Obama may still hold terror prisoners without charge

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't like the sound of this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031302371.html). Momentarily suspending Habeas Corpus a la Abraham Lincoln is one thing (and still to be considered an extreme measure to be adopted reluctantly), but the current direction of policy in the war on terror is something I find disturbing.

I don't like the idea of holding anybody indefinitely without charge, under any circumstances. Bush did it, and damn him for doing it. Obama should not do it.

I'm hoping this is just a temporary situation in the Obama administration's deconstruction of Bush's legal framework for this stuff.

[Tesselator]

I'm hoping this is just a temporary situation in the Obama administration's deconstruction of Bush's legal framework for this stuff.

It's not. But we can hope anyway I guess.

[Dmac77]

This is the one good thing that Obama has done during his first days in office. He should also torture them for information. Terrorists have no rights.

Don

[yojitani]

He should also torture them for information. Terrorists have no rights.

Don

Terrorists or people who look like terrorists or were near terrorists or were mistaken for terrorists?

[Dmac77]

Terrorists or people who look like terrorists or were near terrorists or were mistaken for terrorists?

People get hurt in conflict, it's a fact. If some innocent people get hurt while in the process of protecting the country so be it.

Don

[Tesselator]

Terrorists or people who look like terrorists or were near terrorists or were mistaken for terrorists?

Yeah, funny thing that. The pentagon produced a report last year that said over 70% of those being held in these "secret prisons" were probably not terrorists at all and likely had no information about any either.

Since the our military over there pays a fair amount of money to anyone handing over "a terrorist" it's become quite a money making scam for nar-do-wells to just round up anyone they can for the cash.

PS: If you really want to capture the individuals responsible for actual terroristic acts just start arresting the CIA agents that did them - or paid to have them done.

[CalBoy]

People get hurt in conflict, it's a fact. If some innocent people get hurt while in the process of protecting the country so be it.


If you sacrifice your ideals in the name of defending your country, then what exactly are you defending?

[Dmac77]

If you sacrifice your ideals in the name of defending your country, then what exactly are you defending?

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

Don

[Tesselator]

Wow! Satan speaks... :(

[CalBoy]

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

I see, so we're going to just throw out the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments?

The defining attribute of American law and democracy has been our unwavering belief in the process. We can survive all other things, but if we are going to make such large and egregious violations concerning due process, then the very freedoms we strive to protect will disappear before our eyes.

[jonbravo77]

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

Don

So we are going to go off of the "Do as I say, not as I do" philosophy. We want the world to look at us as a super power, someone that they can model themselves off of, and we also go into other countries to spread our democracy on them whether they want it or not. So we want them to take example from us, unless it comes to terrorists than it's "don't look at what we are doing over here, you just keep thinking we are a great country and pretend that we are no better than any terrorist country". Sorry, the torturing needs to stop if we are to regain our dignity as a country...

[GorillaPaws]

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

Don

If you replace "terrorist" with "infidel" your quote sounds just like something the Taliban might say. Does it bother you that you're ideologically identical to those you profess to hate?

[Tesselator]

Anyone who can torture, condone torture, or allow the torturing of another human being isn't bothered by much.

[.Andy]

Absolutely inexcusable.

[yojitani]

People get hurt in conflict, it's a fact. If some innocent people get hurt while in the process of protecting the country so be it.

Don

Wow. Nationalism at its brightest there.

People come before country in my moral universe.

[Peace]

Obama is really starting to piss me off and I'm close to writing a lot of letters.

[és:]

It's not.

Can you prove that please. A link, as per the rules, is required.

[skunk]

Can you prove that please. A link, as per the rules, is required.Reading the linked article certainly gives no grounds for supposing either that Obama's DoJ has any consistent, legally-defensible framework for dealing with these cases or that Obama himself is willing to abandon the practice of the executive redefining facts and circumstances at will. This is looking more shameful and more disappointing by the day. I remember a similar disappointment as Clinton's bold agenda crumbled to dust in his first 100 days.

[és:]

Reading the linked article certainly gives no grounds for supposing either that Obama's DoJ has any consistent, legally-defensible framework for dealing with these cases or that Obama himself is willing to abandon the practice of the executive redefining facts and circumstances at will. This is looking more shameful and more disappointing by the day. I remember a similar disappointment as Clinton's bold agenda crumbled to dust in his first 100 days.

I'd just like a link to his factual statement. If there is one then I feel I can hammer down on Obama without this story being rubbished in the next couple of days.

[kastenbrust]

This is the one good thing that Obama has done during his first days in office. He should also torture them for information. Terrorists have no rights.

Don

You talk like someone without a conscience, torture should never be used under any circumstances, i'd rather get blown up by a terrorist attack than live in a country where torture is used as a form of investigation.

If you use torture your no better than the terrorists, and i'd like to consider myself more civilized than them.

[skunk]

This is the one good thing that Obama has done during his first days in office. He should also torture them for information. Terrorists have no rights.Leaving aside your apparent abrogation of a multitude of international treaty obligations to which your country is party, how do you know who is a terrorist? Obama should drop the meaningless term "terrorist" along with "enemy combatant".

People get hurt in conflict, it's a fact. If some innocent people get hurt while in the process of protecting the country so be it.May any idea that your country represents the rule of law, human rights or anything else in particular worth defending, Rest in Peace. Shameful.

[és:]

Leaving aside your apparent abrogation of a multitude of international treaty obligations to which your country is party, how do you know who is a terrorist? Obama should drop the meaningless term "terrorist" along with "enemy combatant".

May any idea that your country represents the rule of law, human rights or anything else in particular worth defending, Rest in Peace. Shameful.

I've only seen the full extent of what Dmac77 has said because you've quoted him but they are just horrific.

Luckily, he is a young boy and has a chance to change with age.
Anyone who can torture, condone torture, or allow the torturing of another human being isn't bothered by much.

You and I haven't agreed on much over the last week so I can say, with much pleasure, that you are spot on in my opinion.

[Cromulent]

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

Don

If that is your opinion then the terrorists have won. They have created such fear in America that the American people themselves are willing to destroy their own democracy and freedom.

Terrorists 1 - Democracy 0

[yg17]

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

Don


So how would you like it if there was a murder in your town, and the cops thought maybe you did it, but weren't sure, so they threw you in jail. Then after you were in jail for awhile, to try to get a confession out of you, they physically beat and abused you within an inch of your life, even though you had no connection to the murder. And they just kept you in jail for years, no trial, or not even charging you with anything. Too bad, right?

[Blue Velvet]

This is the one good thing that Obama has done during his first days in office.


Don't try to kid us. You have no clue about what this administration has done in the last 7-8 weeks.

Do not feed the troll, people.

[SmartIndianKid]

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

Don

So if you were removed from your home, shipped to Cuba and tortured without being given basic human rights, that's okay with you?

It's for the good of the country, right?

[skunk]

Don't try to kid us. You have no clue about what this administration has done in the last 7-8 weeks.

Do not feed the troll, people.I prefer to see him as just a deluded young American who needs educating out of his black-and-white, binary weltanschung. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference, I know.

[leekohler]

People get hurt in conflict, it's a fact. If some innocent people get hurt while in the process of protecting the country so be it.

Don

What if that person is you, Don?

This is NOT cool at all. Obama's gonna be in hot water over this. :mad:

[Tesselator]

What if that person is you, Don?

This is NOT cool at all. Obama's gonna be in hot water over this. :mad:

It won't matter at all. You watch. "Other stuff" will happen just when this and his other bad actions are starting to get around. Then we'll all be focusing on that "other stuff".

Obama is just a more extreme version of Bush who can talk.

Like US Presidents [puppets] are even meaningful... :rolleyes:

[Rt&Dzine]

I don't think that Obama is a more extreme version of Bush, in fact slightly less extreme. But I figured that he would be generally more of the same.

[leekohler]

It won't matter at all. You watch. "Other stuff" will happen just when this and his other bad actions are starting to get around. Then we'll all be focusing on that "other stuff".

Obama is just a more extreme version of Bush who can talk.

Like US Presidents [puppets] are even meaningful... :rolleyes:

Obama is far from more extreme than Bush. Take off the tin foil hat, please.

[obeygiant]

This is large zit growing on the face of the Obama regime. Unless they find a place for these extremists to go Obama will have to hold them... and that zit will fester continue to ooze puss. I doubt if even there home countries want them back.

[CalBoy]

This is large zit growing on the face of the Obama regime. Unless they find a place for these extremists to go Obama will have to hold them... and that zit will fester continue to ooze puss. I doubt if even there home countries want them back.

