[Troll]

By way of reminding ourselves that barbaric human rights abuses continue at prisons run by American forces, here is an article about a 78 year-old paralysed man that has just been released from Gitmo. If these people were held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions then this man would have had a trial years ago and been released to enjoy the last days of his life in the freedom he fought for. Why the US has so little faith in its justice system that it doesn't trust the system to root out the terrorists from the innocent is beyond me. What are they fighting for if not the idea of a just system of government that they represent?

But even if you think it necessary to cast the net this wide, is there anyone who does not think that this type of behaviour is counter-productive? People in the region and those reading these reports are certainly not feeling positive about the US as a result of people like Haji Nasrat Khan being ferreted away to a black hole.

It's hard to picture Haji Nasrat Khan as an international terrorist. For a start, the grey-bearded Afghan can barely walk, shuffling along on a three-wheeled walking frame. His sight is terrible -- he squints through milky eyes that sometimes roll towards the heavens -- while his helpers have to shout to make themselves heard. And as for his age -- nobody knows for sure, not even Nasrat himself. "I think I am 78, or maybe 79," he ventures uncertainly, pausing over a cup of green tea.

Yet for three and a half years the United States government deemed this elderly, infirm man an "enemy combatant", so dangerous to America's security that he was imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay.
...

A former Mujahideen commander during the anti-Soviet war of the 1980s, Nasrat has been incapacitated since he suffered a stroke about 15 years ago.

...

He was initially sent to Bagram airbase where, he said, American soldiers inflicted numerous indignities. They confiscated his crutch and pushed him to the toilet in a cart, he said. On one occasion two female soldiers forced him to strip naked and wash before them. "An awful humiliation," he said.

Although infirm, Nasrat retains vivid and bitter memories of his detention. One time, he said, he laughed at an officer who asked how he was doing. "I told them, 'you are very stupid'," he recalled. "I am on the floor in shackles and you are in a chair. I am paralysed but you have tied me like a dog. So why are you asking me how I am?"

...

The details of America's blurry case against Nasrat finally emerged during military hearings in 2004 and 2005. Officials said US soldiers had found 700 weapons, including machine guns and rockets, inside his house. And they accused him of supporting Hekmatyar and, by implication, Osama bin Laden.

Nasrat insisted it was all eyewash, the weapons had been gathered for decommissioning; and he fought the Soviets under a different commander. The accusations probably came from an Afghan enemy feeding misinformation to the Americans, he said. "You people do not realise who is an enemy and who is a friend," he told his captors, according to US military documents. "The people that hated you were very few but you just grabbed people like me."

Guant�namo detainee (78) goes home : Mail & Guardian Online

[marden]

More barbaric would be that he was on a plane which was crashed into a building and killed.

More barbaric would be that he died in custody.

More barbaric would be that after he was found to be innocent he was not released.

More barbaric would be if he was never found to be innocent.

I hope he gets the compensation he seeks.

His son remains in detention. Let's see what happens there.

There are hundreds of detainees gathered from War on Terror battlefields.

How many errors do you think there are?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

More barbaric would be that he was on a plane which was crashed into a building and killed.

More barbaric would be that he died in custody.

Agreed. Murderers (like terrorists that kill people on planes and prison wardens that kill prisoners) are slightly more barbaric than torturing human rights abusers. Just as raping someone is worse than stealing their wallet. Doesn't mean muggers aren't criminals. As we've said many times before, there is no value for the US in comparing themselves to terrorists.

Originally Posted by marden

More barbaric would be that after he was found to be innocent he was not released.

This guy was never found to be innocent. He was simply released. A year after he was told that he was innocent.

Originally Posted by marden

More barbaric would be if he was never found to be innocent.

... or guilty - and that's the status of all of the other prisoners at Gitmo.

Originally Posted by marden

There are hundreds of detainees gathered from War on Terror battlefields.

How many errors do you think there are?

Considering in many cases no charges have been brought, no hearings have been held and no competent court has been convened, I think there are probably a lot of errors. Judging by the number of prisoners that have been released from Gitmo and never found guilty of anything there were in fact loads of errors that persisted for years. Many people lost years of their lives because of the errors that were made by US forces. Errors that would have been avoided had the basic tenets of civilisation and justice been applied rather than resorting to the barbary of locking people up without charge or trial.

But it's not a question of how many errors there are. A just system is not one that doesn't make errors. It's one that has fair procedures and open fora. If you don't bring charges against people, bring them before a competent court where they have legal representation, then you don't have justice irrespective of whether there are errors made or not. Justice must not only be done - it must be seen to be done.

