SkyDekker 1,150 #251 October 24, 2003 QuoteThe reasons the concentration camps were CREATED were not, I beleive, for the prupose of extermination. That came later. And yes, that was one of the bigest fucking tragedies the world has ever seen. Thank you Remi, I was going to post that, but I thought that was blatently obvikous. I wonder why Juansky cannot see that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #252 October 24, 2003 QuoteIf you can't wrap your tiny little brain arouond the differnce...... then god damn man I feel sorry for you I love it when they keep saying that to a professor Ohh and Zlew, to go back to an earlier post where you suggested people talk to their government reps and get the laws changed. Now which laws would this be? The ones the US is skirting with fancy terms or the ones they are just ignoring? The whole issue is that the US is not following International conventions. So what are you going to change? Adding wording that the US is not allowed to not follow the convention? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #253 October 24, 2003 Remster, pal, please hear me out, and I'll invite you to shoot some pool, or have a drink or something... next month when I go to Montreal... First check on Kallend's post (#230 in this thread), and subsequent explanation (post #235). His explanation is that it was Poland to avoid the mess in domestic issues, like in Gitmo. My point is, there were concentration camps in all over Europe, including Germany. Saying that Poland was to avoid domestic issue is out of place. It was a matter of logistics and transportation. They started first with the Ghettos, and also concentration camps already established. This is my explanation, which I am attaching a pdf file, that lists major concentration camps, whose solely intention was to exterminate anyone not healthy or worth of the Arian race, or enemies of it, that details, location, date of inauguration, and who liberate it in WWII. So if you insists that I am spinning the word, I think it is Kallend not forthcoming and insisting that the facts can be twisted to make a comparison like that (revisit post #230). I rather go to lengths to communicate what the facts are, even knowing for certain that people will still refute that this file listing concentration camp is true.. US is putting people in Gitmo for National security reasons. I trust more the institutions than trying to be too easy on someone bent on our demise."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,164 #254 October 24, 2003 QuoteFoolishly you might think that saying we have our guys at Cuba for the same reasons the Nazis put the Jews in Poland He's not saying that. He's saying there are ugly parallels in the WAY we're holding them. The reason doesn't make the way right. QuoteI would have to say that only the weak minded would defend comparing Cuba to what the Germans did to the Jews in WW2 Again, by saying there is are scary parallels in the WAY we're holding them doesn't mean we're going to make them wear little yellow crescents on their overcoats. There's a huge difference. But a willingness on the part of our government to define ways to "look the other way" when it's convenient is very scary to me. And the willingness of people to agree with that when it suits them also scares me. Because who knows when it'll be someone different. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zlew 0 #255 October 24, 2003 <> You guys really do like to spin. So when I say how are they different...... I only mean by contrasting a few hand picked details....not the other little things like 10s of millions being roudned up and killed.... you guys need to go into politics. Z Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zlew 0 #256 October 24, 2003 QuoteOhh and Zlew, to go back to an earlier post where you suggested people talk to their government reps and get the laws changed. Now which laws would this be? What post and what laws are you talking about? Z Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #257 October 24, 2003 Wendy, I know it is legal in few countries, but the odds are that if you carry a few joints in your pocket, it is almost certain that you will be detained and arrested. It is my problem, for I think they are dangerous for the following reason: 1- Don't forget Peru and Bolivia were Cocaine plant is legal too. Been there and know this fact. 2- As you know alcohol and driving is dangerous. Bottom line anything that impairs your ability to drive is dangerous, any efforts, attempts to legalize, being pro-drug parafernalia, and even imply that they are not dangerous, has a purpose, what are his? Since he refuses to say, I would assume is for self advantage of some sort. Your opinion is that this is stupid, that is fine, you are entitled to it, but I also see stupid the reason for people using drugs for recreation, particulary skydivers, and am entitled as well to think this way, without implying that yours is stupid. 3.- I'm ok to whatever sexual desires you have, you have that right. I have friends of many nationalities, preferences, religions, (yes, including Muslims, shiites and sunnies by the way) and have no problem with that, as long as it does not posses harm to others, like drugs are. (agree with you here) 3.- Who is "we" in saying that we pressure others? 4.- I would be glad that people excercise their constitutional rights.