Lebermac, the problem with your aruments is simply the fact that in the eyes of a large portion of the rest of the world, radical islamic state or social democratic country, the US has been engaged in multi-national terrorism for decades and decades; Hiroshima and Nagasaki for instance.

The radical islamist's goal is to destroy all secular power and place all power in the hands of an islamist religious elite, which will control the world by force, by religious dogma, and by intimidation.

This is Pentagon propaganda. While radical islam may dream of of a worldwide secular empire (much in the same way as Bush dreams of a worldwide Christian Pseudo-Democratic empire), they're simply too outnumbered by rational muslims for this to ever happen.

Essentially, preemption is the new U.S. global security strategy. Hit them before they hit you. No more "containment". Of course, that comes off as belligerent. I say that's too damn bad.

This is allegorical and contradictory to the basic fundamental ideal of justice: Innocent until proven guilty. Do you really stand by the efforts to reverse this? Make no mistake, this way of thinking WILL (and has) leak into your day to day life at home, encroaching upon your civil liberties (perhaps not yours, but many of your less fortunate fellow Americans).

The point of your argument that irks me the most is that you assume a moral equivalent between the United States and these terrorists. Is it not obvious to anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature that the way the terrorists make their points and fight their war is WRONG?

As Momerath already has shown, the US has a long history of utilizing cruel and inhumane methods of warfare, extending deep into contemporary conflicts. How is this any different? Simply because the Pentagon arbitrarily distributes labels of convenience?

OK I'll take tosh 1st:
First off, the terrorists in Iraq (most of them, anyway) are mostly not native Iraqi, instead they come from everywhere around Iraq. Why? Because Iraq is now a number-one live-ammo training center for the entire radical islamist apparatus.
Because they can travel 300 miles to shoot at Americans rather than travel 3000 miles to do so. Because they've got quite a bit of pent-up anger at American hegemony.

Secondly, why do you think a lot of the islamist people continue to give support to the radical groups?
Support this. Quantify "a lot". Make sure to separate islamists from your standard muslims.

Thirdly, why are you so hell-bent on bringing democracy to 'those ignorant islamists' ignie ferrumque? Don't you think it'd be easier, and maybe less bloody, to open diplomatic channels and discuss it with them? Oh, right. It's too late for that.
Probably. The issue here is that no democracy has ever existed in the middle east, so it'll be a learning process for everyone, not the least of whom is the United States. The war was not brought about to "make Iraq safe for democracy." Get real, maybe we should have opened up a dialog with the Soviet Union and persuaded them to become a democracy by getting them a copy of "Wealth of Nations" and a Bush '04 bumper sticker. Stick to the topic.

Wrong! Especially in Iran, there's a dichotomy between the ultra-conservative elders and the actual opinion of the populace. The problem is that the former hold policing power. But if the US government goes and charges in there to 'bring about democracy', like they tried in Iraq, I don't know if I should still be trying to understand both sides' points of view.
Iran's got quite a pent-up reservoir of youthful idealists who would bring change if they could. However, don't doubt for an INSTANT the ruthlessness of the mullahs who rule Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war, they would send children into the field as the first waves of troops without weapons, only to be mowed down by Iraqi gunners, who only fled when the ran out of AMMO.
The U.S. does not have a very good track record of supporting popular revolts, especially in the middle east. I'm sure that's part of the reason that they hate us so much, we'll get them to revolt, promising them full support, then we leave them high and dry.
I'm of the opinion that if we leave Iran alone, they'll come around with a new government sooner rather than later. However I'm dubious that that will improve the US's karma in the region.

And lastly, everyone seems to have forgotten about Afghanistan. Yet they still have (big, huge, nearly insolvable) problems down there, and the warlords are stronger than ever. All because the terrorist group funded and fostered by the US (the Taliban were provided by the United States with intelligence, money and weapons, to hamper the Soviet Union) went rogue and committed acts of terrorism. However, the world's focus turned away from there...
Hell I can't forget about Afghanistan. The US has essentially secured Kabul and let a new breed of warlords take over in the hinterland. Opium production is back up, but women in Kabul get to learn to read. Some good, some bad. Don't assume that if the idiot US media forgets Afghanistan that its citizens has.

