[moowriece]

Okay you f*ing American apoligists,

Look at these pictures of civilians bombed/killed to their deaths in totally destroyed Fallujah

http://www.thenausea.com/elements/us...ruary/fall.htm

http://www.thenausea.com/elements/us...uary/fall2.htm

Read this report about eh use chemical weapons in Fallujah:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p15b.htm

Well, at least some got their deadly revenge on these US suckers. Yeah, bring it on baby:
http://o.g.r.i.s.h.com/archives/humvee_carrying_us_marines_attacked_by_car_bomb_ne ar_fallujah_Mar_11_2005.html (get rid of the . before the .com)

[chabig]

Have you taken a look at any 9/11 pictures lately?

News flash for moowriece, sometimes people get hurt and killed in war. Buildings get blown up too. Posting a bunch of ugly pictures on the internet does not prove war crimes.

But I think you knew that already--troll.

[Zimphire]

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by chabig:
Have you taken a look at any 9/11 pictures lately?

What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

[Millennium]

Accidents. Sad and regrettable, yes, but it is unfair to place blame on anyone.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Accidents. Sad and regrettable, yes, but it is unfair to place blame on anyone.

War is never an acciedent.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

Iraq is the revenge for 9/11.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Nicko:
War is never an acciedent.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Iraq is the revenge for 9/11.

Poor Iraqis.

Being murdered for something that they had nothing to do with and all

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Nicko:
War is never an acciedent.

No, but bombing a civilian's house instead of the actual target is.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Accidents. Sad and regrettable, yes, but it is unfair to place blame on anyone.

Ah, wait a minute! That is a little bit too easy.

Civilian casualties are unavoidable in a war, that's true, but the war itself was not unavoidable. Those who started the war knew it would cost civilian lives, therefore those who who started the war are to blame for it. Bush and Blair are directly responsible for those deaths and wounded and are required to justify why these costs of war are the lesser evil.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No, but bombing a civilian's house instead of the actual target is.

Or blatant incompetence. Or wilful negligence. Or a choice(bombing a residential area from +30k feet with a 500-1000lbs is a choice).

[Nicko]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Ah, wait a minute! That is a little bit too easy.

Civilian casualties are unavoidable in a war, that's true, but the war itself was not unavoidable. Those who started the war knew it would cost civilian lives, therefore those who who started the war are to blame for it. Bush and Blair are directly responsible for those deaths and wounded and are required to justify why these costs of war are the lesser evil.

Would starting/waging a war based on a lie be more/less evil?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Would starting/waging a war based on a lie be more/less evil?

What lies?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What lies?

WMD'S, threat Iraq poses to the rest of the world etc etc etc

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
WMD'S, threat Iraq poses to the rest of the world etc etc etc

Site for me an example of where travesties haven't been committed. Are you all equally horrified by your contributions to the actions in Iraq?

WMD's were the sell. Shame on you for being duped by a man you called ignorant, stupid, and monkey-ish prior to his first election. The intent was to change the face of the Middle East. If you are opposed to democracy, you are opposed to American foreign policy and will site any example and post any gruesome picture you can find to support your view. This means absolutely nothing other than death occurs during war. Sometimes unwarranted death. Are you equally as critical toward the man carrying a bomb and walking into a night club, school house, shopping mall, and embassy? Were you equally appalled by reports and pictures of rape rooms, torture chambers, evidence of mass genocide???? No? Well then to the one who hit, ran, and disappeared from this forum; you are an absolute moron. BTW; several pictures on those links included insurgents. You know what insurgents do right? Shall we post pictures of their travesties committed against targeted civilians and other such non-military targets? Thanx for your time.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Site for me an example of where travesties haven't been committed. Are you all equally horrified by your contributions to the actions in Iraq?

Every war has it's travesties and hence those who start wars are responsible for those travesties. Until those who start the wars are held accountable travesties in wars will continue. And my contribution? What are you talking about?

WMD's were the sell. Shame on you for being duped by a man you called ignorant, stupid, and monkey-ish prior to his first election.

I wasn't "duped" by him. You were.