[marden]

Look at it in another way. As a doctor might in trying to limit an epidemic. The individuals might have to suffer for the good of the whole. Typhoid Mary's civil liberties were denied her because she posed a risk to society. A risk she did not believe existed.
Mary Mallon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New York City Health Department sent Dr. Josephine Baker to talk to Mallon, but "by that time she was convinced that the law was wantonly persecuting her, when she had done nothing wrong." [1]

A few days later Baker arrived at her place of work with several police officers to take her into custody. Baker had to sit on Mary to keep her from leaving. The New York City health inspector investigated and found her to be a carrier, isolating her for three years at a hospital located on North Brother Island, and then releasing her on the condition she did not work with food.

However in 1915 she returned to cooking and infected 25 people while working as a cook at New York's Sloan Hospital; two of those she infected died. Public health authorities then again seized her and confined Mary Mallon in quarantine for life. She became something of a celebrity, and was interviewed by journalists, who were forbidden to accept as much as a glass of water from her. Later in life, she was allowed to work in the island's laboratory as a technician.

If 19 hijackers can kill more than 4,000 then any one person that might be able to kill more than there own numbers is like a serial killer or a Typhoid Mary Mallon and anyone who might have been wrongfully detained is worth the price to society. That is the value judgement our society has agreed is reasonable.

[Helmling]

Society can make a "value judgement" to surrender their decency and their allegiance to human rights all they want.

I will still speak out against such judgements, lest anyone believe they were my own.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

Look at it in another way. As a doctor might in trying to limit an epidemic.

There are laws in place to deal with epidemics and quarantines. If you want to limit people's rights then you pass laws allowing you to limit those rights. I would be just as incensed if someone was put in quarantine indefinitely without ever having a chance to prove that she didn't pose the risk that she was accused of. In the absence of medical proof that the person has the disease, that the disease is dangerous and that the only way of preventing the spread is to lock them up and throw away the key, I would absolutely have a problem with her being locked away. And so should you. Because it could be you in quarantine. It could be you in Gitmo. The "errors" are only acceptable when they aren't happening to you.

With Gitmo, no laws were passed saying that people could be held indefinitely without trial in order to curb the risk that terrorists pose. That has never happened. What happened was that the Administration avoided the law by claiming that there was no relevant law that applied to Guantanamo Bay and by interpreting the Geneva Conventions in a way that is not only inconsistent with the US's prior interpretations but plain wrong.

There was a time when a few people used to decide what was good for everyone else and when everyone else had no way of challenging that decision. We had thankfully moved away from that towards a more civilised society.

Originally Posted by marden

If 19 hijackers can kill more than 4,000 ...

The figure is 2,973 killed and 24 presumed dead.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Society can make a "value judgement" to surrender their decency and their allegiance to human rights all they want.

I will still speak out against such judgements, lest anyone believe they were my own.

If I were being held, whether guilty or innocent, I would greatly appreciate special people like yourself standing up for me.

Good for you.

There are people who would also work in leper colonies. Good for them.

But it is not the efforts of even a nation full of people with instincts like yours who could guarantee your safety or comfort. It takes decisions and actions and instincts like the President's.

You may not like it. You may speak out against it. But you can't do without it.

[Cody Dawg]

Troll

The figure is 2,973 killed and 24 presumed dead.

Uh-uh, no.

Thousands upon thousands more are dying from lung failures and infections and diseases from breathing the dust of Ground 0.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by marden

If I were being held, whether guilty or innocent, I would greatly appreciate special people like yourself standing up for me.

Good for you.

There are people who would also work in leper colonies. Good for them.

But it is not the efforts of even a nation full of people with instincts like yours who could guarantee your safety or comfort. It takes decisions and actions and instincts like the President's.

You may not like it. You may speak out against it. But you can't do without it.

No one on earth can guarantee your safety or comfort--certainly not President Bush. Therefore, why throw out the basic rights we are lucky enough to have received in this country for your perceived safety?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll

There are laws in place to deal with epidemics and quarantines. If you want to limit people's rights then you pass laws allowing you to limit those rights. I would be just as incensed if someone was put in quarantine indefinitely without ever having a chance to prove that she didn't pose the risk that she was accused of. In the absence of medical proof that the person has the disease, that the disease is dangerous and that the only way of preventing the spread is to lock them up and throw away the key, I would absolutely have a problem with her being locked away. And so should you. Because it could be you in quarantine. It could be you in Gitmo. The "errors" are only acceptable when they aren't happening to you.

