will bring greater prosperity to the people of Afghanistan, and they will then be less likley to sign up as Taleban footsoldiers, which is why the Taleban spend so much effort attacking anything that might help (such as schools and charities bringing development aid). A key aim of the Taleban campaigns is to keep the locals poor and desperate. Well, at least the locals not directly related to the clan leaders, who sem to be living the feudal lord lifestyle on the backs of their footsoldiers.

Whether Internment helped the IRA in the short-term or not, it did not produce an unwavering and life-long commitment to unrelenting warfare on the part of those interned, as the majority of IRA activists and supporters have accepted the Agreement and are enjoying the peace that has followed. That is much more relevant to the arguments saying that every Gitmo detainee will become a "dedicated terrorists" that will never accept defeat.

RE: Re: RE: The British tried it in the 1970s

"....politicians actually started looking for a practical solution." Wrong! The UK had always offered all the Irish in the North and the South the chance at inclusion in the political process via democratic elections to the UK Parliament, it was BECAUSE the IRA could not see itself gaining a majority in Northern Ireland that the IRA decided to continue the campaign after the liberation of the South. Originally, Sin Fein won elections in the South in 1918 which allowed them to form an extrajudicial government (as in they held 73 UK parliamentary seats but they said they would run their own "country"). In the South, politics worked for the IRA, they had majority support and that translated into general support for the war against the Brits. In the North, they failed, so they went for "the armed struggle"/terrorism instead.

So let's review - IRA rejected democratic elections when they didn't work for them, went to "war", got nowhere but killed and maimed plenty of people and kept many in a state of fear, and then eventually went back to the democratic process. All the fancy trimmings added to the 1998 Agreement (such as changing the name of the RUC to the PSNI) were added to help Sinn Fein sell it to the IRA as "not a surrender". The underlying core of the Agreement is simple - the mainstream IRA gave up armed violence in their attempt to control the future of Northern Ireland and accepted that it should try an influence the future by political means only.

RE: Oh come on you must be a troll.

Well, seeing as you have not posted any arguments at all, I would say you are the troll, and a vacuous one at that! My point is that you people get in such a manufactured lather over what you perceive as "horrible injustices" simply because they pander to your anti-The Man views, whilst happilly ignoring far more serious events happening every day in other parts of the World. You pretend to hold the Allies to some holy standard when your only desire is to bash them at all costs. We never hear people like you praising anything good done by the Allies. You are simply repeating the same drivel you trotted out over Iraq - "war is bad, it should never be the answer, shame on you" - and ignoring the facts that the average Afghan, just like the average Iraqi, has more freedoms today than they did under their previous regimes. Your selective analysis is simply childish.

RE: Feeding the Troll

"You talk a lot, Matt, but what you say is mostly empty self-justification...." Ah, so you are merely trying to discredit what I post without trying to argue any of the points? So that means you are discrediting the The Guardian as they posted the article that I linked to pointing out that 150-odd ex-Gitmo detainees have gone back to fighting? Oh dear - that means you just dicredited the same oragn that is publishing articles on the WIkileaks material! You can't have it both ways, either The Guardian is just publishing articles containing "empty self-justification", or they are spreading The Truth straight from His Holiness Saint Julian. You fall back on groundless accusations of bullying (was there a lot of that in your playground, did you lose your lunchmoney a lot?) and cast aspersions on my morals, but you don't provide any arguments to disprove my points. That part of your post is just empty, period!

".....Not quite 1939, is it?..." Try 1941. The attack on Pearl Harbor, which the Americans went into a full-blown war over, killed 2,402 military and 57 civillians. That was still less than died annually on the US roads of the period. The US went to war because it could not afford to let another party - in this case a country rather than a religious group - think it could attack and kill Americans at will.

You then come up with the bizarre idea that 9-11 was acceptable becuase it only "resulted in 3,000 deaths"! That is so gob-smackingly out-there as to defy sane analysis! Are you really saying you wouldn't mind if terrorist (sorry, you probably call them "freedom fighters", no?) were smacking jets into Western highrises on a regular basis, we should just laugh and shrug and say "well, more are killed evey year on our highways"!?!? You are so determiend to push your views you call me insensitive for accepting that a few innocents might get caught up in the system, but you brazenly declare the deaths of 3,000 people as irrellevant! You really are so far gone I would suggest you seek professional attention. I am betting there are even very few of the posters here that would be as far gone as to claim the deaths on 9-11 as irrellevant.

