[Vision2020] Humane interrogations work

[Garrett Clevenger]

Mysterious Mr. a writes:

"I was quoting directly from Mr. Clevengers previous pacifist post."


Actually, you were not quoting directly from any of my posts. I don't think I wrote "WW II was violent US policy to force others to conform in our image"

If I did, I retract it. If I'm being misinterpreted, let me clarify. WW2 was well under way, as far as I know, before the US entered the fray in direct combat. Yes, when we did, it was violent policy that drove our military, and yes, we expected to defeat fascism, which in essence meant we expected others to conform to what we hold to be the way.

I think the above quote I am said to have written could mean that the US started WW2, which I believe to be untrue.

But, speaking of WW2, the irony is, that's when a lot of seeds of discontent we now discuss were sown.

To fuel our military during WW2, we made deals with the Saudi Arabian dynasty to gain access to oil, and we never left after seeing how sweet that oil was. As a result, we supported a dictatorship, one that now funds radical wahabism and their madrasas. So essentially, every time you fill up your gas tank, you are giving money to the very mindset that the war of terror is intending to break. Since our society is dependent on this foreign oil, unless you are consciously trying to reduce your consumption, you are guilty of creating even more jihadists.

After the WW2 ended, Israel was created, which is ironic considering it is essentially a religious-based country, which I believe is counter to US values. The Jews were given that terratory, displacing people who had already been living there.

Since the US is one of Israel biggest supports, the US is complicit in what has no become a rallying cry for militant Islamists.

It is fascinating to think that the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, which led to WW1, which led to WW2, which led to Israel and our dependence on Middle East oil, may have then led to 911.

gclev


--- On Tue, 2/24/09, a <smith at turbonet.com> wrote:

> From: a <smith at turbonet.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Humane interrogations work
> To: garrettmc at verizon.net, jampot at roadrunner.com, vision2020 at moscow.com, "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 5:33 PM
> As far as just being informed that "WW II was violent
> US policy to force 
> > others to conform in our image", is concerned, g
> . . .
> > 
> > The only person that "informed" us here at
> the Viz of such garbage, g, was 
> > you.
> > 
> > You really ought to read more, g.
> 
> My goodness, hamster its like you make being foolish and
> belligerent your full time job. You really ought to read
> more-carefully. I was quoting directly from Mr. Clevengers
> previous pacifist post. 
> 
> As to point one, you're not exactly on target there
> either. The unlawful combatants at Gitmo were granted the
> minimal protections of common article three status of the
> Geneva convention by the US supreme court on 29 June 2006
> This stipulates that " The passing of sentences must
> also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court,
> affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized
> as indispensable by civilized peoples." Decidedly no
> mention of being afford the same rights as a "civil
> prisioner" (what ever that is) under the US
> constitution and most definatly no mention of being brought
> to America to be tried in a US civilian court. Military
> tribunal held at Guantanamo meets the requirement more than
> adaquately.
> 
> g
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
> To: <smith at turbonet.com>;
> <garrettmc at verizon.net>;
> <jampot at roadrunner.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Humane interrogations work
> 
> 
> > Let me respond to your soments point by point, g.
> > 
> > [Point 1. We put prisoners of war in prisoner of war
> camps because there 
> > WERE prisioners of war. The detainees at Gitmo are not
> POW's and are not 
> > subject to the Geneva convention.]
> > 
> > Since the detainees at GITMO are NOT prisoners of war,
> they are subjects 
> > to the governing authority to which they are
> imprisoned and are afforded 
> > the same rights (the US Constitution) as a civil
> prisoner of that 
> > authority.  These rights (again, the US Constitution)
> require that 
> > prisoners be charged with a crime and tried on those
> charges.
> > 
> > Yasee, g.  It's either one (prisoners of war) or
> the other (civil 
> > prisoners brought up on charges).  
> > 
> > [Point 2. What does winning the war have to do with
> anything? It sounds to 
> > me as though you are using the might makes right
> argument.]
> > 
> > My reflection of "winning the war" was a
> simple reminder that a goal 
> > ("winning a war" in each case) can be
> reached while conducting "business" 
> > in accordance with established standards (the Geneva
> Convention accords 
> > for POWs, and the US Constitution for civil
> prisoners).
> > 
> > [Point 3. What moral high ground? We have just been
> informed that WW II 
> > was violent US policy to force others to conform in
> our image.]
> > 
> > Our perceived moral highground, subsequent to WW2, is
> seeded within the 
> > Marshall Plan for rebuilding western Europe subsequent
> to WW2, along with 
> > the creation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
> Organization),  
> > 
> > In case you missed these topics in school . . .
> > 
> > The Marshall Plan
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
> > 
> > NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
> > 
> > 
> > As far as just being informed that "WW II was
> violent US policy to force 
> > others to conform in our image", is concerned, g
> . . .
> > 
> > The only person that "informed" us here at
> the Viz of such garbage, g, was 
> > you.
> > 
> > You really ought to read more, g.
> > 
> > Tom Hansen
> > Moscow, Idaho
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent by First Step Internet.
> >           http://www.fsr.com/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG. 
> > Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1969 -
> Release Date: 2/24/2009 6:43 AM
> > 
> >