With Gitmo, no laws were passed saying that people could be held indefinitely without trial in order to curb the risk that terrorists pose. That has never happened. What happened was that the Administration avoided the law by claiming that there was no relevant law that applied to Guantanamo Bay and by interpreting the Geneva Conventions in a way that is not only inconsistent with the US's prior interpretations but plain wrong.

There was a time when a few people used to decide what was good for everyone else and when everyone else had no way of challenging that decision. We had thankfully moved away from that towards a more civilised society.

The figure is 2,973 killed and 24 presumed dead.

Laws are created to reflect the will of the people. Where there is no law but there needs to be a law and there are thousands who would kill and conspire against innocents the absence of law should not permit those to go free who would have a high suspicion of killing Americans.

There are going to be illegal detentions in the future over some event or another but when the danger to society or the freedom of society to be free from harm outweighs the freedom of the individual who'd cause the harm that person must be locked up.

September 11, 2001 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Potential health effects

The thousands of tons of toxic debris resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers consisted of: 50% nonfibrous material and construction debris; 40% glass and other fibers; 9.2% cellulose; and 0.8% asbestos,[79] lead, and mercury. There were also unprecedented levels of dioxin and PAHs from the fires which burned for three months.[80] This has led to debilitating illnesses among rescue and recovery workers, and the death of NYPD officer James Zadroga.[81] Health effects also extended to some residents, students, and office workers of Lower Manhattan and nearby Chinatown.[82]

There is scientific speculation that exposure to various toxic products and the pollutants in the air surrounding the Towers after the WTC collapse may have negative effects on fetal development. Due to this potential hazard, a notable children's environmental health center is currently analyzing the children whose mothers were pregnant during the WTC collapse, and were living or working near the World Trade Center towers. The staff of this study assesses the children using psychological testing every year and interviews the mothers every six months. The purpose of the study is to determine whether there is significant difference in development and health progression of children whose mothers were exposed, versus those who were not exposed after the WTC collapse.[83]

More than 4,000 dead could result.

9/11 Death Toll Continues To Rise
by weirdscenes

Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 11:00:37 PM PDT

Mount Sinai Medical Center released a large study on Thursday 9/8/06 covering WTC responders health. The study, titled "The World Trade Center Disaster and the Health of Workers: Five-Year Assessment of a Unique Medical Screening Program", covers 9,442 workers (out of a total of over 40,000) from the period of July 2002 and April 2004. At the time of the examination 59% had persistent symptoms.

The study coincided with a public meeting Thursday night with federal 9/11 Health Coordinator, Dr. John Howard. Public statements from lower Manhattan residents provide anecdotal evidence of long term and chronic health affects among the children and others.

Former EPA chief Christine Whitman will appear on 60 Minutes Sunday night to continue her defense of the EPA during the cleanup.

more below the fold

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/11/2037/19696

[marden]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

No one on earth can guarantee your safety or comfort--certainly not President Bush. Therefore, why throw out the basic rights we are lucky enough to have received in this country for your perceived safety?

Not throwing away the rights. It's weighing your right to live without unreasonable risk vs. the right of a suspected murderer to be free to endanger society.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Uh-uh, no.

Thousands upon thousands more are dying from lung failures and infections and diseases from breathing the dust of Ground 0.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

Laws are created to reflect the will of the people. Where there is no law but there needs to be a law and there are thousands who would kill and conspire against innocents the absence of law should not permit those to go free who would have a high suspicion of killing Americans.

What absence of law do you mean? Are you saying that prior to 9/11 there were no laws in place to deal with terrorism? Or are you saying that there were no laws in place dealing with people captured during a war? In both cases you'd be wrong.

Originally Posted by marden

There are going to be illegal detentions in the future over some event or another but when the danger to society or the freedom of society

You don't see the irony in what you wrote there? Illegally detaining people is itself a threat to freedom. How can you pretend to be living in a free society when at any time someone could be picked up and held indefinitely without even knowing why they are being held?

Originally Posted by marden

More than 4,000 dead could result.

That's not what you said though is it? Besides, 4,000 deaths COULD result. 40,000 or 400,000 deaths could also result depending on how widely you cast the hijackers' responsibility. I don't see the point in talking about POTENTIAL deaths. Right now, even if you add the deaths of workers, the death toll is around 3,000 not 4,000. Not that it makes a difference, but it's still worth sticking to the facts.