The intent was to change the face of the Middle East.

So it was an illegal war then? When will you try to get Bush charged for war crimes?

If you are opposed to democracy, you are opposed to American foreign policy and will site any example and post any gruesome picture you can find to support your view.

Did the US support democracy in Chile? South America during apartheid? Saudi Arabia? And the list goes on. Being opposed to US foreign policy has nothing to do with opposing democracy.

This means absolutely nothing other than death occurs during war. Sometimes unwarranted death.

And because of that you don't start a war of aggression like this one.

Are you equally as critical toward the man carrying a bomb and walking into a night club, school house, shopping mall, and embassy?

Yes.

Were you equally appalled by reports and pictures of rape rooms, torture chambers, evidence of mass genocide????

Yes, but you forgot to mention that the mass genocide happened mostly during the time SH was Americas puppet. How come?

No? Well then to the one who hit, ran, and disappeared from this forum; you are an absolute moron.

huh?

BTW; several pictures on those links included insurgents. You know what insurgents do right? Shall we post pictures of their travesties committed against targeted civilians and other such non-military targets? Thanx for your time.

Those aren't insurgents. Those are terrorists. You do know the difference don't you?

[bubblewrap]

A lot of those pictures are from injuries sustained by insurgent terrorists. Homocide bombers killing and maiming Iraqi citizens, not American mistakes.
But blaming it on Americans does make great press now dosen't it?

[spacefreak]

The people who still remained in Fallujah had months to leave. The city was surrounded, and word of the impending invasion was spread throughout. Most civilians did in fact leave the city. The majority of the ones who stayed were insurgents, Baathist loyalists, and the families whom they forbid to leave.

Why is it that photos of mauled Iraqis are allowed to be spread through all media, yet we still aren't able to see the bulk of media recorded on 9/11?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
WMD'S, threat Iraq poses to the rest of the world etc etc etc

All your little weenie arguments have been toasted here repeatedly in the past. Feel free to check the archives. You can even search by quoting your exact platitudes.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Ah, wait a minute! That is a little bit too easy.

Civilian casualties are unavoidable in a war, that's true, but the war itself was not unavoidable.

Irrelevant. You're going back an arbitrary number of indirect causes. I could play that game too and blame Iran, as Saddam was originally put into power to counter them. This, of course, conveniently ignores the US role in Saddam's rise, but I don't have a monopoly on convenient ignorance in this case.

Those who started the war knew it would cost civilian lives, therefore those who who started the war are to blame for it.

As opposed to those who made the war necessary? I could go back somewhat fewer levels -after all, we're playing the arbitrary-levels-of-indirect-blame game- and deem Saddam as responsible for those deaths as he was for the genocide and other atrocities which immediately preceded them.

Bush and Blair are directly responsible for those deaths...

Even if we play your game, they're not directly responsible. That dubious honor goes to the people who actually performed the bombing.

...and wounded and are required to justify why these costs of war are the lesser evil.

I believe they have done so.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Iraq is the revenge for 9/11.

Revenge?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
All your little weenie arguments have been toasted here repeatedly in the past. Feel free to check the archives. You can even search by quoting your exact platitudes.

No matter how you spin it both the US and UK governments were wrong. Some call it a lie other call it an honest mistake. Since I obviously have more belief in the governments of both countries and of their intelligence services it can only mean the respective leaders lied. If that isn't the case both the US and UK have completely inept intelligence agencies and that resulted in the countless civilian deaths from this war.

No matter how you spin it there were no WMD's and Iraq posed no threat to any other country than their own. Doesn't matter if you call it an honest mistake or if I call it a lie. The end result is the same. Innocent people are dead.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
WMD'S, threat Iraq poses to the rest of the world etc etc etc

What was Iraqi officials doing in Africa in 1999? Perhaps looking to purchase uranium?

And WMDs were only one of many reasons to go in to Iraq.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Irrelevant. You're going back an arbitrary number of indirect causes.

I'm going back only to the direct cause. Bush and Blair started the war. They are directly responsible for it – including civilian casualties.

As opposed to those who made the war necessary?