/Can we please have an icon for "Seek professional help, pronto!"?

RE: Sir @ Matt

I'm guessing you use the term "isn't fair" a lot, as in "it isn't fair that innocent people get locked up", or "it isn't fair that people get killed in war", or "it isn't fair that I didn't get to go to a top university", or "it isn't fair I didn't get that payrise", or "it isn't fair that I don't have a girlfriend/boyfriend/hamster-without-sharp-claws". Truth is the World "isn't fair", it's populated with people, and we all have nasty little personal traits, beliefs, practices, weaknesses and failings which mean there is SFA chance of it being "fair". That is human nature. We recognise the problems in human nature by having laws and punishment for those that break the law. If we were all driven to be "nice" and "fair" then civillisation should have reached a point where we don't need any laws, but we still do. The sooner you realise this and apply that to understanding World events then the sooner you will realise that there are a lot of people out there who's thinking is a lot "stinkier" than mine, only they are in positions to force their thoughts and actions on others. I merely use my "stinkiness" to object to people like you that expect me to accept their limited viewpoint without question

Even those that declare themselves "nice" and "fair" can end up in positions where - even if they are truly "nice" and "fair" - they have to break their own moral code or laws to avoid something worse happening. This is the dilemna facing the Obumbler over Gitmo. He wants to appear "nice" and "fair", especially to the World in general, but he has to keep Gitmo going - a "nasty" and "unfair" idea - because he cannot find a better solution. His choice is stark - release all the detainees and run the risk that some of them will return to killing - a "stinky" and probably vote-threatening idea - or keep them locked up depsite some of them possibly being innocent - a "stinky" and probably vote-threatening idea! We could argue all day as to which idea the Obumbler might hate most - the possible killing, the possible innocents, or the losing of votes - but please do take the time to tell me how you think the Obumbler has an attitude to human suffering that performs sexual acts in a manner that cause you olfactory stress?

Hamid Kharzai is (alledgedly) a member of a drug-dealer clan that has (alledgedly) used their current position in power to enhance their own standing and wealth and (alledgedly) encouraged corruption and nepotism in Afghanistan. Personally, I don't think he's a "nice person" or at all "fair", but I consider him a better choice than the Taleban. Until there is a "nice" and "fair" option available, he's probably the best choice the Afghan people are going to get. We could strip him of power and insist we don't let anyone rule Afghanistan until they have found that perfectly "nice" and "fair" person, but that would mean our own very human and not perfectly "nice" and "fair" politicians would have to run Afghanistan, and their history makes the idea of any politician being truly "nice" and "fair" a pretty bleak prospect. Afghansitan may never find a perfectly "nice" and "fair" leader, but time and the democratic process, coupled with economic development, may lead to "nicer" and "fairer" (but probably not perfect) leaders developing. Maybe one of those future leaders will come up with a "nice" and "fair" solution (without philosophical "odours" that offend your delicate sensibilities) to the Gitmo issue.

But don't let that little reality check stop you bleating, it does provide considerable humour.

RE: OK, Matt, I call your bluff

Call my bluff? Put up or shutup? You couldn't pull the skin off custard, not without having to have someone else give you an opinion about the custard in the first place!

".....access to extra information...." What extra information? It's all out there, it's just many posters here only go looking for the little info that supports their blinkered views, and then studiously avoid reading anything that might spoil their delusions. Have I exposed any top-secret documents? No, I've linked to public articles. The fact that you consider these "extra" just shows the limits of both your knowledge and your ability to go research an item before making a conclusion. But I'm guessing your "opinions" come pre-packaged and are given to you by others you consider just too hip'n'trendy to be wrong.

"......You are so far behind the general curve on this one...." Really? So I'm betting you didn't read the second Guardian article then? Just like the morons bleating on about the original Guardian article, but being completely oblivious of the second article, run the same day by The Guardian, that admitted at least 150 former Gitmo detainees have gone back to fighting for the Taleban or AQ. Did they do any research or background reading before they got on their moral hobbyhorses? Did you? They didn't even bother reading a headline story on the same website, let alone go to websites or sources that might have a conflicting viewpoint! The reason being for them the glee comes from mounting that hobbyhorse and telling the World how morally superior they are. You want to believe that anyone that doesn't agree with your political viewpoint is "behind the curve", when the reality is it is you lot that simply do not bother to go looking for the facts and are information starved. Behind the curve - you lot are not even on the curve!