I personally think that the idiots who failed to properly inspect Ground Zero and work out what needed to be done to protect the workers, the politicians who thought it was more important to take the symbolic step of cleaning up than it was to wait while an assessment was made of the dangers - I think those people share some responsibility for the subsequent deaths of the workers.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

Not throwing away the rights. It's weighing your right to live without unreasonable risk vs. the right of a suspected murderer to be free to endanger society.

Sorry but you're wrong. It is indeed necessary to throw away civil liberties in order to hold people indefinitely without charge on SUSPICION of a crime. You are throwing away the very basis of democracy.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by marden

If 19 hijackers can kill more than 4,000 then any one person that might be able to kill more than there own numbers is like a serial killer or a Typhoid Mary Mallon and anyone who might have been wrongfully detained is worth the price to society. That is the value judgement our society has agreed is reasonable.

We've agreed to that, have we? I thought what our society agreed is that we'd rather let the guilty go free than convict the innocent, rather than the other way around.

[Dork.]

marden, (if that is your real name ), What you are proposing is nothing less than undermining our legal system, and the democracy it supports.

I know you think I'm being over the top here, but I assure you I am not. This country was founded, in part, in reaction to the tendency of the British to do exactly the things that Bush is proposing is necessary in his Global War On Terror. Hold people indefinitely without charging them? Deny them access to the evidence against them? Hold them in secret? It flies in the face of the principles out country was founded on. In we compromise on them, we compromise on our democracy -- it's as simple as that.

One typical argument I hear is that it's pointless to give "the terrorists" these rights, because if the shoe was on the other foot and we were being detained by them, they would not be granted to us. This is one reason why some people describe the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" -- they assume that we hold them only so that the othe side holds them too. But this is all wrong. We don't offer these rights on a tit-for-tat basis, we offer them because it is the right thing to do, and our values assert that all humans deserve these rights. We hold ourselves to a higher standard than they hold. Or, at least we used to.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by BRussell

We've agreed to that, have we? I thought what our society agreed is that we'd rather let the guilty go free than convict the innocent, rather than the other way around.

Human decency doesn't win votes among stupid people.

[PER3]

To stand by your principles while dealing in realpolitik requires very large balls.

A wheelbarrow would not suffice.

These people get by with a coke-spoon.

[PER3]

Insta-Haiku version:

The Heart of Spring loves large balls

Wheelbarrow too small

Autumn, we see a coke-spoon?

[pooka]

I feel bad. I think I now know why foreigners have such a low opinion of people from the United States. Just because you're an extremely stupid American (borderline retarded) doesn't mean that you can't afford to travel abroad or spend countless hours arguing on the internet. Their wealth also allows them to visit the very places that you probably take refuge from the dregs of your own lands. This is the reason most of you unlucky souls in foreign lands are exposed to a disproportionate amount of stupidity from loudmouth 'Mericans and are unfamiliar with the concept of simply smiling and walking away.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by analogika

Human decency doesn't win votes among stupid people.

So true. And I'd take that further: it really is our fault. If torture and unnecessary war and unlimited detentions weren't attractive to us, our leaders and politicians wouldn't do it.

[spacefreak]

I'm glad he's been released after being found inncocent.

I will note, however, that if I was on an active battlefield and I came across this man's house that had 700 weapons, machine guns, rockets, I'd have a hard time accepting his "these weapons... they're going to be decommissioned. Nothing to see here... move on."

If the old man had 2-3 weapons, then perhaps he gets less scrutiny. But 700 is a damn cache.

I doubt anyone here - if fighting on a battlefield - would simply dismiss a man found with 700 machine guns and rockets.

[Sky Captain]

What would anyone herre think of an American with 700 weapons in his closet?

[Spliffdaddy]

Hell. We need to find him and drag his ass back to Gitmo.

Who was the idiot that let him out?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by BRussell

So true. And I'd take that further: it really is our fault.

You know the old adage: Every country begets the government it deserves.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Hell. We need to find him and drag his ass back to Gitmo.

Who was the idiot that let him out?

[marden]

To all of you who have opposed the U.S. actions, please keep the right perspective here. Man does not exist to serve the law.

Laws exist to serve the people.

When a situation arises without a law to cover it the default should not automatically be to do that which most likely assures danger to the people.

The constitution is not a suicide pact.

[PER3]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

What would anyone herre think of an American with 700 weapons in his closet?

Assuming the closet was locked—a responsible gun owner, as we all know that guns don't hurt anyone.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden

To all of you who have opposed the U.S. actions, please keep the right perspective here. Man does not exist to serve the law.

