"the existence of the secret prisons was NOT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION...to be classified they had to be legal....they were and are ILLEGAL. "

Osama bin Laden and Abdullah bin Terrorists and all their brothers would have to be happier than Muslim pigs in shit, knowing the West's main concern about countering them is how to remain absolutely legal. Way to go!

"UNDERSTOOD!!! How easily the word flows. If you had a loved one gone forever, due the senseless act of some of these mother f...ers, something tells me it wouldn't be so easily understood by you anymore. Somehow your kind of understood and trying to understand the rights of these assholes borders on dangerous apathy and a twisted sense of democractic principles. "

What are you rambling about now? This paragraph didn't even make sense. Nobody is lessening the horror of what terrorists have done or are doing. However, just like criminals in America have certain rights regardless of the heinous nature of their crimes, there are certain rights enjoyed by foreign citizens and certain laws in other countries that we have to observe. I'm not advocating giving them more rights than they are entitled to and I'm not advocating trying to treat terrorists with the full set of rights they would enjoy as an American Citizen. I do however think that we can't very well say, with a straight face, how noble our aims are if we're bending and breaking laws around the world in order to get the result we want. One of the cornerstone principles of democratic society is that the process matters. The way we go about doing our business is just as important as the end result. If we circumvent the process in order to get results, we lose legitimacy, moral high ground, whatever you want to call it.

"You want to apply the letter of the law to these guys? "

Yes.

"Excuse me, Mr Abdul Fundamentalist Isam Bin Terrorist, "Excuse me before you plant some bombs in the most crowded civillian everyday place you can think of, can we please discuss the principles of law?" "

Stupid exaggeration and illustrative of how loony you are.

"As armytriguy quite rightly pointed out. Our guys really didn't capture these guys radomly off the street. They are either from the battlefield or from intelligence information."

I know very well how most of these guys are captured. Probably better than you do. However, even if we catch them in the act of planting a bomb in a pre-school, there are going to be certain laws governing how they are treated after we capture them, how long we can hold them, how where we can hold them, what we can do to them on foreign soil, etc.

"And I'll tell you upfront, if I had to make a hard choice of being a prisoner in Guantana Bay or a captive of some Islamic cell or prisoner in Iran ... please let me go to Guantana Bay Holiday Resort!!! "

And I'll tell you upfront that you can enjoy your stay in Guantana, because our detainment center is in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. If you want to be taken seriously when you talk about these things, you should make sure you get your names straight.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

UNDERSTOOD!!! How easily the word flows. If you had a loved one gone forever, due the senseless act of some of these mother f...ers, something tells me it wouldn't be so easily understood by you anymore. Somehow your kind of understood and trying to understand the rights of these assholes borders on dangerous apathy and a twisted sense of democractic principles.
---------------------------------------------

I lost many close friends in the WTC and I am much more in agreement with slowguy than you and armytriguy.

I want the terrorists brought to justice, but I also want there to be an end to the "War on Terror" (I hate that term) within my lifetime, and I want the principles that govern our countries to still be intact at the end of it.

And I don't think anyone is suggesting that Guantanamo Bay is a holiday resort so don't be stupid.

Great. They only problem is that torture is a lousy way to get legit information as people will say whatever you want to make it stop. If you are advocating such treatment irrespective of any information gathering purposes, then you are no different than the terrorists dismembering people.

You further fail to grasp that America is founded on a higher moral authority. Such activities(torture, secret prisons, etc.) do not comport with a higher moral authority. Quite frankly, I'd rather live under the constant specter of major terrorist attacks if it means maintaining the American tradition of higher morality than I would eliminating all terrorist threats if it meant ceding our moral standing.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

It would seem you are wrong on this as well. There is a higher percentage of foreign jihadists for suicide bombers, but unless something as changed drastically, the majority of the insurgency is home grown.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

1) "What are you rambling about now?"

Funny I was about to ask you the same.

2) "This paragraph didn't even make sense."

To me all your paragraphs don't make sense. Your sentiments make no sense.

3) "Stupid exaggeration and illustrative of how loony you are."

Urmm .... Mr Slowguy, methinks it was an obvious intentional exageration. But as they say, "A lot of truth is sauid in jest."