If the war was necessary, it was necessary. It's up to Bush and Blair to demonstrate that it was. Who wages war is responsible for all its consequences. And that responsibility includes the obligation to demonstrate that war is the lesser evil.

An "bad thing happens in war; that's not my fault" attitude is not enough.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
What was Iraqi officials doing in Africa in 1999? Perhaps looking to purchase uranium?

Hasn't that claim been debunked about a zillion times? The yellow-cake claim.

And WMDs were only one of many reasons to go in to Iraq.

What were the others?

[budster101]

This thread is awesome!

[Macrobat]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I'm going back only to the direct cause. Bush and Blair started the war. They are directly responsible for it – including civilian casualties.
If the war was necessary, it was necessary. It's up to Bush and Blair to demonstrate that it was. Who wages war is responsible for all its consequences. And that responsibility includes the obligation to demonstrate that war is the lesser evil.

An "bad thing happens in war; that's not my fault" attitude is not enough.

Sorry, Saddam started the war, when he invaded Kuwait in 1991, thanks for playing, tho.

This is NOT a "new" war, there was a ceasefire put into place that was contigent on Saddam meeting several demands by the UN, all of which he simply ignored and chose to play brinksmanship with the Coalition.

If ANYONE is to blame for the impression WORLDWIDE that he possessed WMD, it is Saddam's regime itself, which did everthing in its power to make it appear so, up to and including USING them against the Kurds and Iranians.

Sorry, but only the weak of mind are incapabale of realizing that this is NOT a new war, simply the delayed conclusion of the Gulf War.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Macrobat:
Sorry, Saddam started the war, when he invaded Kuwait in 1991, thanks for playing, tho.

This is NOT a "new" war, there was a ceasefire put into place that was contigent on Saddam meeting several demands by the UN, all of which he simply ignored and chose to play brinksmanship with the Coalition.

When did the UN decide it was time to "end" the war? When did they order a new invasion into Iraq? I seem to have missed that.

If ANYONE is to blame for the impression WORLDWIDE that he possessed WMD, it is Saddam's regime itself, which did everthing in its power to make it appear so, up to and including USING them against the Kurds and Iranians.

Almost 20 years ago(and more). And Mr. Blix and co didn't think they had any WMD's.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Macrobat:
Sorry, Saddam started the war, when he invaded Kuwait in 1991, thanks for playing, tho.

This is NOT a "new" war.

That's arguable. But even when you believe that, it doesn't matter. For every person you kill or wound you must demonstrate that that is the lesser evil. If you can't then war is a crime.

[Macrobat]

The UN didn't HAVE to order a "new" invasion, the conditions for the ceasefire were laid out and were enforceable by the coalition members. Sorry to disappoint you, but the UN does not have to approve anything before the signatories of a ceasefire can react to its non-compliance. Saddam was allowed to play his little shell game for 12 years. And that's how long ago it was, not "almost 20 years," hate to break it to you, but it happened since the Gulf War, not prior to it.

The UN does not possess the authority to "order" an invasion, it has no real authority, but is simply a clearing house for the nations (who DO have the power, sovereignty and authority) to ATTEMPT te resolve their differences without having to resort to force.

The resolution granting the ceasefire was all the "permission" needed, being a "you will do this in order to stop the firing" type of document. If "you" don't comply with the conditions, you are in violation and can be fired upon - at it's simplest and basest form.

And TETENAL, you don't have to "demonstrate" anything at all, it's a war. Sorry to disappoint you all, but Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism, offering bounties to anyone who killed Americans, he had met with and offered asylum to Al Quaeda members, he was already sheltering some of the most wanted terrorist in the world, he was actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons and he was using the ill-gotten gains from the "Oil For Food" program to fund terrorist organizations worldwide. The mass graves, the countless stories of kidnappings, rape rooms, torture and murder Saddam engaged in in order to prop up his regime, attempting genocide of the Kurds, and the continued oppression and murder of the Shi'ites come to mind as well. That's all the demonstration necessary to prove a "lesser evil" argument.