It's a tough one, to be sure, but everyone recognizes that it's tough. No one is going to fault Obama if he takes his time coming up with a viable solution-as long as he doesn't violate the Constitution and numerous treaties along the way.

He needs to find a legal and humane way to address this problem, and especially one that wasn't used by the previous administration.

[Tesselator]

I don't think that Obama is a more extreme version of Bush, in fact slightly less extreme. But I figured that he would be generally more of the same.

I hope so.

Err, I mean on the less extreme part. :p

[Tesselator]

Obama is far from more extreme than Bush. Take off the tin foil hat, please.

WTH are you talking about?

[leekohler]

WTH are you talking about?

You said Obama was more extreme than Bush. He's certainly not.

[NT1440]

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

Don

Ah, to be 14 again and have no sympathy for anyone......

Seriously, this reasoning is absolutely disgusting.

[Counterfit]

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

Don

If the government has reason to believe that Dmac77 is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting him, and torturing him for information. If he had no connection to terrorism, too bad.

[freebooter]

From the article linked in the original post:
"...dropping the term "enemy combatant" was a symbolic break from the Bush administration..."

Obama is a master of symbolic 'change'. Judging by the appointments and actions taken thus far, B.O. and his administration are just as much the sock puppets of the Big Money Boys as the Bush-ites were.

What the main stream media almost always neglects to mention when discussing the Guantanamo torture gulag is that it is but one of many the U.S. has dotted throughout Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

The article above is 4 years old, so likely the U.S. gulag network is even more extensive now.

Also, the self-declared Beacon of Freedom to the World delivers prisoners to other torture regimes and regularly supplies these regimes with the equipment and training to carry out torture, and the forming and deployment of death squads. (look it up)

[kastenbrust]

Ah, to be 14 again and have no sympathy for anyone......

Seriously, this reasoning is absolutely disgusting.

Whilst i completely agree, not everyone is educated enough to understand different, he's either too young to understand critical thinking, or just didn't receive a balanced education.

[skunk]

What the main stream media almost always neglects to mention when discussing the Guantanamo torture gulag is that it is but one of many the U.S. has dotted throughout Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.To be fair to Obama, he did issue a Presidential Order to close all the "black sites", apparently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

[és:]

black sites

Do I chance a joke... probably better off leaving it. It'll save SLC the typing.

[Blue Velvet]

I must admit I have conflicted feelings about this, mainly due to ignorance. My main concern over the past few years was the legitimised and supervised use of torture from the very heart of the White House itself.

Then, last night, I thought I'd do some reading on Wikipedia about the Geneva Convention... but my eyes started glazing over when I started burrowing into the details of the Third Convention. Perhaps someone with some knowledge in this area might be able to flesh things out.

Fact is that there's still a war (of sorts) going on, regardless of whether we like it or not or how its going to be prosecuted, particularly in Afghanistan, and people are going to be captured. And when many of the combatants are either tribal people fighting in loose groups and not under a nation's flag, or they're fighters from Pakistan or other parts of the world, then I'm not entirely sure how they should be treated immediately, apart from humanely.

Dick Cheney said today that the Obama administration was failing Americans by treating the problem as a law-enforcement problem, and while I certainly don't agree with his fearmongering, I'm not sure if he doesn't have a point... because this is not a conventional war by 19th or 20th century standards in the sense of opposing armies under national banners, as signatories to a number of international conventions. For instance, in World War II, were captured prisoners of war in say, the European theatre, given trials? Or were the bulk of them just imprisoned?

In short, I guess I'm happy to continue reading this thread to learn from others and to hear what people think should be done with them.

[remmy]

I think the difference between those old pitched battles and now is the secrecy. You do not know what the government and its associated organisations are up to and their real intentions.

The people they have captured are moved around in secrecy, held captive outside the US. Anything could happen to these people and we would never know.

I know countries and there governments need to have their secrets but there is something still sinister about holding people in this way and torturing them.

[Phil A.]

This is the one good thing that Obama has done during his first days in office. He should also torture them for information. Terrorists have no rights.

Don

People get hurt in conflict, it's a fact. If some innocent people get hurt while in the process of protecting the country so be it.

Don

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

Don

I truly hope this isn't representative of the views of today's youngsters. If it is, then we are witnessing the end of our so-called civilized society

[skunk]

Fact is that there's still a war (of sorts) going on, regardless of whether we like it or not or how its going to be prosecuted, particularly in Afghanistan, and people are going to be captured.There is a civil war going on in Afghanistan, as there has been for decades. NATO has no business to be there. All we are doing is propping up an appallingly corrupt regime. The people of Afghanistan are not benefitting:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/06/afghan.women/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/15/afghan.taliban.threat/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Fact is there is no Geneva Convention to cover civil wars fomented by outside powers. We certainly have no right, Conventions or not, to detain anyone, let alone spirit them away and torture them. All we should be doing, if indeed we should be doing anything at all, is offering to broker an agreement. If there had never been a prospect of any UNOCAL pipeline in Afghanistan, the USA would not have been negotiating with the Taleban before 9/11, nor would they have put Karzai in when that fell through. As it is, I can see no prospect of the job ever being "completed", whatever that means: nobody even has a clue what the mission is. Twenty times as many people have been killed in Afghanistan as died on 9/11, and practically none of them had anything remotely to do with that.

Fact is, unless we behave ourselves according to the law, we have nothing to defend and no reason to continue throwing lives, taxpayers' money and any remaining national prestige down the drain.

[Blue Velvet]

NATO has no business to be there.

So you don't agree with an ongoing campaign against those who were or are sheltering Al Qaeda's leadership and will continue to do so? I'm under no illusions about the current Afghani regime, by the way.

[skunk]

So you don't agree with an ongoing campaign against those who were or are sheltering Al Qaeda's leadership and will continue to do so? I'm under no illusions about the current Afghani regime, by the way.Al Qaeda's leadership are in Pakistan, or so we are told, over and over again.

[Blue Velvet]

Al Qaeda's leadership are in Pakistan, or so we are told, over and over again.


Now they are. They weren't in 2001... and without NATO's presence in Afghanistan would probably return to where they would be less likely to be bothered.

I'm not sure what you are proposing as a solution. Pakistan is a mess.

With the Taliban growing in strength in tribal areas of Pakistan and using the country to launch attacks in Afghanistan, the political crisis has prompted deep concern in the US. The problems on Pakistan's lawless north-west frontier were graphically illustrated today when suspected militants launched a pre-dawn attack on a transport terminal used to supply Nato troops in Afghanistan and set fire to dozens of containers and military vehicles, according to police.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/15/pakistan

Let's remember that the Taleban were left mostly to themselves before 2001 and effectively soiled their own nest by permitting and supporting Al Qaeda to establish bases there. Potentially negotiating with what remains of their leadership has to be taken with that in mind.

[Tesselator]

You said Obama was more extreme than Bush. He's certainly not.

He certainly is!

[Tesselator]

Al Qaeda's leadership are in Pakistan, or so we are told, over and over again.

Yes, this is true. Al Qaeda's (Al- C.I.A.-da) base is the ISI headquartered in Pakistan and funded almost entirely by the C.I.A. The USA is indirectly, the Al Qaeda. What's worse is that they get their general marching orders for us in the west. If we likey - we pay... if we no likey - we no pay. This is how it was from 1990 or so up until about 2005 or a little past. I haven't checked back into it since then.

[NT1440]

I truly hope this isn't representative of the views of today's youngsters. If it is, then we are witnessing the end of our so-called civilized society

I think he just hasnt gotten to the sympathy stage yet.;)

[Tesselator]

I think he just hasnt gotten to the sympathy stage yet.;)

Maybe. But there is a fairly huge number of folks (16 ~ 24) that feel this very same way. I see them post on you-tube over and over. Also on political sites like RonPaul's forums and www.infowars.com and etc. So he's certainly not alone in his thinking - as disgusting and un-human as it is.

[mgguy]

Yes, this is true. Al Qaeda's (Al- C.I.A.-da) base is the ISI headquartered in Pakistan and funded almost entirely by the C.I.A. The USA is indirectly, the Al Qaeda. What's worse is that they get their general marching orders for us in the west. If we likey - we pay... if we no likey - we no pay. This is how it was from 1990 or so up until about 2005 or a little past. I haven't checked back into it since then.

That's a pretty bold statement to make. Can you provide any evidence that the CIA funded Al Qaeda and that the US has been telling them what to do (including, I assume you think, the 9/11 operation)?

[NT1440]

Maybe. But there is a fairly huge number of folks (16 ~ 24) that feel this very same way. I see them post on you-tube over and over. Also on political sites like RonPaul's forums and www.infowars.com and etc. So he's certainly not alone in his thinking - as disgusting and un-human as it is.