Well to be honest I'm not going to call you loony tunes back because I don't think you are. But from your posts ... naively adamant, unpragmatic and easily aroused comes to mind ... for example to the extent of calling me loony in your state of excitement over a statement that was obviously not meant to be literal. Seems to be a reuccuring kind of thing with you.

4) "And I'll tell you upfront that you can enjoy your stay in Guantana, because our detainment center is in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. If you want to be taken seriously when you talk about these things, you should make sure you get your names straight."

Whoa there! Are my eyes decieving me? Are you really attacking my reference to a Guantana Bay Holiday Resort because there isn't really such a place? I'm not even going to attempt to explain that one to you if you can't figure it out for yourself where and why I came up with that one. Maybe you can correct my typo then check with your holiday agent. Poor naive really slow slowguy. -:)

"And I don't think anyone is suggesting that Guantanamo Bay is a holiday resort so don't be stupid."

Well Guantanamo Bay detention as compared to being captured by one of them Muslim terror cells, insurgence or being in an Iranian prison if you happen to be a US soldier will very likely be like a holiday resort. So don't you be stupid.

The terror threat in it's depth and form, is very different. Sticking strictly to rigid principles will likely not get the job done. Principle guidelines need to be in place but for sure they'll have to be more flexible, now more than ever..

1) "They only problem is that torture is a lousy way to get legit information as people will say whatever you want to make it stop."

Well yes and no. I'm no expert on torture interrogation, but I would think that it should be pretty effective especially on individuals who don't understand any other kind of language. And our people receiving the info obviously would have a pretty good idea on the accuracy of the information which I'm sure they would process and check.

If an individual was likely to have the kind of info that will lead to the effective battle against terrorists or information that will lead to preventing attacks, then I think we can go beyond just tickling their pinkies to get some answers.

2) "Quite frankly, I'd rather live under the constant specter of major terrorist attacks if it means maintaining the American tradition of higher morality than I would eliminating all terrorist threats if it meant ceding our moral standing. "

Problem is the terrorist threats are becoming more and more prevalent. And how about if Iran has nucleur capability? They don't even have to use it themselves, just past it along to someone like Osama.

"To me all your paragraphs don't make sense. Your sentiments make no sense"

I'd settle for your sentences making grammatical sense so I could figure out what you mean.

"Are you really attacking my reference to a Guantana Bay Holiday Resort because there isn't really such a place?"

No, I'm attacking your inability to sound rational, and to talk about the subject at hand. We're talking about detainment centers, not holiday resorts. You can talk about anything you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Thats what makes us better than them you idiot....laws, civilization, and morality. Toss them out the window and we are no better than them...brutes and murderers killing people in the name of our particular brand of god.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

1) "I'd settle for your sentences making grammatical sense so I could figure out what you mean."

You know Dude, for a person who makes a lot of grammatical mistakes, spelling errors and typos you are sure making a big deal out of this. When I came across all your mistakes I figured since English is not my mother tongue and I am hardly perfect myself and this forum is not an English exam participation, I figured what the hell. The main thing is I know what the sloguy is trying to say. Unlike you. For someone who can't figiure out what I mean you sure can respond very timely and consistently.

Isn't there a saying, "Actions speak louder than words"?

2) "No, I'm attacking your inability to sound rational, and to talk about the subject at hand. We're talking about detainment centers, not holiday resorts. You can talk about anything you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously. "

Well as I pointed out ...crystal ... for your benefit already, the term 'holiday resort' was used in sarcasm and as a relative comparison to the alternative. It really doesn't merit so much discussion. Rather than harp on about the term used I really haven't seen any answer to crux of the point brought up. Which is a comparison of being a detainee at Guantanamo Bay Vs being a captive of an Islamic Militant organization or nation. The comparison is relative to the level of human rights decency on either side. A consideration of the two may just put some light on to the keen idiocincracy of criticising our own.

About taking me seriously ...I've said it here, I've said it before to you and I'm saying it again now, "If you don't want to take me seriously, because as you claim you can't due to my ridculousness (not exactly your first time mentioning it), then just don't respond. That will speak volumes rather than going on like a broken down gramaphone record.

"Thats what makes us better than them you idiot....laws, civilization, and morality. Toss them out the window and we are no better than them...brutes and murderers killing people in the name of our particular brand of god. "

....which is all good and well if innocent people going about their lives around the world didn't have to be killed by them and the threat isn't increasing even to the real possibility of nucleur ...you bigger idiot!