Now it may be just me, but I perceive the 'War On Terrorism' to be a pretty poor ploy by the conservative lobby in the US to keep the current president (read: marionette) in office, and behold, it worked.
LOL Now who's spouting conspiracy theories? So you believe that the "conservative lobby" (whoever THAT is) either
a) has influence over islamist groups, enough to tell them what to do, or
b) have the capability and ruthlessness to propagate attacks against its own countrymen in order to further an internal political agenda.
Now, don't get me wrong, Bush is not the brightest bulb in the bunch, and his reliance on several lifetime republican conservative cabinet members annoys me. I was saddest when Colin Powell left, everything went STRAIGHT to hell from that point.

Israel is currently working on ousting the (legally elected) government in Palestine, which could turn out to be a very bad move. And everyone who could take influence (save Egypt, and they failed... maybe due to the lack in backing) is standing by and watching, including the EU, Russia and China. Shouldn't the US go in, and pacify both parties by sending some troops? How about it?
Um, Hamas, a terrorist group, is essentially in control. Legally elected or not, that's like saying that the Latin Kings (A hispanic gang of punks) essentially control south central LA, so we may as well negotiate with them instead of the elected officials.
I'm sure that a serious look at the US's relationship with Israel is worth pursuit. If we play hardball with them and start removing support, I'm sure they would be... more accommodating... to serious talks that involve 2-way responses.

Onto Gav:
Lebermac, the problem with your aruments is simply the fact that in the eyes of a large portion of the rest of the world, radical islamic state or social democratic country, the US has been engaged in multi-national terrorism for decades and decades; Hiroshima and Nagasaki for instance.
Oh no...YOU DID NOT JUST SAY THAT HIROSHIMA WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK.
That's pathetic and does not even deserve a response. That's 5 for lack of perception, into the penalty box with you.

While radical islam may dream of of a worldwide secular empire (much in the same way as Bush dreams of a worldwide Christian Pseudo-Democratic empire), they're simply too outnumbered by rational muslims for this to ever happen.
Support this. You're getting more off-topic than toshiro, but I'd be interested to see statistics that support this statement.

...[pre-emption] is allegorical and contradictory to the basic fundamental ideal of justice: Innocent until proven guilty. Do you really stand by the efforts to reverse this? Make no mistake, this way of thinking WILL (and has) leak into your day to day life at home, encroaching upon your civil liberties (perhaps not yours, but many of your less fortunate fellow Americans).
Well, when it comes down to defending your country from attack by a shadowy, elusive adversary, you're going to have to take serious steps to "nip it in the bud." I'm not willing to give up any of my fundamental liberties or rights to gain an edge, which leaves us at an impasse. Eventually, a more serious attack will occur somewhere, because our open society makes it so easy to get around and do what you like. Essentially our core liberties are being used against us. I don't have any idea on how to shore this up completely, but one part of it is to not let enemies who have declared their intention to destroy us have a free hand. If we can get to them, we should do so.

As Momerath already has shown, the US has a long history of utilizing cruel and inhumane methods of warfare, extending deep into contemporary conflicts. How is this any different? Simply because the Pentagon arbitrarily distributes labels of convenience?
I'm well aware of Momerath's views on the topic, that's what we talk about over beers. (BTW now we've got a good reason to have beers again.) War isn't pretty, but I'm sure we're the only nation that takes our own troops to task for making a POW wear a leash. There are FAR worse fates than being a POW in an American camp. Let's compare:
Insurgents/terrorists captured by the US: Live in caribbean locale, fed well, receive full medical & dental attention and, while still prisoners, live better than they did in the caves of Afghanistan
US civilians captured by insurgents/terrorists: Tortured (possibly just for fun), then mutilated or beheaded.

Oh no...YOU DID NOT JUST SAY THAT HIROSHIMA WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK.
That's pathetic and does not even deserve a response. That's 5 for lack of perception, into the penalty box with you.