Laws exist to serve the people.

When a situation arises without a law to cover it the default should not automatically be to do that which most likely assures danger to the people.

The constitution is not a suicide pact.

If you do not consider the risk of being locked up for years as an innocent man without trial a "danger to the people", then I have a little guy with a mustache to sell you.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

When a situation arises without a law to cover it ...

This is the second time you've made this non-point. I refer you to my previous questions. Are you trying to say that there were no laws dealing with terrorism, no laws dealing with international armed conflicts? Because if you are, you'd be wrong.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I'm glad he's been released after being found inncocent.

...

I doubt anyone here - if fighting on a battlefield - would simply dismiss a man found with 700 machine guns and rockets.

He wasn't found innocent through any process. They held him for a couple of years and then decided not to hold him anymore. That's the whole point - it's completely arbitrary. Spliff is absolutely right that whoever released him is a complete idiot. If you pick someone up on suspicion of committing a crime, then you charge them and you conduct a trial to determine if they are guilty or not. Arbitrarily releasing people is as stupid as arbitrarily picking them up.

As to the specific circumstances, you obviously don't know much about Afghanistan if you're surprised that the leader of a village has a stash of 700 guns. The guns were used during the war against the Soviets. Most of them were probably paid for by the US of A. They have been collected all over the country. That said, in the Afghan war, the US was supposed to be separating POW's from enemy combatants. Afghan regular forces are not enemy combatants and could not be held at Gitmo. When they came across this guy, how did they decide that he was an "enemy combatant"? If you read the article you will see that he was sent to Gitmo on suspicion of being an accomplice of a warlord suspected of being loyal to Al Qaeda. The US is therefore casting the net so wide that even if you are suspected of helping someone who is suspected of being linked to Al Qaeda, then you can have all of your basic freedoms removed. Even if you're 78 and paralysed, the US will class you as a combatant.

Gitmo is one of the human rights tragedies of this century but what's worse is the effect it's had on the most important battle in the struggle against terrorism - the battle for hearts and minds.

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika

If you do not consider the risk of being locked up for years as an innocent man without trial a "danger to the people", then I have a little guy with a mustache to sell you.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of wrongfully detained and imprisoned prisoners in the US right now who are innocent of non-violent crimes.

Cry for them. Work for their release. Oh, you don't care about them. I get it. You want to get your do-gooder & thrill seeker rocks off at OUR expense.

Why don't you volunteer to take them home with you since you love them so much?!

[analogika]

THOSE innocents await fair trial and due process.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Uh-uh, no.

Thousands upon thousands more are dying from lung failures and infections and diseases from breathing the dust of Ground 0.

Perhaps they wouldn't be if your presnik hadn't insisted that your EPA allowed civilian traffic before it was safe, due to the carcenogenic and otherwise hazardous chemicals in the air about and around the WTC.

So it was the presniks fault. Also your own, since you voted again for that presnik.

I have no sympathy for people who voted for Bush and complain.

V

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by voodoo

So it was the presniks fault. Also your own, since you voted again for that presnik.

V

Remember that when more trains explode in Spain.

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika

THOSE innocents await fair trial and due process.

What you are saying is that you care about flaws or gaps in THIS part of our justice system but the poor shnooks who suffer from flaws and gaps in the other parts of the justice system aren't worth your pity.

Unless you'd say our justice system is otherwise perfect.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Remember that when more trains explode in Spain.

Hey retardboy, I hope you die too.

V

[Sky Captain]

Sweet.
A personal attack.

First rule of the Political Lounge: No personal attacks.

Second rule of the Political Lounge: No personal attacks.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

What you are saying is that you care about flaws or gaps in THIS part of our justice system but the poor shnooks who suffer from flaws and gaps in the other parts of the justice system aren't worth your pity.

No what we're saying is that locking people up without charge or trial is NOT A JUSTICE SYSTEM. You can't talk about flaws in the justice system for people at Gitmo because there is no system. Holding people without even telling them why you're holding them is not a flaw or gap in the system, it's a complete absence of justice; it's taking society backwards a thousand years or more.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll

No what we're saying is that locking people up without charge or trial is NOT A JUSTICE SYSTEM. You can't talk about flaws in the justice system for people at Gitmo because there is no system. Holding people without even telling them why you're holding them is not a flaw or gap in the system, it's a complete absence of justice; it's taking society backwards a thousand years or more.