To Slowtwitchers in general not just to you, you bigger *&^%#@ idiot SF ...

Consider the mentality of these people and what they have done and what they are willing to do.

(a) What they have done is now just so numerous. Let's just consider this one example... they even attacked and captured a pre-school in Russia not too long and killed several pre-school kids, tortured them by not allowing water so the kids had to drink their own urine etc They would have been happy to kill a lot more or the little kids had the troops not stopped them. It really goes to show what kind of mentallities we're dealing with here.

(b) Consider the widespreadness of terrorists attacks. There are no geographical boundaries, no single organization perpetuating or strict definition as to the type of victims they target ...except the more vulnerable the better ie civillians in everyday life and even the pre-school mentioned above. The only common thread is that these perpetrators originate from Islam. That's the complexity and the depth of the threat.

Hey.... latest just one example of widespread expanding nature of terrorism. I'm sure most have heard about the Earthquake tragedy that's happened in India and Pakistan. The problem is getting aid to those remote areas in the mountains (Osama Country) which have been flattened. Time is crucial because of the onset of winter. Never mind that Western agencies are busting their asses to save their Muslim butts. But now we've got the religious leaders telling their gullible followers, laid even more succeceptible emotionally by their loss, that the earthquake is a punishment from Allah as a direct result of Pakistan becoming too Westernized in collabarating with westerners. All them Pakistani devouts who go and pray at least 5 times a day hanging on every word utterred and proclaimed by these leaders. Such are the ways of the Islamic religious teachings and such is the way this scourge can just keep growing. It happens all over, just fact plain and simple.

The biggest terrorists are the religious leaders. Eg Abu Bashar ...Bali Bombing.

(c) Keeping the above two in mind, ie the mentality and it's widespread nature. How does that fair for the future threat from such scumbags. If they gain the upper hand in any way or increase their capacity to attack it will be just so much more bad ...bad ...news. Too late to feel that it's futile and meaningless tragedy kind of news.

So considering these above three facts (please refute with logic if you can), do we really want to be that concerned about applying our principles of civil and human rights. Or should we just focus on iradicating them wherever they are and in particular minimising the risk of attacks from them, especially - nucleur threat at all costs. Do you think that maybe on some practical level a little bending of our principles may just be applying some very much needed pragmatism?

Well I don't entirely disagree with the viewpoint of the importance of keeping our principles and decency in order to differentiate ourselves from the bad guys. But this time, with this threat, "Alls fair in Love and War" may just be taking on a different meaning.

In response to: "the existence of the secret prisons was NOT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION...to be classified they had to be legal....they were and are ILLEGAL."

First off, they are not illegal under US laws. If you think so, please cite the law.

Second, the material was and is classified. As noted today on the editorial page, author Priest is noted saying: Priest said none of her sources could have talked on the record for fear of losing their jobs, because much of the information is classified.

There is nothing in Priest's story to say that these were rouge rather than authorized operations, and Congress funds all sorts of black ops things without having a clue what it is funding.

Not one of your better posts, Matt. Congrats on the new job by the way.

"You know Dude, for a person who makes a lot of grammatical mistakes, spelling errors and typos you are sure making a big deal out of this. "

Actually I didn't make a big deal out of anything. I simply mentioned that I couldn't tell what the hell you were trying to say.

"Which is a comparison of being a detainee at Guantanamo Bay Vs being a captive of an Islamic Militant organization or nation. The comparison is relative to the level of human rights decency on either side. A consideration of the two may just put some light on to the keen idiocincracy of criticising our own. "

I am perfectly aware of the difference between the two. Have you been to Gitmo? I'd assume not. Do you personally know any people who have worked at Gitmo as interviewers? I'd guess not. You can compare all you want, but the fact that they do bad things to their captives doesn't make it ok for us to do bad things. That's like having your kid say that it's ok to shoplift because he saw a friend do it. Or like one gang member saying it's ok to commit drive by shootings in the street because his rivals do worse. In short, I don't know what your comparison between Guantanamo Bay and any extremist camp is supposed to justify. Would you have found it acceptable during WWII if someone justified our internment of Japanese Americans by saying, "Well look at the concentration camps and at how the Japanese treat their prisoners of war."