I did indeed say that. You must have heard this one by now, no? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities of strategic military importance to be sure. But by the time these two bombs were dropped, the Japanese army was all but defeated. The condition of surrender was the only issue at stake. The Japanese wanted to maintain a certain level of Empire, the US wanted unconditional surrender. One of the main reasons given for the bombs to be dropped was to burn the Japanese people into submission. Even if one subscribes to the alternate theory, that the Japanese were defeated, but intent on fighting to the very last man, then it still brings up the question of surplanting civilian casualties for those of the military.

The definition of terrorism is: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims (from MW).

How does this NOT fit into this definition? If Germany had dropped a Nuclear bomb, the Generals who issued the order would have been executed for crimes against humanity. Over 300 THOUSAND people died as a result of those two bombs. Tell me how you think that was a legitimate use of force.

In regards to the other stuff... I'll get back to you, I've got some stuff I must attend to, outside, in the sun.

I haven't got much time, so I'll be brief:

I was only talking about the terrorists in Iraq because you said that they killed their countrymen, which is wrong. the terrorists are from outside Iraq and thus do not kill their countrymen.

I do believe Bush is a marionette rather than a politician who thinks independently. I cannot say, for whom exactly, because I lack the perception of the american situation, but simply based on how Bush acts, or rather, what I get to see of that, I made that decision.

Then there's the 'conspiracy theory'. I don't believe they actually brought the terrorist attacks about, but they used it for quite a few things, amongst others scaring people into believing the Bush administration could solve the problem (by war). But that people would be ruthless enough to let attacks happen to their own people? Um, sure. Why not? It doesn't take that many.

The islamists who support the radical groups, how much they make up of the overall muslim population? I have no absolute numbers, but I think there's a significant percentage now, maybe 30%.

Then about Israel: Hamas IS a terrorist group, BUT they were elected legally.
If we start to support (or stand idly by) the destruction of such governments, we can't even say we're hypocrites, we'd be negating the idea of rightful leadership. I don't mean to say that we should stand by and look as they commit attack after attack, but neither should we just let happen what's going down now.

Okay, got to go to college.

LeberMac stupidly and ignorantly wrote:

Insurgents/terrorists captured by the US: Live in caribbean locale, fed well, receive full medical & dental attention and, while still prisoners, live better than they did in the caves of Afghanistan.

I suggest, LeberMac, that you read this:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=4bUT8M23lk&Content=424

Read it all, and make sure to open the PDF labeled "Report of Former Guantanamo Detainees", the link to which is on an orange box to the right of the screen right below the artitcle's title, "FORMER GUANTANAMO DETAINEES RELEASE 115-PAGE REPORT". Read all 115 pages of it, and then go Google more on it, find the pictures, the other testimonies, see if you can find the report about the american soldier who actually got hurt while TRAINING others on how to handle the Guantamo prisoners as described on the 115-page report. And then come back, and try to convince us that being at Guantamo is better than living in a cave.

Or at least come to admit that you yourself live in a cave, with thick earplugs and a blindfold over your eyes that reads "I <3 Dubya".

Now now Triple J, don't get your apprentice-troll panties in a wad over this and start calling people names.

I read it and the main points seem to be:

1. Prisoners would be forced to watch gay prison porn, essentially. (Point 303, "supposedly showing sodomy" from the PDF)
2. The prisoners got a clean shave and a haircut, and had to watch as their Qur'an got thrown in the toilet.
3. The prisoners were given injections and were not told what they were.
4. The prsoners were told that medical care would be provided to them only if they cooperated. (The PDF itself seems to contradict this statement.)
5. At least two of the prisoners were held in isloation for well over a year.

None of which have been corroborated by anyone. I read the two-year old report by G Gutierrez on the release of these three back to the UK.

It's full of things like "We were never given any advance notice that we were going to be interrogated." and "The mean guards wouldn't TALK to me." and "They took away my towel that I had fashioned into a turban." and "They listened in on our conversations" and "All I got to read was a book version of 'Planet of the Apes'" and "They made us excercise for 15 minutes twice a week."

On the other hand, they were fed so well that they relate putting on 25 pounds of weight!

