Karl`s PC Help Forums

Guantanamo reunion
marymary100 - 12-1-2010 at 20:43

Interesting


waffler - 13-1-2010 at 04:02

What a waste of money , the guy must have money to burn .


marymary100 - 13-1-2010 at 07:01

I suspect he is motivated by guilt.


Quaver - 13-1-2010 at 07:12

If it gave some closure, then it was a good reunion:cool:


John_Little - 13-1-2010 at 09:52

I found that amazingly moving. Restored my faith in human nature - if it needed restoring. It really showed how ridiculous our prejudices are.


Theravad - 13-1-2010 at 10:47

Quote:
Originally posted by Quaver
If it gave some closure, then it was a good reunion:cool:


The ex-detainees appretiate the gesture, particularly as they were not generally beleived when they reported on conditions in the jail.


LSemmens - 13-1-2010 at 12:59

It says mountains for both sides of this reunion. They both (sides) are to be commended for their brave act of reconciliation.


John_Little - 13-1-2010 at 14:37

Hear hear.


Daz - 13-1-2010 at 17:00

I must've viewed it with my cynical head on this morning then...


giron - 13-1-2010 at 18:29

Mind you, Brandon did well to resist the temptation to torture them at the reunion meeting.

It's a good job he didn't find out what they'd put in his curry!


scholar - 14-1-2010 at 14:57

35% of those released from Gitmo have returned to terrorist operations.

That is a larger reunion than the mere three people featured here.

It is unfortunate that the former guard generalizes by speaking of "innocent people" that he guarded, without also mentioning the many killers who were contained so long as they were there.


giron - 14-1-2010 at 15:15

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
35% of those released from Gitmo have returned to terrorist operations.



If that's the case, why were they released, in the first place? confused2


marymary100 - 14-1-2010 at 16:32

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
35% of those released from Gitmo have returned to terrorist operations.

65% haven't however if your own figures are correct.


John_Little - 14-1-2010 at 17:28

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
It is unfortunate that the former guard generalizes by speaking of "innocent people" that he guarded, without also mentioning the many killers who were contained so long as they were there.


But Scholar, the whole point of him wanting to apologise to them was that they were innocent. why would he mention those that were not?


scholar - 14-1-2010 at 20:52

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
But Scholar, the whole point of him wanting to apologise to them was that they were innocent. why would he mention those that were not?
When speaking in general of Guantanamo (not just to or about the two innocent men), he might have spoken of those captured in tbe very act of fighting as well in order to give a truthful, balanced picture.


scholar - 14-1-2010 at 21:01

Quote:
Originally posted by giron
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
35% of those released from Gitmo have returned to terrorist operations.
If that's the case, why were they released, in the first place? confused2
I'm sure that those who released them did not know the future.

That does seem to say that the criteria for releasing people is too lax. Normally, prisoners in war conditions are kept captive until the fighting is over, unless a prisoner exchange is arranged.


John_Little - 14-1-2010 at 21:40

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
When speaking in general of Guantanamo (not just to or about the two innocent men), he might have spoken of those captured in tbe very act of fighting as well in order to give a truthful, balanced picture.


But the whole concept of "balance" went out the window the day the USA started breaking the rules and making their own up as they went along.


scholar - 14-1-2010 at 22:07

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
But the whole concept of "balance" went out the window the day the USA started breaking the rules and making their own up as they went along.
Wrong one both counts.

The side that flies planes into large cilvilian buildings, or that cuts the heads off some of its captives, is the side which breaks the rules.

And the fact that they break the rules does not do away with the need for truthfulness and balance.


John_Little - 14-1-2010 at 23:05

So how many of the people in Guantanamo flew planes into buildings? And perhaps more to the point, which one of those two in the clip did?


marymary100 - 14-1-2010 at 23:18

Can't ever trust a Brit, Ruskie, Cuban, North Korean, Vietcong, Iraqi, Iranian, Afghani, Iranian, follower of Islam don't you know.


scholar - 14-1-2010 at 23:26

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
So how many of the people in Guantanamo flew planes into buildings? And perhaps more to the point, which one of those two in the clip did?
In warfare, it is not a matter of individual actions, but of one side against another side.

It's comparable to WWII--no Japanese soldier could say, "Don't capture me, I wasn't part of the Pearl Harbor attack."

Any innocents ever at Guantanamo were included in error. The military has no desire to hold anyone who was not part of the fighting.


John_Little - 15-1-2010 at 09:19

Best kill all muslims then, Scholar. Just to be on the safe side. I'm sure Jesus would approve.


Mary2 - 15-1-2010 at 13:21

Truth, justice and liberty for all - <insert hollow laugh here>


scholar - 15-1-2010 at 13:59

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
Best kill all muslims then, Scholar. Just to be on the safe side. I'm sure Jesus would approve.
Those muslims who make war on us, who blow up vehicles and subway cars and buildings, need a warfare response. Bombs on airplanes, car bombs, and flying planes into buildings are acts of war.

We are glad to have muslims who oppose Islamic terrorist jihadists on our side.


Dreamweaver - 15-1-2010 at 14:07

No "turn the other cheek then". It is amazing how the Christian faith is turning.


marymary100 - 15-1-2010 at 16:42

Just as I wouldn't judge all Muslims based on the actions of one, I wouldn't judge all Christians or even all Americans on the posting of "scholar".


scholar - 15-1-2010 at 17:44

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamweaver
No "turn the other cheek then". It is amazing how the Christian faith is turning.
When Jesus told His individual followers to turn the other cheek, He addressed how His followers were to conduct themselves as individuals in His Kingdom. There would be times when Christians would suffer for their faith.

He did not instruct the rulers of entire nations to abandon their responsibilities to protect their people, to fight those who attack their people, or to administer justice.


giron - 15-1-2010 at 21:17

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
I wouldn't judge all Christians or even all Americans on the posting of "scholar".


Yes, it would be rather unfair to do so, I'm sure there are plenty of rational Americans out there.


marymary100 - 15-1-2010 at 21:32

I worked with some really nice Americans when I lived there and as I was there when Bush sr was in power the city was in Republican hands so it just goes to show you...


giron - 15-1-2010 at 21:53

There's good and bad people in all counties, but it only takes one to create a bad impression.