(also agree here)."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #258 October 24, 2003 QuoteI rather go to lengths to communicate what the facts are, even knowing for certain that people will still refute that this file listing concentration camp is true.. Ohh no the file is true. But did you read it? Did you actually look at it? Because all the concentration camps in Germany or Austria or France or The Netherlands were transit points or forced labour camps. None of those camps were extermination camps. Hence, your little file means nothing. Next time maybe read what you post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #259 October 24, 2003 Yes, Dekker, your are so right about concentration camps being built SOLELY in POLAND, and to ONLY hold PRISONERS....LMAO\"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #260 October 24, 2003 QuoteYes, Dekker, your are so right about concentration camps being built SOLELY in POLAND, and to ONLY hold PRISONERS....LMAO\ read what I wrote Non of the extermination camps were built in Germany or France or The Netherlands, but they were in Poland and the Ukraine. The other camps were forced labour and holding camps. Those were in Germany, France and The Netherlands to name a few. It is all on the list you posted. Did you even read it before you posted it? Zlew, my apologies, it was juansky who came up with the braindead idea to try and change the laws that are already not being followed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zlew 0 #261 October 24, 2003 apology accepted. I was trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about. Read all my old posts in this thread, then worried you were talking about something from another thread in the past..... Thisi thread has started to splinter. Where will it go from here? Z Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #262 October 24, 2003 Yes I did, but if you think that the GERMANS that lived near Dachau and all concentrating camps in GERMANY were added later: not forced by allied forces to bury Jewish bodies, then you are implying also that this never took place. They were all over the place and they sustained sistematic murder on each single one of them. The mention that GITMO is happening for the same reason as these concentration camps do not apply. Read post #230, and #235. They were looking to exterminate jewish, and other non arian people (gypsies, etc). Extermination means to get rid off. That is what they did and used them as slaves before killing them."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #263 October 24, 2003 And what part of "we the people" you don't understand, if you are challenging, use the whole sentence, not half cuts, and so. Those combatants are not represented by any congressmen, nor elected officials in US soil. Again you also missed quoting me that I do also think they should have been more quick in getting them to either military or civil tribunals, but if they need to take time then so be it. POW laws are not written in the consititution, as I remember, so if they want to make changes or protests I suggested them to contact their representatives, or have the ACLU, and all the people against the issues at hand, lobby for law changes in congress. Or go to the Supreme Court, get involved personally."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #264 October 24, 2003 The problem lies in your definition of torture. I agree with you if you're referring only to the infliction of physical pain. But the infliction of psychological pain, and also tremendous uncertainty, can also be considered torture but is a much more useful tool, especially when you restrict its use to people who won't be going anywhere anytime soon, because they're Guilty with a capital G and you and they both know it. And it's not as much about whether you're getting info that will hold up in a court trial, as it is about getting info that will allow you to take quick action to save lives. So clearly I think it's less of a good idea in run of the mill criminal situations - but terrorism is different. But torture of any kind is clearly not without its own problems. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #265 October 24, 2003 QuoteAgain you also missed quoting me that I do also think they should have been more quick in getting them to either military or civil tribunals, but if they need to take time then so be it. POW laws are not written in the consititution, as I remember, so if they want to make changes or protests I suggested them to contact their representatives, or have the ACLU, and all the people against the issues at hand, lobby for law changes in congress. Or go to the Supreme Court, get involved personally. And my question back was: What laws are you going to change or add to avoid this from happening? Are you going to make a law that says the US is goingt o abide by the Geneva Convention? Or a law that states that the US shall not make up its own term to avoid having to abide by the Geneva Convention? You do not see the stupidity in this? Re: concentration camps. It was never implied or stated that the camps served the same purpose. The implication was made that the reasoning behind the PLACEMENT of the camps might be the same. What part of that do you not understand? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #266 October 24, 2003 QuoteQuote Can anyone give any good reason as to why they're being held in a camp in Cuba? Same reason as the Nazis shipped the majority of Jews to camps in Poland? "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history ....." And Bill answered the same question with QuoteBecause it is easier to make the claim that constitutional protections do not apply to people in Cuba, rather than claiming they do not apply to people in Georgia. 'tis indeed what I think. Can anyone on here -who is currently defending the treatment of these prisonners-please provide me with any explanations? Even if you're only guessing. 'Cause I really, honestly, cannot think of any other reason for such a place as camp x-ray. To me, there is but one reason to hold them in such secrecy... Area 51 style. I hear "the press would be all over it if they were being mistreated"... but I wonder how welcome the press is to x-ray. I hear "I know someone who's there now, he/she says that...." And I stop listening there. If any of you have peolpe who are presently at camp x-ray, and are telling you anything about it... he/she either doesn't have a clue as to what's going on (i.e. is only there to mop floors and such), or is in violation by telling you anything. I mean let's face it... any personel at that camp who knows anything of any importance is bound to not saying anything about it. Even the name denotes that this 'camp' is designed to extract info... I don't buy any of it. So please, enlighten me. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #267 October 24, 2003 Quote And my question back was: What laws are you going to change or add to avoid this from happening? Are you going to make a law that says the US is goingt o abide by the Geneva Convention? Or a law that states that the US shall not make up its own term to avoid having to abide by the Geneva Convention? You do not see the stupidity in this? I have never stated I want laws changed, nor I am with rights to do so, even if I wanted to. My agenda, is basically simple, be part in the effort to protect US soil, its people, and the US constitution, and I must follow, personally, ALL Geneva conventions, or face court martial. Quote Re: concentration camps. It was never implied or stated that the camps served the same purpose. The implication was made that the reasoning behind the PLACEMENT of the camps might be the same. Again, in post #230 that is not what he says. He makes a clear and concise comparison between the two, then he goes to explain what you say, the placement. The placement outside Germany was to actually strip all non desirable jewish people, of its rightful citizenship. They were citizens whose own govt. decided to deport. Do you see any similarities here with Gitmo? I see, they did not go to Afghanistan, and Iraq, and so, they just went to Alabama, Atlanta, Georgia, etc, grabbed all people that were no smith, blonde, blue eyes, and Pure British decent....Yes Now I see the similarities.... I apologize for being so dumb..."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #268 October 24, 2003 QuoteI apologize for being so dumb... Well it is a start. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #269 October 24, 2003 but too little too late Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #270 October 24, 2003 I'lll give it a shot.... Could be to avoid possible rescue situation in a more free mainland, or having someone drive a truck, or car near a prison and blow it up, to seek this same rescue. To avoid an easy way of passing perhaps vital terrorist network information, and having the cells all over the world who is detained and who is not, thus having them second guess them, maybe they have some terrorist that have knowledge to put an A-bomb together, and who is in fact willing, and happy to use it, so if they are in main land, then it seems a lot easier to pass this info, through lawyers, family visits, etc.... Just to name few. They have given them at least a chance to live while the govt. try to sort things out. I prefer in this case to give the Govt the benefit of the law, the executive officer of the nation, was elected and I would assume he is there to serve "we the people" and not "we the terrorists" Granted check and balances are always needed."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #271 October 24, 2003 So you had some already today?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #272 October 24, 2003 Again so half truths from you and your friends. Cutting and using half sentences. I answered your question, and again you put an endless spin on things..... Too bad that you think the comparissons are alike, and the Quote "those who fail to learn the lesson of history....." Well, we just did that stood up against Saddam, and avoid another NAZI situation, yet you guys keep pounding the subject as if US have not learned the lesson....wonder who needs a class here?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,450 #273 October 24, 2003 >So you had some already today? Enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #274 October 24, 2003 It's ok bill....it makes him feel superior. He has to make up for lack of intellect somehow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #275 October 24, 2003 I guess it's ok Bill, it is only my remarks you can see...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