But in all seriousness, being in prison sucks. It's perhaps not as nice as a cave in Afghanistan. But, these three made a conscious choice to go to Northern Afghanistan sometime befoe November 2001. They could have stayed in the UK, but they chose to go practice their faith in Afghanistan and were most likely captured as Taliban fighters. I'd REALLY like to hear more about that (what comes between points 2 and 3 in the PDF file you told me about.) The report says nothing about the methods of their capture, their reason for being in Afghanistan. Were they captured with weapons? Were they captured in combat? It doesn't say.

If you talk to prison inmates, this is the kind of stuff you hear from them all the time. "That guard's got it in for me... " etc. The only twist on this is the interrogations, which seem to be unending and poorly coordinated.

I know beyond a doubt that I should NOT get involved in this thread as per its main topic, however I cannot allow Gavan to continue on HIS misunderstanding of history, specifically WWII.

WWII History is a particular hobby of mine, and you need to have a few facts added to your list there gavan.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not terrorist acts, they were specifically organized and planned military operations designed to bring about a specific response (surrender) from a hostile government, specifically the japanese govt. The japanese army was by no means "all but defeated"

After the war the american military occupation found entire arifields that had been constructed underground, filled with aircraft outfitted as both kamakazi and otherwise (including jets)* and organizational information, including supplies and weapons (mostly small arms with limited ammunition, but a fair amount of medium to large field grade artillery and the like) to outfit approx 80% of the population of the japanese home islands for military duty.

* the japanese were test flying jets even earlier than the germans, and managed to do so in almost complete secrecy, large amounts of the post WWII US jet program were furthered by japanese engeneering consultants using captured technology

While it is true that the japanese army and navy had very limited 'offensive' capability remaining, mostly due to thier inability to trans-ship fuel oil which was a major contributor to the CAUSE of the pacific theater of WWII, they were not at all unprepared for a massive DEFENSIVE combat, both in the home islands and elsewhere.

The "condition of surrender" that you claim was at issue is an incorrect statement on your part, as up until the day the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki the japanese empire had utterly refused any and ALL attempts to discuss a surrender of any significant type, being that it was simply not acceptable to the japanese bushido warrior ethic, which looked upon surrender(of any sort) as a total failure. The difference wasn't between,
- a surrender where the japanese empire maintained some of its athority and an unconditional one

but a rathar one of of

- simply ceasing the combat, with the japanese refusing to leave any of the territory that had not allready been recaputred from them, including large portions of china, the phillipines, burma, siam(thiland), indonesia and most of the islands in the pacific, or having them surrender unconditionally.

It took an order from the emperor of japan absolving his military government of the loss of face they would face upon surrender to get them to do so, and that was AFTER the bombs.

I suggest you take a good long look at the historical records of Iwo-Jima and Okinawa paying specific attention to the japanese tactics and combat strategies on those two islands, both of which were FAR less supplied and prepared in terms of personel and equipment than the home islands had been for invasion.

The decision to use the atomic bombs was during a time of declared war, against an opponent who was refusing to even admit that negotiations for a surrender of any sort were an option. The japanese empire was warned before the hiroshima attack (not of any specifics of course, but that a new and devestating weapon would be employed) and chose to ignore those warnings. It was warned AFTER the attack and chose to do nothing at all, and would not even acknowledge that it was considering the messages. It was warned again before the nagasaki attack, and again refused to respond.

The morality of the 'total war' concept is another story and entirely up for debate, I myself don't feel that waging war on civilians to force a military objective is justified, however in the case of the japanese islands the exact definition of a civillian could be a bit harder to determine than most. This is primarily due to the reverence in which the vast majority of japanese held thier emperor and his government. An order from the government for 'all people to resist the invaders with military force' would almost certaintly have been obeyed by a vast majority of the population, including those who were killed at hiroshima and nagasaki.