I really think that has more to do with the "me me me" attitude that comes with youth. Hopefully most people outgrow it. (dmac actually is 14 if you didnt know)

[skunk]

The mission in Afghanistan certainly has to be redefined, and, having made our bed, we have to lie in it. The only way out of the tangled web we have woven I fear is to put yet more troops in, a surge if you will, until a self-sustaining core area can be established, something to give an incentive to neighbouring areas. The present seasonal seesaw of influence is ridiculous.

[Blue Velvet]

The mission in Afghanistan certainly has to be redefined, and, having made our bed, we have to lie in it.


Exactly. Which is what I said about "Fact is that there's still a war (of sorts) going on, regardless of whether we like it or not or how its going to be prosecuted"

So coming back to the subject of this thread, and bearing in mind that those tied to Al Qaeda will be picked up all over the world, what do you propose doing with them once captured? Tried under the criminal law of where they are captured?

[skunk]

The USA should sign up to the ICJ and hand all major detainees over with the evidence.

[Blue Velvet]

The USA should sign up to the ICJ and hand all major detainees over with the evidence.

And those who aren't the big fish? The middle-men and footsoldiers?

[Peace]

BV I'll try to answer some of your questions.

Up until say 1980 war was a battle between sovereign nations in general. I'm not talking about revolutions etc. War was battled between countries using soldiers in a uniform. But. All wars have had "soldiers" that didn't wear "uniforms". They were called "spies"or "infiltrates". They wore cloths that fit the situation. A good example would have been the French underground from WW2. They wore no uniform. However during that war if they were captured by the enemy they were taken to various places and interrogated. Sometimes very harshly. The interrogations would pale in comparison to the waterboarding that went on under the Bush administration. The Geneva Convention was formulated to make cruel and unusual torture a war crime that would be tried in the World court.

Now on to the realities of war.. From a first hand/ I have friends perception.

During the Vietnam War I had friends that would get in a helicopter stoned on LSD and buzz the NVA and Vietnamese in general. Just for fun. That was of course illegal but it was kind of a "Don't say anything and it will be ok" attitude.
The most classic example of this sort of thing was the Mei Lei massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre) done by US soldiers under the orders of Lt.William Calley in 1968. Lt. Calley was convicted of premeditated murder in 1970.

This sort of thing happened all the time. The U.S. considers itself immune from the geneva convention.

The Geneva Convention in concept is great but in the battle. Whether it's in a uniform or not it doesn't work because mankind is bad during wars. Hatred fuels torture.

The Bush administration and indeed most americans exhibited this hatred towards the Taliban and Al Queda. This is how secret prisons blossomed during his tenure. He did nothing to qualm the hatred. It became a mob mentality and in some areas of this country it still is.

While Obama says publically the united states doesn't torture I can guarantee you somewhere in the world there is a human being being tortured.

It has always been that way and always will be. What's important is whether or not it becomes public.

I personally do not condone torture. Many intelligence specialist have said that torture doesn't work. It does in some instances but in others all it does is get the person to say what they think the torturer wants to hear. So it becomes unreliable for intelligence analyst.

[skunk]

And those who aren't the big fish? The middle-men and footsoldiers?Give them jobs and free healthcare.

[mgguy]

The mission in Afghanistan certainly has to be redefined, and, having made our bed, we have to lie in it. The only way out of the tangled web we have woven I fear is to put yet more troops in, a surge if you will, until a self-sustaining core area can be established, something to give an incentive to neighbouring areas. The present seasonal seesaw of influence is ridiculous.

Just curious--did you have the same attitude about the surge in Iraq? We similarly made our bed in Iraq and we had to lie in it too. So we put more troops in to stabilize the region. If you didn't feel this way about Iraq, can you explain how that was different?

[Ugg]

The USA should sign up to the ICJ and hand all major detainees over with the evidence.

That would be fine except for the fact that there still isn't a classification that these guys could be prosecuted under.

War mongering private citizens? Ideological freedom fighters? Crazed religious fundamentalists?

What do you want to call them? And, how do you prosecute them.

I'm all for transparent trials by the ICJ, but until they can be classified under the Geneva Convention, they can't be tried.

[Tesselator]

That's a pretty bold statement to make. Can you provide any evidence that the CIA funded Al Qaeda and that the US has been telling them what to do (including, I assume you think, the 9/11 operation)?

That the CIA funded Al Qaeda for many many events and exercises is extremely common knowledge. Maybe every network news channel, PBS, and etc. played reel after reel of this in the year following the attack.

Since Al Qaeda is basically a CIA subgroup by every definition I guess we can make the assumption that if Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9-11 then it was in some way the CIA's fault. I don't want to get into 9-11 here because I don't think the mods would appreciate it. If one of them comes on and says "go for it" I'll proceed though. ;)

Personally without going into the kind of detail I was just talking about avoiding, I don't think Al Qaeda had anything at all to do with 9-11. I have no idea who did but all evidence seems to point away from Al Qaeda. <shrug>

If you want to see, hear, or read evidence of this just google with your own terms: "CIA funded Al Qaeda" and any news organization of your choice. It's really old, it's been stripped from the net where ever it became popular (again to the 1984 reference) but I'm sure some remanence still remain now almost 8 years later. I would be surprised if 100% of it was wiped.

[Tesselator]

While Obama says publically the united states doesn't torture I can guarantee you somewhere in the world there is a human being being tortured.

It has always been that way and always will be. What's important is whether or not it becomes public.


OK, but it's not just "...whether or not it becomes public.". It's whether or not it's legal and whether or not those who violate that law are made accountable!

Chainey, Dumbsfelf, Jr. Bush should by all accounts be in prison right now! Actual written documentation signed by Dumbsfeld that specified it was accepted policy to crush the testicles of a child with pliers in order to get the parent(s) to confess. Actual terminology used. :( Similar less specific, documents were signed by Chainey as well.

[Rt&Dzine]

Actual written documentation signed by Dumbsfeld that specified it was accepted policy to crush the testicles of a child with pliers in order to get the parent(s) to confess. Actual terminology used. :( Similar less specific, documents were signed by Chainey as well.

It's despicable regardless ... but are you sure that was a specific policy in writing? Or was it Woo stating that there was no law that prevented the president from authorizing it?

[Lord Blackadder]

This may be rationalizing, but I'm hoping that Obama is planning to gradually deconstruct this bizarre legal framework justifying torture that Bush created, and that this current situation is merely temporary as the administration tries to deal with the prisoners we already have.

It's still early doors in the Obama administration, so I think it's too early to pass judgment. But I do expect major changes is the way we deal with suspected terrorists. If we think they have committed crimes, we need to come up with a way to charge and prosecute them under our legal system. I understand that classified information may be inextricably linked with critical legal arguments - but, for goodness' sake, we aren't all stupid! Surely we can come up with some sort of system to accommodate that. No more rotting in prisons without charge!

Under no circumstances should the USA officially sanction torture in any form, or make it a routine or acceptable practice in any situation. Even under extreme circumstances, or with some exceptional justification, it should be avoided if at all possible. It sets an appalling example and probably does more harm than good 99.9% of the time. And even if that 0.1% exception is wholly justified, what are the chances that there are no viable alternatives?

[Peace]

OK, but it's not just "...whether or not it becomes public.". It's whether or not it's legal and whether or not those who violate that law are made accountable!

Chainey, Dumbsfelf, Jr. Bush should by all accounts be in prison right now! Actual written documentation signed by Dumbsfeld that specified it was accepted policy to crush the testicles of a child with pliers in order to get the parent(s) to confess. Actual terminology used. :( Similar less specific, documents were signed by Chainey as well.

when I said "what's important" I was referring to the governments point of view not mine.;)

[mgguy]

That the CIA funded Al Qaeda for many many events and exercises is extremely common knowledge. Maybe every network news channel, PBS, and etc. played reel after reel of this in the year following the attack.

...

If you want to see, hear, or read evidence of this just google with your own terms: "CIA funded Al Qaeda" and any news organization of your choice. It's really old, it's been stripped from the net where ever it became popular (again to the 1984 reference) but I'm sure some remanence still remain now almost 8 years later. I would be surprised if 100% of it was wiped.

I Googled this and found snippets of accusations that CIA funded Mujahadeen and other groups that ultimately may have funded and offered other assistance to Al Qaeda. Couldn't find anything by PBS, network news channel, or mainstream newspaper reporting that CIA funded Al Qaeda directly after the latter became known as a terrorist group harmful to the US. I haven't done any research on this but plan to look into it more when I can free up some time.

[Tesselator]

It's still early doors in the Obama administration, so I think it's too early to pass judgment. But I do expect major changes is the way we deal with suspected terrorists.