"....should mean that *everyone* should be treated with the same levels of human rights..." Ooh, how quaint! All nice and twee in a lovely World, but the reality is the World is not like that. Try asking the Afghans that suffered under years of Taleban repression about human rights. Try considering that the Taleban were so unpopular that, during their war with the Northern Alliance, they had roughly 45,000 footsoldiers of which over 30,000 were foreign Islamists brought in to try and get the Taleban forces up to the same number as their Afghan opponents. This is doubly damining when you consider that the Taleban came from the Pashtun majority. The Taleban imposed what is widely recognised to be the harshest form of Sharia instituted anywhere, even stricter than Saudi's, and with even stricter punishments. They acted with the conviction that they were doing "Allah's will" - try convincing people that think like that that they should give equal rights to women, gays, or other religions. But I suppose it's much easier for you to just ignore history or ongoing World events, and just bleat on from your hobbyhorse about other people being "behind the curve".

Let's make one thing clear - I think Gitmo is not an ideal solution, but it is currently one that is there becasue there is no perfect solution. And before you start bleating again, please consider that The Lord Shepherd Obumbler himself has been forced to that conclusion as well, as is evident in his failure to meet his election promise to close Gitmo. Now, how many of you sheep thought it was going to be easy to do simply because He said "yes we can"?

RE: Hmm

"....If you torture people...." Please provide your substantiated and scientifically-backed evidence of torture. Not just harsh interrogation techniques, I mean real torture. Oh, you can't, because the majority of the "torture" schpiel is just propaganda and hot air, and because the few that have undergone what might be termed "torture" are real hardcore terrorists like Sheikh Muhammed. And then please go and compare to the techniques used by the Taleban for their prisoners and those they "interrogate", and try and pretend they compare.

RE: RE: The Guardian a bit hypocritical?

You're assuming all Gitmo detainees were tortured, that they all lived in horrible conditions, and that they were all inncoent before being detained. The first point is proveably false as not every Gitmo releasee has claimed they were tortured. The second point is also proveably false as even the Red Cross, which has visited Gitmo, had to concede the tales of the "horrors" of Gitmo were just propaganda. And as to the last point, we have the admissiosn from Taleban spokesmen that many fo their own have been captured, including those in Gitmo. People like you are so determined to think the worst of the US and Gitmo that you can't see the facts.

RE: rtfa then.

"....this has hard statistics to back it up." I'm assuming your reality filter meant you didn't see The Guardian article that clearly states at least 150 Gitmo detainees have gone back to fighting for AQ and/or the Taleban, then? Next time you want ot use the "pillock" term I suggest you look in the mirror, as you seem a particularly and wilfully obtuse form of enraged penis. Please try readding before the next exbleative (sic).

RE: @Matt Bryant

"Which part of "Until Proven Guilty" don't you understand?...." Oh, if only it was that simple. This is not civil arrests for breaking the peace or being drunk in public, these are potentially killers that would attack the West if given the chance and have attacked their own people. The ones that were handed over by the Northern Alliance after being captured in combat, how do you expect to try them? How do you expect to track down the NA soldiers that captured them and interview them when it is highly likely the NA didn't keep a record of exactly who did what, only that thet picked up such and such a guy in a firefight with AQ or the Taleban. Want to ask the ISI, which hates having to hand over their own Taleban pets to the CIA, for evidence to back up allegations against people like Sheikh Muhammed? Your naivete is touchingly stupid.

In war you do not need to apply rediculous ideas like "ooh, he might be innocent" as the costs are much higher if you get it wrong. Look at the tens-of-thousands of Europeans interned in the US and Britain during WW2, without any trials or right to appeal, simply because they might be sympathetic to the Nazis and commit acts of treason. Compared to that we have a few hundred - a pittance. This is not some petty squabble between neighbours that needs to be arbitrated by oridinary Police, this is war against an enemy that does not follow even the most basic of criminal or military laws and deliberately targets civillians here and abroad to make their point.

RE: Questionable

I've already provided The Guardian link for their article discussing the 150-odd ex-Gitmo detainees that have gone back to fighting for AQ or the Taleban! I'm assuming your overwhelming desire to flaunt your moral superiority meant you didn't bother to read any of the posts, you just went straight to bleatomatic setting ten! Here it is again, please try READING before bleating: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-released-taliban-alqaida.

The Guardian is going to present any such supporting evidence for keeping Gitmo in the worst light possible, so for them to admit to 150 means the reality is probably even worse.