"If you don't want to take me seriously"

I'd like to take you seriously, but you make it fairly difficult when the two positions you have taken recently are:

- All devout Muslims can't think straight and support terrorism and most Westernized ones do to and they lurk on triathlon forums trying to spread their message.

and

- It's ok for us to torture people and hold them illegally because, hey, they are bad guys and they do bad things too.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

1) "Actually I didn't make a big deal out of anything. I simply mentioned that I couldn't tell what the hell you were trying to say."

Well to me if someone keeps repeating the same thing that's a relatively big deal in a simple discussion such as this. And again I repeat, (because it really seems that you can't tell what the hell I'm saying when it suits you), "For someone who really can't tell you sure find a lot of ways to respond." Can you tell now what I'm saying right here???

2) "I am perfectly aware of the difference between the two."

Jeez then you shouldn't have gone on about the holiday resort literal thing like the way you did for two long posts and instead addressed what was really being said.

3) "Do you personally know any people who have worked at Gitmo as interviewers? I'd guess not."

I'm not saying that you're stupid, but that is a stupid thing to say. Obviously even if you or I happened to know such an interviewer they wouldn't be telling us all the gory clasified sensitive details just so we could blab it on a public forum, now would they? Ridiculous as I have made it sound, this time you can take it literally. And you accused me of being ridiculous. -:)

4) "You can compare all you want, but the fact that they do bad things to their captives doesn't make it ok for us to do bad things."

Of course I can. It's helluva lot more relevant comparing being captive of both sides to see what kind of attitudes and mentalities each side has than what you've got to compare here ...

"That's like having your kid say that it's ok to shoplift because he saw a friend do it. Or like one gang member saying it's ok to commit drive by shootings in the street because his rivals do worse."

Interrogation of terror suspects has a huge purpose. Why are you saying that street crime is OK if interrogation is needed in fighting terrorism. And you say I don't make sense?

5) In short, I don't know what your comparison between Guantanamo Bay and any extremist camp is supposed to justify.

In shorter if you don't get it you never will. So don't bother yourself and I won't try to explain it again.

6) Would you have found it acceptable during WWII if someone justified our internment of Japanese Americans by saying, "Well look at the concentration camps and at how the Japanese treat their prisoners of war."

Well as far as I know Japanese American citizens were never a threat and never did anything to show that they were. They didn't plant and activate bombs crowdwe parts of the community. The American public got a bit over zealous out of fear, not excusably but understandably after Pearl Harbour.

In stark contrast Muslims are very unlike those Japanese citizens of WWII times. The Islam bad mentality can creep in and potentially create active terrorists from within Muslim communities. Am I exagerating? Why not ask the victims of the London bombings which was just one of the several targets that have been hit around the world by local Muslims recruited to perform terrorist attacks on their own country and their fellow citizens.

Hey slowguy are you following? Can you tell what I'm saying to you right now, or is my bad grammar and spelling getting in the way again?

7) "I'd like to take you seriously, but you make it fairly difficult when the two positions you have taken recently are:"

Again I say you are in fact taking me seriously, hence your timely multiple responses. Remember, "Actions speak louder than words"? It's just that you don't want to admit it (self denial) and / or you feel the need to use this cannot take me seriously as a sidebar tactic to make me lose credibility. But frankly if you had the credibility yourself of solid content in your points you wouldn't need to use such tactics and instead keep more to the debated issues at hand.

8) "- All devout Muslims can't think straight and support terrorism and most Westernized ones do to"

Absolutely from my personal experience and observation I can swear that I believe this to be true. In the devout global Muslim brotherhood the sentiments of individuals borders on empathy to the sentiments of the outright terror perpetuators. All those killings of civillians around the world ...when have you seen a rally or public outcry by bonafide Muslims denouncing Islam based terror? Never! and you never will.

Disagree? Can you give a better reason than mine why this is so??? Can you understand what I'm asking you here? It really shouldn't be that difficult because I've kept it simple hence minimizing potential grammar and spelling errors.

By the way, not that it's important, minor compared to some of your previous, but your, "most Westernized ones do to" should be 'too' with 2 o's.