His was, by the very definition, one of the very regimes that met the criteria laid down in the president's speech before Congress defining the War on Terrorism.

The invasion of Iraq has sent a very clear message, worldwide acts of terrorism are down by more than 90%, other terrorist-sponsor regimes, such as Libya, have forsworn their WMD and renounced their sponsorship of terrorism. FOr those of you who have trouble connecting the dots, THIS is the purpose of te War on Terror, and it's working.

Saddam was unrepentant and STATED his desire and intention to continue to attack Americans, he attempted the assassination of a form POTUS and every major intelligence agency in the world (not just the UK and US, despite what you are attempting to say) believed he not only possessed WMD, but that he was actively pursuing more.

FYI, the same on-going state of war exists on the Korean Peninsula.

[SVass]

Originally posted by Macrobat:

The invasion of Iraq has sent a very clear message, worldwide acts of terrorism are down by more than 90%, other terrorist-sponsor regimes, such as Libya, have forsworn their WMD and renounced their sponsorship of terrorism. FOr those of you who have trouble connecting the dots, THIS is the purpose of te War on Terror, and it's working.

FYI, the same on-going state of war exists on the Korean Peninsula.

Just as a point of reference, Syria and Iraq claim an ongoing state-of-war with Israel since 1948. Iraq would not allow former Iraqis living in Israel to vote in their recent election as they say that this war is still on. Bush allowed this travesty. Bush is even today supporting the entry of Hezbollah (active terrorists) into politics in Lebanon. He is only opposed to their terrorists (whoever they are). sam

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SVass:
Just as a point of reference, Syria and Iraq claim an ongoing state-of-war with Israel since 1948. Iraq would not allow former Iraqis living in Israel to vote in their recent election as they say that this war is still on. Bush allowed this travesty. Bush is even today supporting the entry of Hezbollah (active terrorists) into politics in Lebanon. He is only opposed to their terrorists (whoever they are). sam

If I recall correctly, Bush's support of Hezbollah entering into Lebanese politics is contingent on their laying down their arms. In other words, he only supports them if they cease to be terrorists. Not that they ever did much true terrorist activity, anyway; they have, for the most part, kept their attacks to only military targets. But in any case, becoming a political party means abandoning one's weapons and dealing with others through peaceful means.

Cease to be terrorists, or simply cease to be. This seems to have been his goal ever since this whole mess started, and so this is nothing if not consistent.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
I'm going back only to the direct cause. Bush and Blair started the war. They are directly responsible for it – including civilian casualties.

No, the one directly responsible is the one who fires the shots, drops the bombs, or whatever. Bush and Blair could be considered directly responsible for the war, which makes them indirectly responsible for the casualties, but until you can show me where they pushed a button or pulled a trigger, you aren't going to convince me that they are directly responsible for the civilian casualties.

If the war was necessary, it was necessary. It's up to Bush and Blair to demonstrate that it was.

Yes. I believe that this was done.

[finboy]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Every war has it's travesties

Look, if some men choose to wear women's clothing, that's THEIR business.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by Macrobat:
The resolution granting the ceasefire was all the "permission" needed, being a "you will do this in order to stop the firing" type of document. If "you" don't comply with the conditions, you are in violation and can be fired upon - at it's simplest and basest form.

Except that the UN was verifying that Iraq had complied with the regulations of the ceasefire and were just about to finish that work. If the US could keep it's calm for 2 months(even less) Mr. Blix and co would have declared Iraq WMD free and more than a thousand US lives as well as countless Iraqi lives could have been spared. The US couldn't wait to have another war in their Crusade and hence they bear the ultimate responsibility for all the atrocities done in their name. And as being the one who ordered the attack Bush bears full responsibility for the atrocities done.

[bubblewrap]

The US couldn't wait to have another war in their Crusade

Pure speculation. Typical leftist drivel.

And as being the one who ordered the attack Bush bears full responsibility for the atrocities done.

********.

And you're going to do what about it?

Nothing.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Pure speculation. Typical leftist drivel.

So tell me. Why didn't the US wait for Mr. Blix to finish his work?