Americans! Heh! They have the perfect government to propagate evil.
A new guy comes in and does many evil or bad things.
In three years time 10% to 20% of the people notice. In
the meantime 60% of Americans are saying "Give him a
chance, he just got into office".
Before the 4th year he says some total BS or starts a war
and 60% of the people rally behind him out of nationalism.
At the end of the 4th year he's reelected because they're
nationalistic Americans Hoo-yah!
Or now from about 2000 it really doesn't matter because 60%
of the voting locations are rigged - and they just steel it - like Bush.
By the end of the 8th year all of the thinking Americans who know
their history (that's still only about 20% ~ 25%) are shouting about
how evil he is and how we need to Jail the bums.
Goto 1, start all over but of course pick right up where the last
guy left off and continue. Repeat until???
It's been like that since the early 1900's. But what no one seems to ever get is that the policies most of them anyway, that are continued on (under different rhetoric sometimes) are not of the president. It's from higher up. Many presidents throughout the past 80 years have even said so directly. But here we are - doing it again. Over and over. Presidents over the last century are nothing more than representative mouth pieces for their puppetmasters. And the puppetmasters are either the international bankers themselves or corporations that they control.



If we think they have committed crimes, we need to come up with a way to charge and prosecute them under our legal system. I understand that classified information may be inextricably linked with critical legal arguments - but, for goodness' sake, we aren't all stupid! Surely we can come up with some sort of system to accommodate that. No more rotting in prisons without charge!

There are petitions and such. I've signed 5 or 6 of them. Millions of names. Nothing seems to be happening. Congress (all but 2 or 3 of them) have taken the goods - they're corrupt. So nothing happens.



Under no circumstances should the USA officially sanction torture in any form, or make it a routine or acceptable practice in any situation. Even under extreme circumstances, or with some exceptional justification, it should be avoided if at all possible. It sets an appalling example and probably does more harm than good 99.9% of the time. And even if that 0.1% exception is wholly justified, what are the chances that there are no viable alternatives?

It's on the books AFAIK. Right now. What can we do about it? What have we done about it? What have YOU done about it? ("you" as in anyone reading including me) The documents exist but when asked the politicians say "we do not officially sanction torture.". No trial is held. No proceedings are initiated.


.

[Tesselator]

I Googled this and found snippets of accusations that CIA funded Mujahadeen...

Yup.


...and other groups that ultimately may have funded and offered other assistance to Al Qaeda. Couldn't find anything by PBS, network news channel, or mainstream newspaper reporting that CIA funded Al Qaeda directly after the latter became known as a terrorist group harmful to the US. I haven't done any research on this but plan to look into it more when I can free up some time.

Here's what I find. And I'm NOT being selective at all. These are just the 1st few hits:

Wikipedia mentions it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
"Al-Qaida, literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."
" The U.S. channelled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the native Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation in a CIA program called Operation Cyclone."

This is the ISI. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (The ISI) was created by the CIA in the 1st place too BTW. So really we in the west (and the brits) created all of the monsters - all of them. Hahaha, now, who's the terrorists? :p


French Report CIA & MI6 Funded Afghan Al Qaeda Camp:
http://devilsavocado.gnn.tv/blogs/15600/French_Report_CIA_MI6_Funded_Afghan_Al_Qaeda_Camp
WMR has obtained a confidential “France Only” report of the French intelligence service, Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE), that states that the CIA and Britain’s MI-6 maintained effective control of an important Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan as late as 1995, fully two years after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, an attack that was launched with the help of Sudanese intelligence officers loyal to Osama Bin Laden. The CIA and MI-6 permitted control of training operations at Darunta, an “Arab Afghan” base located near the camp of Osama Bin Laden and used to manufacture explosives and chemical weapons and train in their use, to pass to the control of Ibn Cheikh, a Libyan leader of Al Qaeda.

Of course that's 1995. We can either say that's ancient history or as has been repeated over and over in the past century we can assume than in another 20 years some other official information about our involvement during 2001 ~ 2004 will be released for publishment. Some already have been leaked but just not admitted to yet.


CIA provided funds to financiers of Sept 11 bomber
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/FightSmart18-11-2001.htm
[The FBI] were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11"
London Guardian, 7 November 2001

"The ISI has in turn had access to considerable funds from the CIA for the purpose of supporting militant groups in Afghanistan."

It is already known that prior warnings of the impending strikes were provided to the CIA by Israeli (Daily Telegraph, London, 16 September 2001) and other intelligence services around the world.
etc.


U.S. Government Uses Al-Qaeda To Attack Iran
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/280507usesalqaeda.htm
Bush authorizes group formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind to be bankrolled & armed by CIA for covert regime change
Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Monday, May 28, 2007

Oh, look 2007 and we're still funding them. :) But of course the site here and reporters have been ridiculed (without good evidence) beyond reason so good luck promoting that information. One of the few real investigative reporters we have left and people who can't pull their heads out (of the sand) trash him. Heh! We get what we deserve. Anyway it goes on to say:

"Recent revelations illustrating the fact that the U.S. government is using a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 to carry out bombings in Iran undermines the entire war on terror as a monumental hoax that is being exploited purely to realize a geopolitical agenda.

"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."
"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph reported yesterday.

Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Even if you believe the official story of 9/11 to the letter, the fact that Bush has personally authorized U.S. support for this group completely dismantles the facade of the war on terror."

...and the rest of the article is interesting too.


Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism" by Michel Chossudovsky - Global Research, January 20, 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718
"The Central Intelligence Agency using Pakistan’s ISI as a go-between played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. The madrasahs were set up by Wahabi fundamentalists financed out of Saudi Arabia: "It was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools, from which the germs of the Taliban emerged."(Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), "RAWA Statement on the Terrorist Attacks in the U.S.", Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG),
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RAW109A.html , 16 September 2001)"

This article seems pretty good.

"Pakistan’s ISI Used as a "Go-Between"
CIA covert support to the "Islamic Jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI — i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. For these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "Jihad", which consisted not only in destabilising the secular (pro-Soviet) government in Afghanistan, but also destroying the Soviet Union."

"Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international bestseller America’s "War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization."

Those are the 1st 5 links anyway. It says there's 403,000 hits but I bet only 1/10th of them are actually relevant. Still that gives you 40k documents to read. :) Other search terms will bring more.

[mgguy]

Those are the 1st 5 links anyway. It says there's 403,000 hits but I bet only 1/10th of them are actually relevant. Still that gives you 40k documents to read. :) Other search terms will bring more.

I'm still not seeing anything reported by a mainstream news organization. Much of what you cited refers to funding of ISI and other organizations that were created before Al Qaeda or that were at one time run by or had as a member an AQ leader. The CIA flows money extensively in support its foreign affairs and it is not surprising that some of it may have been received by organizations or individuals linked to AQ at some time in the past or even now. This includes funding unsavory characters for special operations to achieve CIA objectives vis a vis Iran. I guess there are always trade-offs to be made in this underworld of foreign intelligence and carrying out activities to accomplish US security objectives.

[Tesselator]

It's despicable regardless ... but are you sure that was a specific policy in writing? Or was it Woo stating that there was no law that prevented the president from authorizing it?

Yes, sure. It was an internal (official) policy white paper of some sort. It was in the news at the time.

I guess the actual document can still be sussed. I read it with shock, disgust, and horror at the time.

[és:]

Since Al Qaeda is basically a CIA subgroup by every definition I guess we can make the assumption that if Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9-11 then it was in some way the CIA's fault. I don't want to get into 9-11 here because I don't think the mods would appreciate it.

My guess is that you think it is an insider job and you've got wikipedia evidence to prove it? ;)

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You come across as a conspiracy theory lover that is so convinced of something but can't really offer any sort of evidence. You're heart is definitely in the right place though, you seem like a really nice guy. I've always got time for nice guys.

[Tesselator]

I'm still not seeing anything reported by a mainstream news organization. Much of what you cited refers to funding of ISI and other organizations that were created before Al Qaeda or that were at one time run by or had as a member an AQ leader. The CIA flows money extensively in support its foreign affairs and it is not surprising that some of it may have been received by organizations or individuals linked to AQ at some time in the past or even now. This includes funding unsavory characters for special operations to achieve CIA objectives vis a vis Iran. I guess there are always trade-offs to be made in this underworld of foreign intelligence and carrying out activities to accomplish US security objectives.

??? Did you read ANYTHING I referenced AT ALL???

B&W, 30 references or more that site the CIA as the founder and funder of the ISI and Al'Q as their legitimate child, specific operation names, dates, places, names, and all you see is maybe some of our "foreign aid" might have gone astray???

Are you serious?