9) "and they lurk on triathlon forums trying to spread their message. "

What I did say was that an open public forum is open to everyone including Islamic terrorist sympathisers. And I did say that I knew for a fact that in other forums I have known of such individuals participating representing their brand of sentiments. As such ST is no less vulnerable to individuals with such mentalities participating. There is no exclusion to such individuals logging on and joining. Is it really that senseless to you? If so why?

Expanding and exagerating on what another says just to win your own way and justify your accusations of another being ridiculous is a little below the belt. But more significantly it's again side stepping the need to make real concrete arguments.

Ditto your 10) statement below -

10) "- It's ok for us to torture people and hold them illegally because, hey, they are bad guys and they do bad things too."

When did I ever-EVER say that it's so OK to torture as if it was good to do so? That's what you're implying from the tone of this sentence isn't it? If harsh interrogation tecniques are needed it's not so much as OK but likely be a necessary evil to protect us and our own from a really bad unrelenting threat. One that I took lengths to define in my previous post before this one.

Instead of putting what I have to say out of perspective with exageration, why don't you just spit it out ie the solid points to back up your opinion?

Well since after all these posts, that's still absent, let me spell this particular threads argument against mine out for you. As MattinSF said: it's important to stick to our principles and our legal constraints. This ensures the primary importance, that the line which separates us from them is not crossed.

Is that what you wanted to say? Or is there something else?

Hopefully you're not going to attack my grammar or exagerate and put out of perspective what I have said. Other than that I'm all ears. Really would like to see if you have anything of substance to say.

"Interrogation of terror suspects has a huge purpose."

Of course it does.

"Why are you saying that street crime is OK if interrogation is needed in fighting terrorism. And you say I don't make sense? "

Huh? I know English isn't your primary language, but that isn't even close to what I said.

"In stark contrast Muslims are very unlike those Japanese citizens of WWII times"

Again with the gross generalizations. Earth to Kangaroo....Not all Muslims are the same.

"Why not ask the victims of the London bombings"

Why not ask them about the IRA too? Does that give you justification to paint all Catholics as potential terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? Of course not.

"Can you tell what I'm saying to you right now, or is my bad grammar and spelling getting in the way again? "

No, I'm understanding what you said this time,...it's just wrong.

"Absolutely from my personal experience and observation I can swear that I believe this to be true."

Then your experience has been extremely limited or you are a simple bigot. You take your pick.

"when have you seen a rally or public outcry by bonafide Muslims denouncing Islam based terror? Never! and you never will. "

First, Muslim clerics have spoken out about extremism on many occasions. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "bona fide Muslims.

"By the way, not that it's important, minor compared to some of your previous, but your, "most Westernized ones do to" should be 'too' with 2 o's."

I never said anything about your spelling, but if that's all you've got, that's ok I guess.

"When did I ever-EVER say that it's so OK to torture as if it was good to do so? That's what you're implying from the tone of this sentence isn't it? If harsh interrogation tecniques are needed it's not so much as OK but likely be a necessary evil to protect us and our own from a really bad unrelenting threat. One that I took lengths to define in my previous post before this one. "

You have claimed that we should do whatever we need to and not bother with determining legality and ethics because the opponent is particularly bad. You actually mocked people who suggested we should try to stick to legal means for interrogations and for handling detainees. You made absolutely no mention of it just being a "necessary evil." If you are now going to claim that's not your position, then you are either lying now, or you were lying before. If you think pointing out the heinous things terrorists have done is going to justify us doing heinous things in return, you are ethically and morally bankrupt.

"Obviously even if you or I happened to know such an interviewer they wouldn't be telling us all the gory clasified sensitive details just so we could blab it on a public forum"

They would not want us to divulge classified info on the forum, that is correct. However, the next time you want to refer to Guantanamo as Guantana in some nonsensical rant about holiday resorts and terrorist camps that does nothing to advance the discussion, and then call me naive, you might want to check who you're talking to and what their experience level is.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

1) "Huh? I know English isn't your primary language, but that isn't even close to what I said."

Really? So that whole paragraph on street crime slotted in as a direct comparison to interrogation of terrorists. ...what was that for ???? Am I that dumb for not being able to figure what you're trying to say because I thought it was pretty clear or are you even dumber for saying something then not knowing waht you said yourself or are you just trying to be a tricky slowguy?

