Posts by Seeker

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

Of course I have evidence! Secret military trials are evidence of the eroding of rights for Americans that I was talking about. We have a right to view trials, to make sure our government never becomes tyrannical (it's why this country was founded, remember?).

No one wants to address this: """Would you like to endanger a US court and staff and everyone else so these poor souls can be tried in the good ‘ol USofA?""" Do you understand why we don't want them on our soil? They like to kill and break things...."""

It's not the either-or thing you seem to think it is. Remember the first time an Islamic terrorist cell attacked the World Trade Center? That trial was held in New York. Nothing bad happened. Your argument is just shown to be not valid.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

I wish I could sentence you to five days of helping remove the bodies at ground zero.....

Huh?? What does that have to do with these prisoners? Guilty or not, they are human, and deserve basic human rights. If it is later proven that these particular prisoners are guilty, they should be punished. Until then, neither you nor I have any idea of their particular guilt or innocence, and if their trials are held in secret, we will never know. We will only have our government's word on the matter, and one thing the founding fathers wanted to make sure never happened was that.

Americans are losing some very basic rights that helped defined us as a bastion of freedom and openness. There are far too many Americans standing around applauding this process as if it's a good thing.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

I see we have already decided their guilt, calling them sick puppies and dangerous people. So why bother with a trial? They are already guilty, aren't they? After all, the U.S. government would never, ever arrest someone unless they were already guilty, right?

Trials are just a waste of time anyway. Let's just H-Bomb Afghanistan and take care of everything. In fact, let's wipe out Iraq while we are at it. We all know that all Taliban think alike, and are all equally guilty, as are all Iraqi. There are no innocent bystanders in that part of the world, and if the U.S. Army grabs somebody, that's good enough for me! Kill 'em all and pass me another hamburger while I recline in my chair and watch more Jerry Springer.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

No, you can do both. Treat them humanely while giving them a fair trial, and if guilty, go ahead and sentence them to death.

The complaint here is that we, as a country, have concepts such as innoncent until proven guilty, and everyone deserves human rights. If we trash those concepts with these guys before the trial, then we are hypocrites.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

Human rights apply to anyone who is human, and these guys qualify. If you start handing out human rights only to those you think worthy of them, then you have no reason to complain when a Chinese court won't allow an American to defend himself in the way you think he should, or when a Taliban government official decrees that a woman is deserving of death for showing her face in public. Everybody has a different definition of who is "worthy" of rights, so the only sane course is to say that all humans deserve the same basic human rights. As soon as you start deciding who is worthy and who is not, you lose the high moral ground.

To me, those who say these prisioners don't deserve humane treatment are like those who like free speech -- except when that speech bothers them, and then they want to ban it. Free speech means you defend that which you find despicable, or else it has no meaning as a concept. Same thing with human rights. If you can't extend the most basic of human dignities to a human you despise, then it has no meaning and you lose the high moral ground.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

The U.S. does not believe in fundamental freedoms -- when it suits them. If an "enemy" country oppresses its citizens, then the U.S. gets all righteously indignant about how awful it is that they don't preserve basic human rights for its citizens. When a "friend" country does the exact same thing, the U.S. covers it up as best it can. Pragmatic to the end.

Not just the U.S., of course. This is typical of most nations. "Power corrupts" -- that phrase means something.

62

Taliban prisoners in Cuba

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

does this trouble anyone?.

it seems semantic tom-foolery to declare a war on terrorism, and then to say that prisoners of the war are not prisoners of war.. it also seems very suspect keeping them of proper usa soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.. do not get me wrong.. i am not saying, "ah, poor ickle terrorists".. but in a war against terror, surely taking each and every opportunity to distance yourself from your enemies is the wisest and best course of action?.

why do anything that is even remotely dodgy or underhand?.

Seeker

The USA has never before taken upon itself to wipe out a terrorist group.

Nope, but the USA has taken upon itself to declare war on drugs. That's certainly gone well...

Fifty years from now, when the "war" on terrorism is till going strong, and terrorists are as numerous as ever, and people keep dying in their attacks, and the rights of U.S. citizens have been reduced to approximately the rights of airline passengers in terminals, then perhaps we'll be able to look back and see what might have been done differently.

Right now, they are making things up as they go along, and I'm sure I would make plenty of mistakes if I were in their shoes too. The way I see it, there are two ways to wipe out terrorism, neither of which will work:

1. The iron hand: Kill all the terrorists -- oops, a new one was just born! Oh well...
2. The enlightened hand: Work to help free the world from poverty and want -- oops, religious hatred rears its head anyway! Oh well...

Terrorism works because it is so effective. Not that it gets results, but it provides a semblance of power to the powerless. Since this world will always be set up with those in power and those out of power, terrorism will never end. Not as long as there is even one pebble on the ground to throw at someone in power.

13

A Beautiful Mind

by hungry4life in

jw
friends

anybody seen this ron howard film yet?

i think it is the best movie i have seen in a very long time.

highly reccomended.

Seeker

They are remarried. From the New York Times review of the movie:

Before he married Alicia, with whom he had a son named John, he fathered another child, also named John, with a woman named Eleanor Stiers, and abandoned both mother and child to poverty. He formed a number of intense, apparently sexual bonds with other men, and he lost his security clearance and his position at the RAND Corporation after he was arrested for soliciting sex in a men's room in Santa Monica, Calif. When his illness became intractable and his behavior intolerable, Alicia divorced him. (They remarried last June.)

13

A Beautiful Mind

by hungry4life in

jw
friends

anybody seen this ron howard film yet?

i think it is the best movie i have seen in a very long time.

highly reccomended.

Seeker

I'm very much looking forward to seeing this movie as it looks great. Just remember to think of it as fiction, however. The real John Nash was nothing like this Hollywoodized, cleaned-up version.

24

I challenge Joelbear to a DUEL

by Mindchild in

jw
friends

mindchild vs. joelbear.

aka skipper aka joel.

in the view of jurors of the grand jury of participants of simons board, within the website of jehovahswitnesses.com, hereby one mindchild summons one joelbear, on or about, henceforth, the date of this post, to a duel of competing paradigms.

Seeker

Joel, you are exaggerating and you know it. Nobody is making the assertions you stated, and if they are, they are wrong so why worry about them? I stand as someone who knows the WTS is wrong, can prove it at will, and also acknowledges much good among the JWs, both in their teachings and their person. Yet I am not being driven away from here, and neither are you. If someone is driving you away, let them drive themselves off a cliff while you just go on being you.