[budster101]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
So tell me. Why didn't the US wait for Mr. Blix to finish his work?

What work? The kickbacks to Saddam? Helping smuggle all his money and WMD's out of Iraq and into Syria? What work are you talking about?

Hanz (Lookthataway)Blitz.

Riiiiigggght.

[chabig]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Iraq posed no threat to any other country than their own

So it would be OK with you, I suppose, if the Atlanta authorities released Brian Nichols, the man who killed the judge and three others last week? After all, he poses no direct threat to you personally.

[Athens]

Originally posted by moowriece:
Okay you f*ing American apoligists,

Look at these pictures of civilians bombed/killed to their deaths in totally destroyed Fallujah

http://www.thenausea.com/elements/us...ruary/fall.htm

http://www.thenausea.com/elements/us...uary/fall2.htm



Well, at least some got their deadly revenge on these US suckers. Yeah, bring it on baby:
http://o.g.r.i.s.h.com/archives/humv...r_11_2005.html (get rid of the . before the .com)

THATS CALLED WAR YOU FREAKING MORON!!!!!!!! No war is perfect and how the hell are we supose to know if those are from us attacks or terrorist car bombings. The only thing the US is guilty of right now is the enemy combatants being held for 3 years now I think. Thats what the US is guilty of, dead civilians are just a part of war. Get over it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by budster101:
What work? The kickbacks to Saddam? Helping smuggle all his money and WMD's out of Iraq and into Syria? What work are you talking about?

Hanz (Lookthataway)Blitz.

Riiiiigggght.

Do you even know what Mr. Blix and co was doing?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by chabig:
So it would be OK with you, I suppose, if the Atlanta authorities released Brian Nichols, the man who killed the judge and three others last week? After all, he poses no direct threat to you personally.

He's killed 4 people. In the US. The US has the right(and the duty) to prosecute him.

The US does not have the right to kill tens of thousand of civilians because they don't like a foreign leader of a country. Not until he poses a threat to someone outside of his own borders.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Poor Iraqis.

Being murdered for something that they had nothing to do with and all

Yeah, that is why we went in After Saddam.

While there was still casualties, it was nothing compared to what Saddam did.

Remember that.

And lets try to be a bit more honest in our "arguments"

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Athens:
THATS CALLED WAR YOU FREAKING MORON!!!!!!!! No war is perfect and how the hell are we supose to know if those are from us attacks or terrorist car bombings. The only thing the US is guilty of right now is the enemy combatants being held for 3 years now I think. Thats what the US is guilty of, dead civilians are just a part of war. Get over it.

Wow, while that was a bit harsh, I will have to agree.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wow, while that was a bit harsh, I will have to agree.

of course you left out the part about the enemy combatants being held for 3 years with out legal rights... Selective cut and paste eh hehe

[chabig]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
The US does not have the right to kill tens of thousand of civilians because they don't like a foreign leader of a country. Not until he poses a threat to someone outside of his own borders.

You're assuming the US killed tens of thousands of civilians. Pictures of dead people prove nothing. I could show pictures of dead people and claim that you did it, but that won't get you convicted in a court of law. Furthermore, you make it sound like killing civilians was the US plan. Listen, civilians die in most wars without being targeted. The US never targets civilians and goes to great lengths to avoid civilian harm.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Every war has it's travesties and hence those who start wars are responsible for those travesties. Until those who start the wars are held accountable travesties in wars will continue. And my contribution? What are you talking about?

President Bush met with Sweden's Prime Minister Goran Persson at the White House April 28. "Sweden is a valued partner" on common challenges such as "counterterrorism and Afghanistan, where Sweden is playing a significant role in the reconstruction effort, and Kosovo and Liberia," the White House spokesman said.
"The two leaders discussed a range of issues, including the importance of Europe and the U.S. working together to address our common challenges," McClellan said. "They discussed efforts to spread democracy and reform throughout the Middle East."
This is illegal right? Why would Sweden want anything to do with our foreign policy? Sweden has been involved with our CIA for decades now. Wouldn't it be ironic if some of our flawed intelligence was attained on the backs of Swedes?