2) "Again with the gross generalizations. Earth to Kangaroo....Not all Muslims are the same."

I've mentioned many times already that devout Muslims all share the same empathy in varying degrees and have cited the global widespread terrorism, recruitment of terrorists from different Muslim communities all over even to do in their own countries and fellow citizens (egLondon Bombings), the teachings of the Islamic leaders which propogate the same mentality globally and even quotes from prominent educated Arab Muslims themselves unable to see the light at the end of the tunnel and confirming this widespread Islamic mentality unsuited for the modern age and intergration to be the primary problem.

Kangaroo to sloguy on earth ... Can you finally get that. Please explain why you disagree, but don't pretend I never explained it......over!

4) "Why not ask them about the IRA too? Does that give you justification to paint all Catholics as potential terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? Of course not."

Of course not because it wasn't a global problem neither was it a Catholic wide mentality problem. Unlike the present Islamic based terrorism it was pretty much geographically contained in it's source and pretty much identifiable to it's limited character and background profile of likely individuals.

Kangaroo to sloguy on earth did you get that simple explaination ...over!

5) "No, I'm understanding what you said this time,..."

Hooray at last!

6) ",...it's just wrong. "

Why?

7) "Then your experience has been extremely limited or you are a simple bigot. You take your pick."

You wouldn't have the foggiest on the extent of my experience and observation so you're not qualified to say. I judge people based on their action not the colour of their skin or how they look. I take my pick .......you're just plain naive. Like an Ostrich who hides his head in a hole with his big ass sticking up exposed in the air.

Thank goodness our leaders don't have your Ostrich syndrome or we'll all get our arses blown off.

8) "First, Muslim clerics have spoken out about extremism on many occasions."

Really??? Which clerics, when ...examples please?

By the way you didn't answer my question about the rallying against terrorists did you?

9) Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "bona fide Muslims.

Too bad I've used that term and already explained it to the point before...more than once.

10) "I never said anything about your spelling, but if that's all you've got, that's ok I guess."

Something I picked up from you and gave back to you. It's called uinconsequential nit picking.

11) "you are either lying now, or you were lying before / you are ethically and morally bankrupt.

ouch! and you sound like someone on a self appointed mission from a soap box. I could go and type out answers to all the details of your accusations but it would just be so much more repetition.

12) " However, the next time you want to refer to Guantanamo as Guantana in some nonsensical rant about holiday resorts and terrorist camps that does nothing to advance the discussion, and then call me naive, you might want to check who you're talking to and what their experience level is."

Looks like that typo is going to haunt me for life. By the way do you know the meaning of metaphor? I know you use it quite a bit but do you know what sarcasm is? I mean like holiday resort doesn't literally mean HOLIDAY RESORT. Silly me and I thought we already cleared that up, but here you are again ...

13) "then call me naive, you might want to check who you're talking to and what their experience level is."

Ooooh, okay who am I talking to???? And what is your experience level ?????

So far all I have is someone that has a lot in the way of stubborn naive opinion, but lacking in hard content and substance. Someone who debates by sidetracking taking a lot of trouble to ridicule by making mock side tracks. Someone who repeats and revisits the same insults a lot with no new meaningful content .Someone who get's a little too emotional for what should be a debate on topic but ends up slinging a little name calling and insulting.

So who are you??? Are you a bigger VIP than the US President? Because even he is not above getting criticised..... Do tell.

"Am I that dumb for not being able to figure what you're trying to say"

Apparently. I never said street crime was ok. What I said was that you can't justify your own bad acts by pointing to the bad acts of others. Maybe the examples were too complicated for you.

"I've mentioned many times already that devout Muslims all share the same empathy in varying degrees and have cited the global widespread terrorism, recruitment of terrorists from different Muslim communities all over even to do in their own countries and fellow citizens (egLondon Bombings), the teachings of the Islamic leaders which propogate the same mentality globally and even quotes from prominent educated Arab Muslims themselves unable to see the light at the end of the tunnel and confirming this widespread Islamic mentality unsuited for the modern age and intergration to be the primary problem.