[edesignuk]

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

DonSo if you, a family member or friend are arrested and deemed a possible terrorist for whatever ridiculous reason the government might choose to see/make up entirely, you're cool with that?

[Tesselator]

My guess is that you think it is an insider job and you've got wikipedia evidence to prove it? ;)

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You come across as a conspiracy theory lover that is so convinced of something but can't really offer any sort of evidence. You're heart is definitely in the right place though, you seem like a really nice guy. I've always got time for nice guys.

Nah, I'm a freedom lover. Screw "conspiracy theories". Besides, that term is now successfully thee official example of doublethink. It's been completely turned around. I can point to tried and convicted conspirators in the government at the federal level in vast numbers and all throughout history - and in every government - just think Julius Caesar's Rome. It's very common and a natural product of large governments. Yet because those very same kinds of conspirators have turned it around to indicate foolishness on the part of those credible whistle blowers and finger pointers now it's used like this. I think that's the ultimate sign of a true fool! Being so stupid as to be so easily duped into giving up what little ammunition you might have had because of prideful embarrassment. Heh!

But anyway, no. I don't care about "government dark secrets", and such paraphernalia. I care about what's actually going on. If that leads back into some conspiracy then well, so be it, can't help that. And at least now we know more about the operation. But I certainly won't be dissuaded from fighting against evil men or trying to expose them simply because what they are doing is part of a "conspiracy" and because that word now has a bad connotation or is associated with nuts.

I'm not that stupid. <says me> :D

"Inside Job"... Hey, that's a Don Henley tune:
While you were sleeping
They came and took it all away
The lanes and the meadows
The places where you used to play

It was an inside job
By the well-connected
Your little protest
Summarily rejected

It was an inside job
Like it always is
Chalk it up to business as usual

While we are dreaming
This little island disappears
While you are looking the other way
Theyll take your right to own your own ideas

And its an inside job
Favors collected
Your trusted servants
Have left you unprotected

It was an inside job
Like it always is
Just chalk it up
To business as usual

You think that youre so smart
But you dont have a ****ing clue
What those men up in the towers
Are doing to me and you
And theyll keep doin it and doin it
And doin it and doin it
And doin it and doin it
And doin it and doin it
Until we all wake up
Wake up, wake up, wake up, wake up

I know what Ive done wrong
I am acquainted with the night
I know how hard it is
To always walk out in the light

And its an inside job
To learn about forgiving
Its an inside job
To hang on to the joy of living

They know the road by which you came
They know your mothers maiden name
And what you had for breakfast
And what youve hidden in the mattress

Insect politics
Indifferent universe
Bang your head against the wall
But apathy is worse

Its an inside job
Its an inside job
Its an inside job
Yeh, yeah
etc.

[és:]

Nah, I'm a freedom lover. Screw "conspiracy theories". Besides, that term is now successfully thee official example of doublethink. It's been completely turned around. I can point to tried and convicted conspirators in the government at the federal level in vast numbers and all throughout history - and in every government - just think Julius Caesar's Rome. It's very common and a natural product of large governments. Yet because those very same kinds of conspirators have turned it around to indicate foolishness on the part of those credible whistle blowers and finger pointers now it's used like this. I think that's the ultimate sign of a true fool! Being so stupid as to be so easily duped into giving up what little ammunition you might have had because of prideful embarrassment. Heh!

But anyway, no. I don't care about "government dark secrets", and such paraphernalia. I care about what's actually going on. If that leads back into some conspiracy then well, so be it, can't help that. And at least now we know more about the operation. But I certainly won't be dissuaded from fighting against evil men or trying to expose them simply because what they are doing is part of a "conspiracy" and because that word now has a bad connotation or is associated with nuts.

I'm not that stupid. <says me> :D

I do love you, actually :D

Sure, I might think you're a bit crazybonkers, but I mean that in the nicest possible way.

[jonbravo77]

Nah, I'm a freedom lover. Screw "conspiracy theories". Besides, that term is now successfully thee official example of doublethink. It's been completely turned around. I can point to tried and convicted conspirators in the government at the federal level in vast numbers and all throughout history - and in every government - just think Julius Caesar's Rome. It's very common and a natural product of large governments. Yet because those very same kinds of conspirators have turned it around to indicate foolishness on the part of those credible whistle blowers and finger pointers now it's used like this. I think that's the ultimate sign of a true fool! Being so stupid as to be so easily duped into giving up what little ammunition you might have had because of prideful embarrassment. Heh!

But anyway, no. I don't care about "government dark secrets", and such paraphernalia. I care about what's actually going on. If that leads back into some conspiracy then well, so be it, can't help that. And at least now we know more about the operation. But I certainly won't be dissuaded from fighting against evil men or trying to expose them simply because what they are doing is part of a "conspiracy" and because that word now has a bad connotation or is associated with nuts.

I'm not that stupid. <says me> :D

I have to tell you, I don't agree with most of the things you say but at least you stand up for your convictions which is something a lot of people cannot say. Honorable in my opinion, for what it's worth..

[Tesselator]

Thanks guys.

And really... All "this stuff" I'm bringing to the table. I wanna close my eyes to it. I wanna say it's meaningless or circumstantial - a fluke of coincidence. I always hope I'm wrong. And I always triple check my facts.

There's just too much of it tho. And so much of it fits perfectly with what these men actually say they're about. And "these men" are without question the richest and most power men on the planet. Should I ignore it all? Pass it off because I myself could never fathom doing those kinds of things?

Mmm, I think that would be a little on the dangerous side. That's what's been happening this century and we've had 2 world wars and over a billion people (men, women, and children!) slaughtered around the globe - little or none of which could have possibly happened without "these men".

When is enough enough?

[mgguy]

??? Did you read ANYTHING I referenced AT ALL???

B&W, 30 references or more that site the CIA as the founder and funder of the ISI and Al'Q as their legitimate child, specific operation names, dates, places, names, and all you see is maybe some of our "foreign aid" might have gone astray???

Are you serious?

No need to get personal. I read just fine. I'm not so sure about the sources for your referenced claims. Can you cite something in a mainstream publication that analyzed the available information and allegations? You mentioned PBS earlier; do you have a link for any of their stuff?

I don't consider funding a organization that may have later spawned AQ to be funding AQ. Nor do I consider funding organizations that AQ leaders were or are affiliated with to be the same as funding AQ. The names, dates, places, and allegations in your cited material need to be properly vetted through unbiased research and analysis and presented in a logical way, not just snippets here and there by those I suspect have an axe to grind against the Bush team. I am open to the possibility that your claims may be true, I just need to have a more compelling case made by someone who is trustworthy. Given the broadcast media's desire to bring Bush and the CIA down, I would think they would have nailed this story in a way that cannot be refuted. If such analyses were done and published before, I don't believe the Bush administration could have succeeded in censoring or cleaning it as you suggest may have been done in your earlier posts.

[Peace]

No need to get personal. I read just fine. I'm not so sure about the sources for your referenced claims. Can you cite something in a mainstream publication that analyzed the available information and allegations? You mentioned PBS earlier; do you have a link for any of their stuff?

I don't consider funding a organization that may have later spawned AQ to be funding AQ. Nor do I consider funding organizations that AQ leaders may have been or are currently affiliated with to be funding of AQ. The names, dates, places, and allegations in your cited material need to be properly vetted through unbiased research and analysis and presented in a logical way, not just snippets here and there by those I suspect have an axe to grind against the Bush team. I am open to the possibility that your claims may be true, I just need to have a more compelling case made by someone who is trustworthy. Given the broadcast media's desire to bring Bush and the CIA down, I would think they would have nailed this story in a way that cannot be refuted. If such analyses were done and published before, I don't believe the Bush administration could have succeeded in censoring or cleaning it as you suggest may have been done in your earlier posts.

So you won't believe it unless NBC,Fox News,ABC,PBS or CBS has the story right?

If you continue to read "mainstream news" you will be missing out on a lot of truth.

[mgguy]

So you won't believe it unless NBC,Fox News,ABC,PBS or CBS has the story right?

If you continue to read "mainstream news" you will be missing out on a lot of truth.

When and if it percolates up to these news outlets it would become more believable. They have the same information available to them that Tesselator reported, and I'm sure they would have presented an expose if they believed it as it is being construed here. I don't read only mainstream news, but I am pretty confident that they have the competency and interest to have further investigated the allegations made in the sources cited here, and I don't see any evidence that they did so.

[Tesselator]

When and if it percolates up to these news outlets it would become more believable. They have the same information available to them that Tesselator reported, and I'm sure they would have presented an expose if they believed it as it is being construed here. I don't read only mainstream news, but I am pretty confident that they have the competency and interest to have further investigated the allegations made in the sources cited here, and I don't see any evidence that they did so.