I wasn't "duped" by him. You were.

I was never duped. I was convinced, as were many that Iraq was involving itself in an arms race with Iran. I personally was not worried about Iraqi WMD since there was really no way for them to deliver a payload to the US, rather they might be more interested in an attack on Israel. I knew the action was in accordance with the 13th UN resolution in which it threatened "serious consequences for non compliance." There was in fact, continued non-compliance and in accordance to the 13th UN Resolution and in order to give the UN some credibility, we took action. You may disagree, but the overwhelming majority who showed at the polls in spite of the threats to their lives made a decision in favor of secular government. Now it's parliament is formed. You may have thought that a few more months and maybe some more of that "humanitarian action" we call economic sanctions which starved thousands of Iraqis to death was more effective humanitarian policy, I disagree.

So it was an illegal war then? When will you try to get Bush charged for war crimes?

And your Prime Minister as well then? If spreading democracy (i.e. changing faces) is illegal to you, perhaps you should consult your authorities and pull out of NATO.

Did the US support democracy in Chile? South America during apartheid? Saudi Arabia? And the list goes on. Being opposed to US foreign policy has nothing to do with opposing democracy.

Coming from one who seems to be in blind allegiance to a country who funnels millions of dollars to the PA for propaganda, I can understand your distaste for American Foreign policy.

And because of that you don't start a war of aggression like this one.

We didn't start anything other than a democratic process in Iraq for which the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support. Your work in Afghanistan will be the template for restructuring Iraq. The US thanks you for your support there as well.

Yes, but you forgot to mention that the mass genocide happened mostly during the time SH was Americas puppet. How come?

Really? The Kurds certainly weren't saying we were responsible. Why do you suppose this is? We did not educate Saddam. We did not offer Saddam's victory in battle. We did not elect him Chief of Military. We did not make him head of the Baathist Party. He did these things on his own and in spite of his promises to create an industrialized and progressive nation, political power and affluence got the best of him as evident in many tyrants of the past.

Those aren't insurgents. Those are terrorists. You do know the difference don't you?

Okay, you're right. The pictured dead offered by Moowriece of whom you defended for which we are supposed to feel some empathy, were not insurgents. They were terrorists. Uh...thanx for the correction?

[Macrobat]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Except that the UN was verifying that Iraq had complied with the regulations of the ceasefire and were just about to finish that work. If the US could keep it's calm for 2 months(even less) Mr. Blix and co would have declared Iraq WMD free and more than a thousand US lives as well as countless Iraqi lives could have been spared. The US couldn't wait to have another war in their Crusade and hence they bear the ultimate responsibility for all the atrocities done in their name. And as being the one who ordered the attack Bush bears full responsibility for the atrocities done.

Nice re-write of history. The UN wasn't "verifying" anything, Blix had been expelled (yet again) from Iraq, his team had been denied access to several key sites inside the country since the beginning of the inspections and Saddam had not complied with the ceasefire resoultion's demand that the UN, not Saddam, be allowed to inspect and destroy the weapons and the technology used to create/research the weapons.

See, that's one little FACT that keeps sticking its little nose under the fence for you who would keep harping about the WMD. The technology used to create them as well as the research dones to pursue them were also proscribed, and found in abundance still intact within the borders of Iraq. "The WMD" you all keep harping, just because no finished weapons have yet been unearthed, does not mean there was a "lie" told - the research facilities, the raw materials, the delivery systems, etc. were ALL proscribed by the terms of the ceasefire - not just finished weapons, and we have found craploads of all those items.

Nice try at a redirection, but I see the man behind the curtain quite clearly.

[Macrobat]

Originally posted by Athens:
of course you left out the part about the enemy combatants being held for 3 years with out legal rights... Selective cut and paste eh hehe

Two things:

1. Being, by your own words, "enemy combatants" they can be held under the provisions of the Geneva Convention until hostilities cease, see - they are Prisoners of War.

2. Not being American citizens they also, by definition, have no "legal rights" EXCEPT those afforded by the Geneva Convention - which they are receiving.