Additionally the japanese military establishment during WWII was guilty of war crimes on the same level (and in most cases exceeding) as germany as far as regards to the treatment of POW's and conqured peoples. Sadly the reason thier actions were not subjected to the same scruitiny as germany's were the following facts:
- that america was essentially the only occupier of japan, and it was easier to gain cooperation of the populace at large by NOT bringing the scrutiny of the world upon japan, perhaps more importantly to the politicians at the time the war crimes trials were an 'international' affair, which would have required allowing other nations a larger presence in the occupation.
- Many of the people involved in the japanese treatment of prisoners were involved in medical research that was deemed to be 'important' and it was deemed 'desirable to keep this information away from the USSR if at all possible'.
-for the same reason as the first, what war criminals WERE tried from japan were usually tried in a military court, and the results (usually a firing squad) were not published widely at the time.

Spellcast, while I respect the fact that you may be an avid WWII hobbiest, your arguments are as unsupported as my own. All you've done is essentially describe in much more detail the alternate theory that I preposed in brief: That no the Japanese were not going to surrender, and we're intent on fighting until the last man to defend their home.

Regardless, most of what you said, unsupported with documentation as it is (again, so is mine), is no more speculative than what I have said. There are multiple accounts of Civilian Diplomats using secure (well, they can't have been that secure) channels to try and persuade the war council to surrender. In fact many proponents of the bombings offer the fact that this act provided these diplomats an "out". They got their surrender, and did not have to go against the military.

Also there is the issue surrounding the Soviet Army's imminent declaration of war against the Japanese. The American's had nothing to risk from waiting a short time to see what the outcome of their involvement would be. There was absolutely no chance that the Japanese would mount a counter offensive in the few days they would have had to wait.

After the war the american military occupation found entire arifields that had been constructed underground, filled with aircraft outfitted as both kamakazi and otherwise (including jets)* and organizational information, including supplies and weapons (mostly small arms with limited ammunition, but a fair amount of medium to large field grade artillery and the like) to outfit approx 80% of the population of the japanese home islands for military duty.

If what you are saying here amounts to reasons justifying the bombing, then I would say that's ridiculous. Unless the US had intelligence of this before hand, then it really cannot be entered into the argument.

This is primarily due to the reverence in which the vast majority of japanese held thier emperor and his government. An order from the government for 'all people to resist the invaders with military force' would almost certaintly have been obeyed by a vast majority of the population, including those who were killed at hiroshima and nagasaki.

This sounds similair to the concept of conscription, albeit perhaps not as forced. Regardless, you cannot nuke a population because of the fact that they "might" fight back when their homeland is being invaded. Numerous reports and books from Japan insist that the Japanese population was NOT in favour of a all out defensive battle, and WAS in favour of surrender.

Regardless, my views towards contemporary warfare against civilian populations are equal to that of terrorism anyway, whether it was the London Blitz, the bombing of Berlin, or Hiroshima. Any of those actions are purely political in nature, with the intention of causing suffering of the people as a means to an ends. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are simply the worst historical examples of State Sponsored Terrorism, in my opinion. I would almost include the Holocaust, but that was not political in nature. That, along with cases like Rwanda, was racial.

To quote Robert McNamara: "...what makes it immoral if you lose but not immoral if you win?"

PS. Show me your sources, and I'll show you mine :)

An interesting article on Nuclear Proliferation from the man himself:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/10865

Actually, the 'Endlösung' was in part a political decision. I'm sorry that I can't provide facts, since I only read about this in the newspapers here, and I don't intend to pay for their archives.

Yeah, sorry, you're right. It was a political decision. I meant more that, unlike most terrorist acts, which are intent on affecting political change through the means of causing suffering amongst the populace of a target, instead it was simply meant to exterminate a particular race/religion.

Ah, yeah.

I'm still unsure as to whether I should call the bombing of civilian targets 'terrorism' or just 'atrocities of war'. In open war, it might be easier to do such things as carpet bombing cities because after all, it is war.

sigh. I didnt really have time to dig up the sources earlier.. as I have more time at the moment lets go ahead and get into that... but before i do,

the airfields and weapons caches on the home islands are entered into the discussion because they are hard proof that while offensive operations were certaintly unlikely for the japanese the materiel stockpiles themselves (if we knew about them at the time or not) are proof that the army was not 'all but defeated' and were only brought up as a rebuttal to that specific argument.