I feel just the opposite. Fox, NBC, CNN, CBS, etc. are owned by total criminals who themselves are owned by the perps themselves. All Provable!

But I wasn't being personal. I was serious. All of those articles I referenced ARE from mainstream media. Thus why I asked about your reading comprehension scores. Let's see, there was:
Wiki which gave all of it's references! A very long list!
WNR which is a member of: IRE, SPJ, AIO, NPC (those are intense credentials!)
London Guardian
Daily Telegraph
The Times of India
the Wall St. Journal
London Times
The Jerusalem Post
Daily Express
BBC
London Independent
Time Magazine
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Los Angles Times
Daily Mirror
The New Yorker
BBC Online
NLP Wessex
etc.

And those are just from the 1st three links. So again I have to ask: Did you read ANYTHING I posted? And if you did what were your SAT reading comprehension scores? <nothing personal>.

.

[Rt&Dzine]

When and if it percolates up to these news outlets it would become more believable. They have the same information available to them that Tesselator reported, and I'm sure they would have presented an expose if they believed it as it is being construed here. I don't read only mainstream news, but I am pretty confident that they have the competency and interest to have further investigated the allegations made in the sources cited here, and I don't see any evidence that they did so.

I know what you're saying, but unfortunately it's not always true. There's a documentary called Control Room that shows media bias from a different point of view. It might be an eye opener for many Americans.

[Tesselator]

I know what you're saying, but unfortunately it's not always true. There's a documentary called Control Room that shows media bias from a different point of view. It might be an eye opener for many Americans.

Yup! Here, I LOVE this rant! Every single sentence is right on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXWzSwZ_wPs

And check out the full 2 hour show too. :)

[hulugu]

...I don't consider funding a organization that may have later spawned AQ to be funding AQ. Nor do I consider funding organizations that AQ leaders may have been or are currently affiliated with to be funding of AQ....

I'd agree with this, but we should also be cognizant that today's CIA-funded 'freedom fighters' may be tomorrow's problem. The CIA had extensive relationships with pre-Al Qaeda members, including Bin Laden, because of the CIA's relationship with Afghani mujahideen. Remember that AQ was a funding and organizational group tasked with moving money which was then used to buy, among other things, Stinger missiles from the CIA. You should take a look at Taliban by Rashid and also Ghost Wars by Stephen Coll (which won the Pulitzer Prize). The TV media haven't covered this story because it's essentially deep-background, especially after 9/11. Most news reports don't go into depth on a subject, although I believe there was a Frontline episode that did talk about this relationship.

Given the broadcast media's desire to bring Bush and the CIA down, I would think they would have nailed this story in a way that cannot be refuted. If such analyses were done and published before, I don't believe the Bush administration could have succeeded in censoring or cleaning it as you suggest may have been done in your earlier posts.

You do realize that the CIA-AQ connection was forged in the early-80s? Reagan and George H.W. Bush were connected with this particular mess. Until 9/11, many people didn't understand just exactly what the CIA had wrought in Afghanistan, but the media has covered this story in-depth, but not on Fox News or ABC.

If you're looking for historical relevancy, you need to read. TV is for the immediate.

[hulugu]

I know what you're saying, but unfortunately it's not always true. There's a documentary called Control Room that shows media bias from a different point of view. It might be an eye opener for many Americans.

Control Room is really good. A must watch for anyone who's interested in the media.

[Tesselator]

I'd agree with this,


I would too. IF that's the way it was (is). It's NOT however and not only were they funded by the CIA they were CREATED by the CIA and they are STILL being funded by the CIA to this very day!

So you see, it's an entirely different thing than just having done a job for the CIA at some time in the past. Essentially and really by any realistic definition, they ARE the CIA... or at least a very current and very active part of the CIA.

.

[és:]

I would too. IF that's the way it was (is). It's NOT however and not only were the funded by the CIA they were CREATED by the CIA and they are STILL being funded by the CIA to this very day!

I don't mean to be funny, but could you provide me with a solid source proving that the CIA currently fund al-Qaeda. When I say 'solid' I mean not a forum member of www.ciaconspiracy.com/bonkers/they-did-do-it-honest.html but something credible.

[Tesselator]

I don't mean to be funny, but could you provide me with a solid source proving that the CIA currently fund al-Qaeda. When I say 'solid' I mean not a forum member of www.ciaconspiracy.com/bonkers/they-did-do-it-honest.html but something credible.

I already did actually. You're not reading either huh? Oh well.

[és:]

I already did actually. You're not reading either huh? Oh well.

I'm asking for a specific piece of information. I can't search all of wikipedia's source list to find something that may or may not even be there. You posted lots of different links to lots of different things. I'm asking for something very specific.

So, I ask one more time... please provide a credible source to back up the claim that the CIA are still funding al-Qaeda. It is a massive claim and, if true, this needs to be brought to the attention of the world. The United States Counter Intelligence Agency are funding the terrorist group that attacked the United States. That is a massive claim and all I'm asking you to do is back it up with something.

Does anybody think that this is an unreasonable request?

[Tesselator]

I'm asking for a specific piece of information. I can't search all of wikipedia's source list to find something that may or may not even be there. You posted lots of different links to lots of different things. I'm asking for something very specific.

So, I ask one more time... please provide a credible source to back up the claim that the CIA are still funding al-Qaeda. It is a massive claim and, if true, this needs to be brought to the attention of the world. The United States Counter Intelligence Agency are funding the terrorist group that attacked the United States. That is a massive claim and all I'm asking you to do is back it up with something.

Does anybody think that this is an unreasonable request?

It was mentioned directly in 3 of the documents' main text bodies. I even commented on the date in my post about one of them. So really, why should I if you don't read anything anyway. I think you're way WAY too into the looks of the website rather than the actual content and credentials.
"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."
"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html) reported yesterday (28 May 2007).
Jundullah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah) is an Al-Qaeda organization that was headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. So, yes! Absolutely! I think this was an unreasonable request! No question about it. Sorry, but I do. You're essentially asking me to babysit and spoon-feed you. :(

It continues...
Iranian officials say they captured 10 members of Jundullah last weekend, carrying $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment".
bla bla bla...
The White House National Security Council and CIA refused to comment on intelligence matters.
bla bla bla...
etc. Again not meant as a personal insult but if your surfing skills are so weak how do you know anything really? Only what's on TV? That's kinda sad - seriously.

.

[hulugu]

...
"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html) reported yesterday (28 May 2007).[/indent]
Jundullah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah) is an Al-Qaeda organization that was headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Did I miss the link between Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Jundullah?

[mgguy]

You do realize that the CIA-AQ connection was forged in the early-80s? Reagan and George H.W. Bush were connected with this particular mess.

I do read. Do you? If you did, you would realize that AQ was not founded until the late 80's, and it wasn't until much later that they were involved in known terrorist activities against the US. Sometimes your friends do become you enemies, and if you knew that this would be the eventual outcome, you likely would not continue to support them. I suspect CIA funding and support dried up pretty fast when there was a nexus established between AQ and terrorism against US interests. If I am wrong, I welcome any evidence you have that will show it.

[Tesselator]

Yup! Here, I LOVE this rant! Every single sentence is right on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXWzSwZ_wPs

And check out the full 2 hour show too. :)

How I see and feel about George Carlin (R.I.P.) he explains about himself from about 49:00 ~ 53:00 in this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HreYDSgWw6Q&feature=PlayList&p=9F568BAD1499C499&index=3

:D (Watching now.)


.

[mgguy]

I feel just the opposite. Fox, NBC, CNN, CBS, etc. are owned by total criminals who themselves are owned by the perps themselves. All Provable!

But I wasn't being personal. I was serious. All of those articles I referenced ARE from mainstream media. Thus why I asked about your reading comprehension scores. Let's see, there was:
Wiki which gave all of it's references! A very long list!
WNR which is a member of: IRE, SPJ, AIO, NPC (those are intense credentials!)
London Guardian
Daily Telegraph
The Times of India
the Wall St. Journal
London Times
The Jerusalem Post
Daily Express
BBC
London Independent
Time Magazine
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Los Angles Times
Daily Mirror
The New Yorker
BBC Online
NLP Wessex
etc.

And those are just from the 1st three links. So again I have to ask: Did you read ANYTHING I posted? And if you did what were your SAT reading comprehension scores? <nothing personal>.

.
The material you posted earlier to prove your contention that CIA funded AQ did come from a laundry list of sources, but most if not all of the information was somewhat cryptic, undeveloped, and not really to the point of whether the CIA is funding AQ. They do suggest that CIA funded organizations that may have later given birth to AQ, but that is quite a different thing.

