Originally posted by sjegAn Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe-commissioned report said last week that the United States should close Guantanamo because its treatment of 500 terrorism suspects encourages hatred towards the West and bolsters Muslim membership of the al-Qaeda network. In June, the US military described cases of mishandling of the Qur'an by US personnel at Guantanamo naval base in Cuba, including splashing it with urine and kicking it. Human rights groups as well as institutions such as the European Parliament and the Council of Europe have criticised the United States for holding detainees there for indefinite periods and not assigning them "prisoner of war" status. Instead, suspects are labelled "enemy combatants", something the OSCE report called a legal nonentity under international law. As of last month, 505 prisoners were in the compound, all suspected of links to the al Qaeda terror network or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime. Many were captured in Afghanistan in the months after the US-led invasion in October 2001, and some have been there since the compound was opened in January 2002. Four of the prisoners have been charged. Guards began strapping the detainees into chairs for hours to feed them through tubes and prevent them vomiting afterwards, the Times said. "It is clear that the government has ended the hunger strike through the use of force and through the most brutal and inhumane types of treatment," Thomas Wilner, a lawyer at Shearman & Sterling in Washington, said. "It is a disgrace," Wilner said after a trip to Guantanamo. The strikers allege that feeding tubes are inserted without using anaesthesia or sedatives and that tubes are being re-used without proper sanitisation. Two separate bomb blasts by suspected Taliban rebels killed six Afghan soldiers and wounded eight others in volatile north-eastern Afghanistan early Friday, the defence ministry said. "In both attacks six Afghan soldiers were martyred and eight wounded," Afghan security forces and the nearly 30 000 foreign troops trying to help them maintain order are among the main targets of insurgency-linked violence, blamed for the deaths of about 1 700 people last year, many of them militants. An American journalist being held hostage in Iraq appeared in a new video tape aired on a private Kuwaiti TV station on Thursday appealing for help in securing her release. "I'm here with the mujahideen. I sent you a letter written by hand. I'm here, I'm fine. Please just do whatever they want," she said. "Give them whatever they want as quickly as possible. There is very short time. Please move fast." Carroll, who was kidnapped in Iraq on January 7, had last appeared in a video aired on Al Jazeera on January 30. in which she appealed to fellow Americans to press for the release of Iraqi women held by US-led forces. There has been a spate of kidnappings of Westerners in Iraq over the past few months after a lull during most of 2005. Four Christian peace activists - a Briton, an American and two Canadians - are still being held captive. It now looks as if the United States may have a long-term and substantial military presence in Iraq, military experts say. "Because of the nature of counterinsurgency, it's often hard for people to define what victory is," Casey said. "It's not D-Day. There's not a big battle and it's all over. It's about people making choices so it evolves over time. And that's exactly what you see here." American forces remain in Germany, Japan and South Korea more than a half century after the conflicts that put them there.
How very insightful of you.
cartoons.
Originally posted by hopscotchHave you been sitting in the sun too long?
An Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe-commissioned report said last week that the United States should close Guantanamo because its treatment of 500 terrorism suspects encourages hatred towards the West and bolsters Muslim membership of the al-Qaeda network. In June, the US military described cases of mishandling of the Qur'an by US perso ...[text shortened]... half century after the conflicts that put them there.
cartoons.
[b]So what?
Originally posted by sjegAmen. Not only understand but embrace at some point, at least the basic foundations of the new culture you are getting into. Sort of a general "guest" fundamental education rules.
Rubbish.
If these up-in-arms Moslems wish to live in Europe, then they can take a step to understand how our societies and cultures work ... European Moslems have the right to find it offensive. They do not have the right to threaten death to all and sundry, and get the old torch out. They declare Europe a cancer to which Islam is the answer.
Any organized, firm and popular mass demonstration must be supported, since the media and status quo holders precisely want people to be passive, ironing their butts at the couch in front of the TV -so they become maleable.
However, violence is out of the question.
Burn flags and boycott products and start civil resistance if you want... there are many valid ways of showing disagreement. Although we may not share the current muslim frenzy (and even think the demonstrators are crazy) we must accept their right to protest... in a civilized way. Otherwise, they are just giving a very bad name to the peaceful, intelligent, true muslims.
Originally posted by sjegI believe that what Hopscotch was getting at was that when violence is used against westerners, it is terrorism. When the west bomb the bejaysus out of a country and kill countless civilians, it is war and collateral damage.
How can you agree with the first point, Bosse? Hopscotch and yourself haven't a leg to stand on.
Terrorism, which can be defined: 'the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal...'
So this isn't applicable here? Purleeeese!
By the way, according to your definition, the Republican Party got reelected through terrorism.
http://geekt.org/gopconstrm.mov
I think it's the hypocrisy of the whole thing that's gets to people who haven't bought into all the hate and fear that the western media are trying to sell.
D
Originally posted by adramforall`cause the only "muslim" products worth buying are difficult to boycot. Oil, Oil, Oil. If it was possible to boycot saudi oil the saudi GNP would compare to the Island of St. Helen. No more yachts for the princes!
Why not just boyott Muslim products!!!
Originally posted by pietasIt's been possible for us to eliminate our foreign oil dependence for years. A chore, to be certain, but very, very, possible, if we ever wanted it badly enough.
`cause the only "muslim" products worth buying are difficult to boycot. Oil, Oil, Oil. If it was possible to boycot saudi oil the saudi GNP would compare to the Island of St. Helen. No more yachts for the princes!
Originally posted by EinZweiDreiYEP! In the 19th cent. we lived in an economy that was not oil dependendant. Sadly the standard of living was low. Certainly we could do without oil it would just reduce our GNP by a massive percentage. But it would be quite a laugh if we(in the west - which is the best) from one to the other stopped buying ME oil. A farfetched dream but still...
It's been possible for us to eliminate our foreign oil dependence for years. A chore, to be certain, but very, very, possible, if we ever wanted it badly enough.