The planners of the invasion of the japanese islands based thier casualty estimates on a direct projection using the factual numbers gleaned from invasions of Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo-Jima, Okinawa and quite a few other japanese held islands.

the japanese reverence for the emperor is nothing like conscription, bearing more similarities with a religon in which the empereor was revered as a god than a political act such as conscription.

I reccomend the following books to gain some insight into that aspect of pre-WWII japanese culture as it related to western civilization(namely the USA), and the post WWII occupation..

Reminiscences - by MacArthur, Douglas, an autobiography
admittedly a book biased towards the view of one man, and an american general to boot, but MacArthur had a great sympathy to the japanese and knew them quite well as a culture, he also felt that the bombings were militarily unneccesary as he did not wish to invade japan at all, instead wishing to simply blockade it from all shipping and starve it into submission, an action that would probably have caused FAR more casualties long term than the bombs themselves did, but he did not consider them a terrorist action

At Dawn We Slept, by.. I'm afraid i forget his name now and the book is buried somewhere nearby.. i'll try to dig it up later
primarily a book about the raid on pearl harbor, but a large section at the beginning discusses the japanese planning for the raid and the politics behind it

Bridge to the sun - by Terasaki, Gwen,

Time-life also did a good series of books on WWII several (10-15?)years back that included a solid discussion of the pre-war motivations of japan, and the political maneuverings that occured during the war. I'll have to go to the library and get the actual titles of that series as it's not one i actually own.

I'll also have to dig around and see if i can find that box i stored the books i packed away in.

as far as the japanese ordinance and military stores recovered after the war you can do your own research into those, all the records are pretty much de-classified by now.

One additional argument i have not mentioned yet as to why the bombs were dropped is the fact that american cryptographers had broken several of the high level japanese military codes and knew beyond a doubt that the japanese pro-war government was not interested in surrender.

The soviet attack in manchuria really doesnt enter into the equation at all because it was not given the final go-ahead by stalin until AFTER the first of the bombs had been dropped, and was largely a political move designed to try to give the soviets some grounds for demanding a say in the post-surrender governmnet of japan.

Oh good lord you guys have expended this topic to essentially:

1. The United States is just as bloodthirsty, backwards and evil as regimes like Imperial Japan and the Taliban.
and
2. No we're not.

I choose #2.

Hold it. I never said that. What I am saying is that the US is at times very shortsighted in their actions, as has been clearly shown by how the Taliban worked out for them.

I also say that no matter the crime, human rights are irrevokable. It goes along with my opinion that not even governments should be able to decide about the life or death of accused people, be it extraterritorial or not, except for the case of open war, or in situations that can be counted as immediate self-defence. I'm aware that this is a very vague definition, but I don't feel like expanding upon it, since I think you know what I mean.

I'm feelin' ya, tosh. I'm all for human rights as well.

I don't like it when I hear about stories where our troops beat the crap out of prisoners because they looked at them funny. That's horrendous.

I'd like to think that the U.S. Military is the most professional, competent, and kickass military organization that has ever existed on the planet. I'm pretty sure that it is.

Apparently, however, there are always examples of atrocities. The difference between the U.S. and the rest of the world is: We punish the people who do it. When was the last time you heard about a North Korean officer being reprimanded or imprisoned for humiliating a political prisoner?

The United States is held to such a high standard of behavior by the rest of the world that it's annoying to many americans when Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch comes down on U.S. troops for pissing on a book. Please. Hell we let our OWN CITIZENS burn our flag for cryin' out loud. If the religion/faith of a muslim is so weak and so based on physical things that it can be damaged by the desecration of a mass-produced book, then the root of the problem lies in the religion. Ask me how many times I've used the bible as a coaster or a drawing board.(Lots.)

The U.S. military CAN be held to a higher standard because it's that GOOD. The world's policeman, we're expected to be the muscle when the UN passes resolutions requiring us to once again play the role of enforcer. The international community expects outrageous levels of care and precision from the U.S. military, to the point of going beserk when an errant missile blows up a shop instead of the military barracks that it was next to. Yet when terrorists detonate a truck bomb in a crowded market, somehow that's our fault too. The double-standard is rather annoying.