And again, I would ask you to not take this so personally. My SAT reading comprehension scores aren't germane to the argument.

[hulugu]

I do read. Do you?

Let's not get our dander up, I wasn't trying to insult you, rather I was trying to point out that very little deep-interest news is covered by the likes of ABC News.

...If you did, you would realize that AQ was not founded until the late 80's, and it wasn't until much later that they were involved in known terrorist activities against the US.

My paragraph was apparently unclear. I wrote "The CIA had extensive relationships with pre-Al Qaeda members, including Bin Laden, because of the CIA's relationship with Afghani mujahideen."

The elements that would comprise Al Qaeda were those working with the CIA in Afghanistan, in some cases the very same people. Furthermore, you're correct that AQ was not officially founded until 1989, but that's like saying the United States didn't exist until 1789, ignoring everything that happened after 1776.

Sometimes your friends do become you enemies, and if you knew that this would be the eventual outcome, you likely would not continue to support them. I suspect CIA funding and support dried up pretty fast when there was a nexus established between AQ and terrorism against US interests. If I am wrong, I welcome any evidence you have that will show it.

I believe you're right, the CIA's connection to AQ was severed once the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and I disagree with Tessalator about the CIA's current connection.

Actually, looking through some of the literature, I believe that Tessalator may be correct about AQs connection with Jundallah, but it might be the Southeast Asian Jundallah rather than the one operating in Iran, which the CIA might have some connection to. I'm not sure about this.

[és:]

So really, why should I if you don't read anything anyway.

Because you made a specific calm in a different post when talking to me, and because it is part of the rules. I'm not a mod and don't really care what the rules are, but if you're going to say these things then it is only fair that you can back them up. If we don't hold people to these standards then what is stopping this place becoming a refuge for complete nutjobs that believe that the Queen is a reptile.

I think you're way WAY too into the looks of the website rather than the actual content and credentials.

Patronising me like that will win you no friends. I'm far too old and far too well versed in politics to be told that I judge things on the way a website looks. That is utterly baseless statement. I'd thank you if you didn't do it again.


"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."
"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html) reported yesterday (28 May 2007).[/indent]

Awesome. Now can you please give me some credible source to back up your claim that CIA are funding al-Qaeda.

Jundullah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah) is an Al-Qaeda organization

This is a lie. This is a blatant lie that will not pass on this forum. The posters here are too clever to fall for it.

It is not 'an al-Qaeda orginization'. Even your, very poor and non-credible, wikipedia article doesn't suggest this - it says that many 'believe it is linked to Al-Qaeda''. The 2 year old Telegraph, which is at least moderately respectable source, article doesn't even mention al-Qaeda much less prove that the CIA are funding them. Their sources for this story are ''intelligence sources'' and ''A security source in the US''.

There is no real evidence that Jundallah does receive funding from the US and even if it did it doesn't mean that al-Qaeda is currently funded by the CIA.

We can also look at part of your own link on 'alleged' support from the US government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah#Alleged_support_from_the_United_States_Government

According to an April 2007 report by Brian Ross and Christopher Isham of ABC News, the United States government had been secretly encouraging and advising the Jundullah in its attacks against Iranian targets. This support is said to have started in 2005 and arranged so that the United States provided no direct funding to the group, which would require congressional oversight and attract media attention.[14] The report was denied by Pakistan official sources [15].
Alexis Debat, one of the sources quoted by Ross and Isham in in their report alleging US support for the Jundullah, resigned from ABC News in June 2007, after ABC officials discovered he faked several interviews while working for the company. [16].
Brian Ross, the correspondent who worked most closely with Mr. Debat, said the Jundullah story had many sources. “We’re only worried about the things Debat supplied, not about the substance of that story,” he said in regard to the Jundullah report.So far, ABC has found nothing that would undermine the stories Mr. Debat worked on, Mr. Ross said last night. But he acknowledged that as the stories of fabrications continue to roll in, the network “at some point has to question whether anything he said can be believed.”[17]

This really doesn't hold up to even the most basic of intellectual scrutiny at all.

that was headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Alleged.

Was.

More damning evidence that the CIA are currently funding al-Qaeda. It is only alleged that he ever had anything to do with jundallah - but that is digression on your point that the CIA are currently funding al-Qaeda.

So, yes! Absolutely! I think this was an unreasonable request! No question about it. Sorry, but I do.

Why do you have a problem backing up your claims, like the rules of this forum ask?

You're essentially asking me to babysit and spoon-feed you. :(

No, I'm asking you to, as the ********** forum rules state, back up your claims. Something you still haven't managed to do.


etc. Again not meant as a personal insult but if your surfing skills are so weak how do you know anything really?

Well, I know a little about politics. Experience and education are wonderful things. My surfing skills are obviously not too bad, either.

Only what's on TV? That's kinda sad - seriously.

Sure, why not. My only source of information is TV. :rolleyes:

You'll soon learn that the members of this forum are not your common - we are, for the most part, well educated and well experienced in these matters. These things are not going to slip past us, no matter how patronising you are.

[Tesselator]

That's WAY too inflammatory, inciting, and disingenuous for me. There are no such forum rules in the first place. Almost everything here is incorrect and seemingly dishonest. Anyway, I've just exercised my right to add you into my ignore list so that's that. Life is too short.

[leekohler]

That's WAY too inflammatory, inciting, and disingenuous for me. There are no such forum rules in the first place. Almost everything here is incorrect and seemingly dishonest. Anyway, I've just exercised my right to add you into my ignore list so that's that. Life is too short.

Yes there is such a rule:


Guidelines [v1.0]

The purpose of this forum is to inform and educate through a free exchange and analysis of facts, opinions, and ideas. To that end, the following guidelines apply:

I. Show respect for your fellow posters

1. Name-calling, eye-rolling, use of deprecating smilies, generalizations/stereotypes, etc. will be viewed as a display of disrespect and will fall under the heading of "trolling"

II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate

1. Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay
2. Repetition of opinion/hearsay as the factual basis for an argument will fall under the heading of "trolling"


http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413

I suggest you start following it.

[Cromulent]

then what is stopping this place becoming a refuge for complete nutjobs that believe that the Queen is a reptile.

You mean she isn't?! Damn you David Icke!

[Beric]

I think the main problem here is a misunderstanding of who exactly has constitutional rights. A suspected terrorist who is not a citizen of the U.S. has absolutely zero constitutional rights, simply because the are not a U.S. citizen. This is law. And don't bring is some "U.N. universal rights".

The more questionable thing is whether or not the government can detain without trial American citizens whom are suspected terrorists. This is an issue I am undecided on.

[NT1440]

I think the main problem here is a misunderstanding of who exactly has constitutional rights. A suspected terrorist who is not a citizen of the U.S. has absolutely zero constitutional rights, simply because the are not a U.S. citizen. This is law. And don't bring is some "U.N. universal rights".


Land of the free, as long as your one of us.

Wouldnt the first part of "spreading freedom" as we are (:rolleyes:) be treating everyone our country deals with as if they had the same rights?

[Beric]

Land of the free, as long as your one of us.

Wouldnt the first part of "spreading freedom" as we are (:rolleyes:) be treating everyone our country deals with as if they had the same rights?

I would say that it would be the "moral" to do so. However, I would say that terrorists are an exception to the rule of treating foreigners fairly. But as far as actual constitutional rights, no non-US citizen has any (unless, or course, there is a treaty stating otherwise).

[CalBoy]

I think the main problem here is a misunderstanding of who exactly has constitutional rights. A suspected terrorist who is not a citizen of the U.S. has absolutely zero constitutional rights, simply because the are not a U.S. citizen. This is law. And don't bring is some "U.N. universal rights".

Ummm...actually, no, it's not the law.

The US Supreme Court has held that fundamental due process cannot be denied on any basis, even citizenship status.

The case of Plyler v Doe (1982) held that denying illegal immigrants public education did not serve a substantial state interest, and was hence unconstitutional.

What's more, a treaty does entitle foreign-captured suspects to due process rights.

[és:]

I think the main problem here is a misunderstanding of who exactly has constitutional rights. A suspected terrorist who is not a citizen of the U.S. has absolutely zero constitutional rights, simply because the are not a U.S. citizen. This is law.

You're not interested in the Universal Declaration of Human Right, International Law agreements or, it seems, your own laws that you're conveniently ignoring to push your agenda of hatred and unfettered persecution onto the members of this forum.

If you think America can do whatever they like, to whoever they like, just because they are not American then you are more savage than I thought.