Kangaroo to sloguy on earth ... Can you finally get that. Please explain why you disagree, but don't pretend I never explained it......over! "

You can explain your closed minded bigoted views as many times as you want. It doesn't make them accurate. If you had said "many devout Muslims" or "some devout Muslims" you might have an argument. But as soon as you say "all devout Muslims" you have strayed into territory that is simply inaccurate. There are plenty of "devout Muslims" that don't condone or sympathize with terrorists. Here is just one of a few links about Islamic leaders who have denounced terrorism:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4775588

"You wouldn't have the foggiest on the extent of my experience and observation so you're not qualified to say"

I can make an educated guess that if you've never come across a devout Muslim that isn't also a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, then your experience has been limited.

"I judge people based on their action not the colour of their skin or how they look"

No, you judge people based on the religion they belong to.

"Looks like that typo is going to haunt me for life."

So now it was a typo and I'm not naive for not knowing what you were talking about? Give me a break. You make shit up as you go along.

"So far all I have is someone that has a lot in the way of stubborn naive opinion, but lacking in hard content and substance. Someone who debates by sidetracking taking a lot of trouble to ridicule by making mock side tracks. Someone who repeats and revisits the same insults a lot with no new meaningful content .Someone who get's a little too emotional for what should be a debate on topic but ends up slinging a little name calling and insulting. "

It's difficult to bring serious points to a debate based solely on religious bigotry. My opinion isn't naive, yours is simply wrong. I have experience with Muslims of varying nations, levels of devoutness, backgrounds, etc. I have been to the Middle East. I have studied with Mulsim military officers. I have a Master's Degree in National Security and I've been a member of the U.S. Military for quite a while. I'm not naive, I'm simply more open minded and have a better grip on my fear than you do. The reason there is nothing concrete in response to your argument is that your argument is based solely on perception and fear. You don't have any evidence that every Muslim is a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, you just think that's true. You are willing to paint everyone who doesn't think just like you with a broad brush, and on top of that, you're willing to let your fear of those who are different from you drive your actions to the point that you will abandon the rule of law or the bounds of decency to deal with them. I'm not sure exactly what kind of concrete evidence you need to see to discover the fallacy of that point of view.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

1) "Apparently. I never said street crime was ok. What I said was that you can't justify your own bad acts by pointing to the bad acts of others. Maybe the examples were too complicated for you. "

Examples were not complicated, just irrelevant. You can't justify your own bad acts by pointing to the bad acts of others. But you can identify the intensity, nature and threat of those bad acts anfd see waht needs to be done for protection against and eradication of that threat.

2) "You can explain your closed minded bigoted views as many times as you want."

"Close minded." ??? Hey that's the term I would have used on you.

3) "If you had said "many devout Muslims" or "some devout Muslims" you might have an argument. But as soon as you say "all devout Muslims" you have strayed into territory that is simply inaccurate."

Yup! Now we're getting somewhere. You see when I said all Muslims, (now put your little naive mentality aside just for one moment), there are always some excepptions to the rule. Especiallywhen you're talking a sample literally billions of people. But the nature of the religion, what it invokes and mass brainwashes. Now that's a given and the general rule of thumb. Yes all Muslims. Those who are not empathisers? Few and far between.

Please oh please don't accuse me of being a liar again! Besides killing my self-esteem it's just not constructive to this discussion.

4) "I can make an educated guess that if you've never come across a devout Muslim that isn't also a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, then your experience has been limited."

All the many devout Muslims I have managed to speak to empathise. They pretty much hare Israel and the USA and never condemn but make excuses for or give justifications to the acts done by terrorists. Your educated guessing is out but maybe you have ESP?

5) "No, you judge people based on the religion they belong to."

On the actions of the people who belong to that religion and how that religion is widely taught and on what their educated exceptions themselves admit to. Somehow it seems like we're getting into semantics here. Twist and turn on them words to suit your own argument?

6) "So now it was a typo and I'm not naive for not knowing what you were talking about? Give me a break.

I reckon I know what I'm talking about it's you that keeps saying otherwise. Again asking for a break? Again I say go ahead no one's stopping you.

7) "You make shit up as you go along."

Speak for yourself.