Internally in the United States, there is a rising sentiment of isolationism because of this general feeling that (however arrogant this may seem) the world doesn't "appreciate" us. You can see its undercurrent in the immigration debate, the wrangling over trade deficits, and the "zero-tolerance" attitudes towards belligerent countries, that we're kinda sick of putting up with the crap. This is, in my view, a dangerous sentiment which if taken to its logical conclusion will result in someone else stepping up to the plate to play "world leader", probably China. That'd be just great.

Part of the problems with an elected government is that the international relations change with administrations, and that can be every 4 years. I've said this before, it DOES create a schizophrenic foreign policy. But at least the citizens have a modicum of control over the way their government is represented.

So anyway, america, f@#$ yeah!

"Hell we let our OWN CITIZENS burn our flag for cryin' out loud."

You're half correct there.

We almost lost that right a few days ago in Congress. By ONE FUCKING VOTE. They're even trying to make a constitutional AMENDMENT to ban flag burning. Keep in mind who you people are voting into government.

Burning your country's flag is a type of political protest and therefore protected under the Bill of Rights. Now, I want someone who sincerely believes that the US government is not trying to take away our rights to argue against that point above.

Agreed. Banning something like Flag burning is a slippery slope to outlawing "unamerican activities."

Paging Joe McCarthy...

Interesting bullshit, LeberMac.

"these three made a conscious choice to go to Northern Afghanistan sometime befoe November 2001. They could have stayed in the UK, but they chose to go practice their faith in Afghanistan"

By that logic, everyone who went into the Twin Towers of their own choice on 9/11 deserved to die.

"Were they captured with weapons? Were they captured in combat? It doesn't say." If you had looked beyond the report, you'd have found they were captured in a town, no weapons, and they went there because one of them was meeting his fiancee.

Of course, the biggest bullshit you spout is when you compare them to criminal prisoners. Criminal prisoners were charged with a crimed, had a fair trial before a jury of their peers where they were held to be innocent before proven guilty, and in jail do not experience the same hardships from the staff. Hell, not even Zacarias Moussaoui is going to face anything similar to what these people went through! These people were kidnapped, their rights trampled, submitted to torture and humilliation, all without ever being charged with anything, or facing a jury, or anything. In the end, it turned out they were innocent civilians taken captive by overzealous idiots, and they were let go.

As for the US government behaving like the Taliban, let's see:

-The Taliban kill innocents and deny people their rights because of what they believe, and try to impose their point of view on everyone.

-The US government kills innocents and denies people their rights because of what it believes, and tries to impose its point of view on everyone.

Hmm... nop, they are nothing alike. Suuure.

"these three made a conscious choice to go to Northern Afghanistan sometime befoe November 2001. They could have stayed in the UK, but they chose to go practice their faith in Afghanistan"

By that logic, everyone who went into the Twin Towers of their own choice on 9/11 deserved to die. - jex

I'm going to argue with this particular logical jump on your part jex, not because i neccesarily find your argument offensive except that you are comparing apples to three car garages.

In Nov 2001 afganistan was allready a country in turmoil with the taliban running what basically amounted to an oligarchial dicatorship and allowing fundamental islamic zealots to train for terrorist acts in the country. Those three made a choice to go to an area that had a significant element of danger.

Comparing that to people going to work in an office building in a peaceful country is a bad logical step. The choice to go to an area where terrorist acts are taught is not the same as going to work.

(please note that i am NOT offering any opinion on whether or not they deserved the treatment they -allegedly-** recieved. toshiro is correct that human rights are irrevocable. If they recieved such treatment as described then the captors deserve to be dealt with no matter what.)

**- the word allegedly is included because until there is a larger body of evidence than the testimonies of three friends released after the fact the claims are by any reasonable standard of evidence unsubstantiated. I am not claiming they did not recieve such treatment, merely that I do not feel there are enough facts to say they did or did not.