[LethalWolfe]

I think the main problem here is a misunderstanding of who exactly has constitutional rights. A suspected terrorist who is not a citizen of the U.S. has absolutely zero constitutional rights, simply because the are not a U.S. citizen. This is law. And don't bring is some "U.N. universal rights".

The more questionable thing is whether or not the government can detain without trial American citizens whom are suspected terrorists. This is an issue I am undecided on.
The Supreme Court ruled today that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/13/nation/na-scotus13)

True, the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. (http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/)

[hulugu]

Ummm...actually, no, it's not the law.

The US Supreme Court has held that fundamental due process cannot be denied on any basis, even citizenship status.

The case of Plyler v Doe (1982) held that denying illegal immigrants public education did not serve a substantial state interest, and was hence unconstitutional.

What's more, a treaty does entitle foreign-captured suspects to due process rights.

Good points. Hadn't heard about Plyler v Doe (1982) before.

Furthermore, the Geneva Convention covers this particular issue as well, and that is US Law as well.

Beric, I believe we've discussed this ad infinitum. I'd appreciate you reviewing the many threads we've had on this subject before and the various links and legal arguments that have been provided.

[és:]

Beric, I believe we've discussed this ad infinitum. I'd appreciate you reviewing the many threads we've had on this subject before and the various links and legal arguments that have been provided.

He, like a few others, are simply not interested in laws, facts or solid evidence to counter their bias.

[Tesselator]

Yes there is such a rule:



http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413

I suggest you start following it.

Nope! Not rules! Guidelines! Totally different things.

And I have been following them anyway - where have you been? Actually I'm one of the few people here who has been!

[Tesselator]

I think the main problem here is a misunderstanding of who exactly has constitutional rights. A suspected terrorist who is not a citizen of the U.S. has absolutely zero constitutional rights, simply because the are not a U.S. citizen. This is law. And don't bring is some "U.N. universal rights".

The more questionable thing is whether or not the government can detain without trial American citizens whom are suspected terrorists. This is an issue I am undecided on.

And this has become a game. The Gov now reserves the right to remove your citizenship if you're SUSPECTED of being a terrorist. So Saying this with them doing that is like saying no one has rights.

And some of the cases where this has happened the evidence and arrest information we could know about looked so weak and ridiculous. Basically if someone in the position to do so doesn't like you or needs you in order to fill a quota... you're history.

[és:]

Nope! Not rules! Guidelines! Totally different things.

So it is ok not to follow them because they are called guidelines and not rules?

And I have been following them anyway - where have you been? Actually I'm one of the few people here who has been!

That is one of the most ridonkulous things I've heard from you, and considering some of the stuff you say that really is quite a statement.

[leekohler]

Nope! Not rules! Guidelines! Totally different things.

And I have been following them anyway - where have you been? Actually I'm one of the few people here who has been!

No- you haven't. You've repeatedly been asked to provide sources to back your claims. You've refused. I've been right here watching you. You keep posting ridiculous links to questionable sources.

Perhaps you'd like to argue with the mods about the difference between a "guideline" and a "rule"?

[hulugu]

He, like a few others, are simply not interested in laws, facts or solid evidence to counter their bias.

I wouldn't go that far, but I am tired of repeating the same argument over and over. We're not getting anywhere.

I've probably offended Beric, but I'm pretty sure we've danced this same song. I'm getting snippy.

[és:]

I wouldn't go that far

There was a time that I might have agreed. I just feel that no matter how much evidence you produce, no how much logic is applied and no matter how many facts are offered, they just leave the thread and start spreading their evident bias elsewhere.

I don't mind bias, I have one myself. I just don't let it dictate everything that I believe to be true.

[NT1440]

I would say that it would be the "moral" to do so. However, I would say that terrorists are an exception to the rule of treating foreigners fairly. But as far as actual constitutional rights, no non-US citizen has any (unless, or course, there is a treaty stating otherwise).

So its the guilty till proven innocent mindset?

[NT1440]

And this has become a game. The Gov now reserves the right to remove your citizenship if you're SUSPECTED of being a terrorist. So Saying this with them doing that is like saying no one has rights.

And some of the cases where this has happened the evidence and arrest information we could know about looked so weak and ridiculous. Basically if someone in the position to do so doesn't like you or needs you in order to fill a quota... you're history.

Read Calboys post a few posts up.

[Tesselator]

No- you haven't. You've repeatedly been asked to provide sources to back your claims. You've refused. I've been right here watching you. You keep posting ridiculous links to questionable sources.

Perhaps you'd like to argue with the mods about the difference between a "guideline" and a "rule"?

I guess you just can't be bothered to actually read? The links are there!

And if for some very weird reason you THINK they are not - that's just tuff for you. :p

[leekohler]

I guess you just can't be bothered to actually read? The links are there!

And if for some very weird reason you THINK they are not - that's just tuff for you. :p

And you still haven't shown the CIA is funding Al Qaeda. So either prove it, or admit you made a mistake.

[Tesselator]

Read Calboys post a few posts up.

Well I think all this is entirely moot. The US government doesn't abide by the constitution or the bill of rights and hasn't for a good long century. You will be ALLOWED to have your rights when it serves their purpose and you will NOT be allowed them when it doesn't. Period. If you think you have actual rights and not US administered privileges just ask the 120,000 Japanese internment camp residents all US citizens, about "rights". Or any of the some 70% of the secret prisons occupants who are US citizens, currently there on trumped up charges, and being held with zero rights. I could go on...

[Tesselator]

And you still haven't shown the CIA is funding Al Qaeda. So either prove it, or admit you made a mistake.

It's not a mistake and I already linked it. But I know you're just making up stuff... because there has NOT been enough time between my post and your reply for you to ACTUALLY GO CHECK. So who are you kidding?

[leekohler]

It's not a mistake and I already linked it. But I know you're just making up stuff... because there has NOT been enough time between my post and your reply for you to ACTUALLY GO CHECK. So who are you kidding?

WTF do you think I did? Your claim was debunked by more than a few members here, or did you miss that? BTW, I read the previous page yesterday!

[Tesselator]

BTW, I read the previous page yesterday!

Then you missed it. Go recheck and quite hijacking the thread.

[dukebound85]

If the government has reason to believe that someone is a terrorist, I have no problem with them arresting them, and torturing them for information. If the person had no connection to terrorism, to bad.

Don

wow just wow
too bad? well heres to you getting in that situation and i'll be like " oh, thats unfortunate but who cares" right?



remember he's only 14 which explains almost everything:rolleyes:

[leekohler]

Then you missed it. Go recheck.

I have several times. And members here debunked your claim with links. And that's it, I've wasted enough time on this as is.

[Tesselator]

wow just wow
too bad? well heres to you getting in that situation and i'll be like " oh, thats unfortunate but who cares" right?



remember he's only 14 which explains almost everything:rolleyes:

Is that a joke? I wasn't like that at 14. Of course at 14 I was already aware of too much of BS the gov. tries to pull on us. I knew then via Nam and etc. that the USA was completely out of control and basically hijacked by criminals in General's uniforms and business suits posing as politicians.

[és:]

I guess you just can't be bothered to actually read? The links are there!

And if for some very weird reason you THINK they are not - that's just tuff for you. :p

Are you still playing this ridiculous game? You've been clearly debunked, by me, over your bogus claims about the CIA. You continue to to tell people that they 'can't be bothered' to look for the evidence.

You're fast approaching farcicality.

That's WAY too inflammatory, inciting, and disingenuous for me. There are no such forum rules in the first place. Almost everything here is incorrect and seemingly dishonest. Anyway, I've just exercised my right to add you into my ignore list so that's that. Life is too short.

You're the one who is disingenuous. You can't follow the rules, you can't provide evidence to back up your crack pot conspiracy theories and you can't refute what I've said.

[leekohler]

Are you still playing this ridiculous game? You've been clearly debunked, by me, over your bogus claims about the CIA. You continue to to tell people that they 'can't be bothered' to look for the evidence.

You're fast approaching farcicality.



You're the one who is disingenuous. You can't follow the rules, you can't provide evidence to back up your crack pot conspiracy theories and you can't refute what I've said.

On this we agree completely. I'm amazed at the denial. I don;t think I've seen anything like that since Swarmlord.

[yg17]

On this we agree completely. I'm amazed at the denial. I don;t think I've seen anything like that since Swarmlord.


Whatever happened to Swarmlord anyways?

[és:]

Whatever happened to Swarmlord anyways?

http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=84116

The only sensible place that people like Swarmlord at allowed... bannedland.

[arkitect]

The only sensible place that people like Swarmlord at allowed... bannedland.

January 2008… how time flies…

[hulugu]

....You're fast approaching farcicality....

Is that before or after ludicrous speed, I can't remember.