Hyperbole much?

It's a gap in the justice system having to deal with a new 21st Century kind of foe.

If we discovered a new unidentified spore from outer space and we didn't know if it was dangerous or not and we were trying to create a suitable way of dealing with it you'd just let it go into the environment without a care for what the consequences were.

Well, let's look at the gaps and flaws in the justice sytem where you live and see who we can free in the service of humanity.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Sweet.
A personal attack.

I'd beat you to pulp if you were here. That's physical threat pal.

V

[Sky Captain]

But you can blame the continuing deaths on our government and that's OK?
And those who voted for Bush?

Perhaps they wouldn't be if your presnik hadn't insisted that your EPA allowed civilian traffic before it was safe, due to the carcenogenic and otherwise hazardous chemicals in the air about and around the WTC.

So it was the presniks fault. Also your own, since you voted again for that presnik

So your vile comments were OK?

[marden]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I'd beat you to pulp if you were here. That's physical threat pal.

V

This would be the second time in a couple of days I've had to step in between you and another poster, voodoo. Please control yourself. Remember, blessed is the peacemaker.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

But you can blame the continuing deaths on our government and that's OK?
And those who voted for Bush?

I'm not shy of placing blame where it is due. While Bush and his administration have not been directly to blame for American deaths in terrorism, they have indirectly by encouraging people to go back to the WTC ruins while too much toxic fumes were in the air.

It was irresponsible and resulted in many sick Americans. Many of whom will die or live a life of pain, due to this administrational cock-up.

Americans reaffirmed their belief that this kind of administration was agreeable to them and voted for Bush another time. I understand that you can't blame Bush, since you voted for him or sympatize with him, but I can.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

So your vile comments were OK?

Since when is placing blame on politicians 'vile'. I think you should take a long hard look at your priorities and get them straight.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by marden

This would be the second time in a couple of days I've had to step in between you and another poster, voodoo. Please control yourself. Remember, blessed is the peacemaker.

Thanks abe!

V

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I'm not shy of placing blame where it is due. While Bush and his administration have not been directly to blame for American deaths in terrorism, they have indirectly by encouraging people to go back to the WTC ruins while too much toxic fumes were in the air.

It was irresponsible and resulted in many sick Americans. Many of whom will die or live a life of pain, due to this administrational cock-up.

Americans reaffirmed their belief that this kind of administration was agreeable to them and voted for Bush another time. I understand that you can't blame Bush, since you voted for him or sympatize with him, but I can.



Since when is placing blame on politicians 'vile'. I think you should take a long hard look at your priorities and get them straight.

V

I didn't vote for Bush.
Well how about that.
It's so easy for you to place blame when you really know absoutely nothing about.
You don not take reading there, you're not an enviromentalist on site.
You want to bark about something, spout off about Chernobyl.

So your comments were still OK?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I didn't vote for Bush.

I said you respected him and that gives the same bottom line. One can't respect a retard without being a bigger one.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

It's so easy for you to place blame when you really know absoutely nothing about.

Really.. well ask the people who are dying of cancer now because of the toxic fumes after 9/11 who they think is responsible. The administration that declared the area to be safe for humans of course. The Bush administration.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

You don not take reading there, you're not an enviromentalist on site.

A slippery slope there eightyfour. One does not need to be on site to analyze the data.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

You want to bark about something, spout off about Chernobyl.

Heh, it wasn't brought up in the thread. Can't handle criticism of the Bush administration? Tought cookie.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

So your comments were still OK?

Of course, there is nothing wrong with critisizing a government. Only a retard would think otherwise.

V

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Hey retardboy, I hope you die too.

V

eurotrash.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

eurotrash.

I like it how consistantly all of you follow exactly into my predicion and definition of the fat, ugly american retard.

Demonstrated again and again. You Mark Larr are the latest addition. There will be others I'm sure.

V

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I said you respected him and that gives the same bottom line. One can't respect a retard without being a bigger one.



Really.. well ask the people who are dying of cancer now because of the toxic fumes after 9/11 who they think is responsible. The administration that declared the area to be safe for humans of course. The Bush administration.



A slippery slope there eightyfour. One does not need to be on site to analyze the data.



Heh, it wasn't brought up in the thread. Can't handle criticism of the Bush administration? Tought cookie.



Of course, there is nothing wrong with critisizing a government. Only a retard would think otherwise.

V

Still nothing but personal attacks and insults.
I won't be so easily baited by your sophmoric banter.
And complete lack of knowlege to the situation in New York.