8) "It's difficult to bring serious points to a debate based solely on religious bigotry. My opinion isn't naive, yours is simply wrong. I have experience with Muslims of varying nations, levels of devoutness, backgrounds, etc. I have been to the Middle East. I have studied with Mulsim military officers. I have a Master's Degree in National Security and I've been a member of the U.S. Military for quite a while. I'm not naive, I'm simply more open minded and have a better grip on my fear than you do. The reason there is nothing concrete in response to your argument is that your argument is based solely on perception and fear. You don't have any evidence that every Muslim is a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, you just think that's true. You are willing to paint everyone who doesn't think just like you with a broad brush, and on top of that, you're willing to let your fear of those who are different from you drive your actions to the point that you will abandon the rule of law or the bounds of decency to deal with them. I'm not sure exactly what kind of concrete evidence you need to see to discover the fallacy of that point of view."

Well I see a lot of subjective opinions and some claims. You think what you know and I know what I know. It doesn't have to be the same. If you say who you are with your level of experience and study in National Security then you should know even better than me what a profound part the religion itself plays in this problem and threat.

If it's so difficult to talk to li'l ole bigot me with no serious points to make ... then don't. Why are you even wasting your time? I'm sure your Masters Degree could be put to much better use.

"But you can identify the intensity, nature and threat of those bad acts anfd see waht needs to be done for protection against and eradication of that threat. "

That's fine, but that's not what you've been doing. You've been justifying the idea that we should abandon legal concerns and ethical concerns regarding treatment and detainment of potential terrorists because they do worse things to their captives. You've been offering justification for bad acts by pointing to the bad acts of others.

"You see when I said all Muslims, (now put your little naive mentality aside just for one moment), there are always some excepptions to the rule."

So really you didn't mean what you said. You said all, when you meant some? Gee, maybe if you said what you meant, you'd have less problems.

"But the nature of the religion, what it invokes and mass brainwashes. Now that's a given and the general rule of thumb. Yes all Muslims. Those who are not empathisers? Few and far between."

Ahh, right back to the over generalizations. The fact, if you study Islam much, is that it doesn't require brainwashing, and the extremists are not abiding by true Islamic principles. They are following a bastardization of Islam, much like abortion bombers follow a bastardized version of Christianity.

"All the many devout Muslims I have managed to speak to empathise."

Like I said, your experience must be limited.


"On the actions of the people who belong to that religion and how that religion is widely taught and on what their educated exceptions themselves admit to."

No, on the religion itself. You have not said "Islamic extremists don't think clearly." You said all devout Muslims don't think clearly.

"Well I see a lot of subjective opinions and some claims. "

Sounds like the entire substance of your argument.

"You think what you know and I know what I know"

Right. And your opinion is somehow fact, while mine is just opinion? No wonder no one can make any headway with you. You aren't interested in debate, just in telling everyone that you are right and they are wrong.

"If you say who you are with your level of experience and study in National Security then you should know even better than me what a profound part the religion itself plays in this problem and threat. "

No doubt the religion, and the way it is twisted by extremists plays a significant part. That's a long way away from your claims that all devout Muslims support terrorism.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

From the original Washington Post article.

"It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing."

THEY ARE ILLEGAL HERE AND THEY ARE ILLEGAL THERE, AND THEY ARE IMMORAL WHEREEVER THEY ARE.

"The agency set up prisons under its covert action authority. Under U.S. law, only the president can authorize a covert action, by signing a document called a presidential finding. Findings must not break U.S. law and are reviewed and approved by CIA, Justice Department and White House legal advisers."

The finding broke US law which is why they located the prisons in Eastern Europe and Thailand.

Thailand was closed, and sometime in 2004 the CIA decided it had to give up its small site at Guantanamo Bay. The CIA had planned to convert that into a state-of-the-art facility, operated independently of the military. The CIA pulled out when U.S. courts began to exercise greater control over the military detainees, and agency officials feared judges would soon extend the same type of supervision over their detainees"

D'ya think the CIA have been trying to avoid US law???

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

So that means that you do want an investigation leading to the punishment of those who leaked this information then?

Hell no, the person who leaked the information was exposing widespread and international law breaking by the CIA and this administration. Give that dude a medal.

I want an investigation into who authorized these illegal prisons, who authorized the torture, who authorized the $100 million to pay for them, how many people have died in them and who is responsible for that.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

You don't have any evidence whatsoever to indicate that the process you describe is going on, so why do you assume the worst?

Does that mean that you also want a massive investigation into the sources of the leaks?