Omar Khadr....

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
The bolded statement is incorrect.

They fought us when we invaded their occupied regions Afghanistan at the behest of the local government, who was unable to repel their foriegn occupation.

A bit of a hypocritical thing to blame our foreign army from dislodging their foreign army. If they wanted the moral high ground they could have kept in their own country...

You are correct. While most of the Taliban are from Afghanistan, many come from Pakistan and elsewhere. Unlike the Taliban, most Canadian soldiers have little in common with Afghan civilians.

My main point was that the Taliban didn't declare war on us. We declared war on them. People like the Khadr family didn't join the Taliban to fight Canada, but to help establish a Muslim fundamentalist state in Afghanistan. During the 1980's the Taliban were American allies against the Soviets. I doubt Canada had a problem with Canadians volunteering to fight the Soviets alongside the Taliban and armed with American stingers.

Treating POWs as POWs isn't about protecting their rights and freedoms as it about respecting law and order. Geneva conventions and International laws exist for many reasons, one of which is for our own protection.
 

normbc9

Electoral Member
Nov 23, 2006
483
14
18
California
DL,
I'm glad you are still following this situation. It should never have been allowed to start to begin with. This is still a total disregard for this persons welfare. Now I see where the US Courts have ordered to release of six (6) Asian Muslims that have been held at Gitmo for the past four or five years. The reasoning for the decision was a lack of substantive evidence to support the US Governments claims about terrorist activities. I sure hope the cases of many more held at various locations can get before the courts also.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Amazingly, thousands of people remain imprisoned without trial or even the most remote resemblance of due process. Ironically, conservatives who always claim to be the ones who detest undue government interventionism and excesses have nothing to say about these victims. That is unless they have some excuse as to why the victims should remain under detention. As always, it shows what a bunch of hypocrites they are.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
DL,
I'm glad you are still following this situation. It should never have been allowed to start to begin with. This is still a total disregard for this persons welfare. Now I see where the US Courts have ordered to release of six (6) Asian Muslims that have been held at Gitmo for the past four or five years. The reasoning for the decision was a lack of substantive evidence to support the US Governments claims about terrorist activities. I sure hope the cases of many more held at various locations can get before the courts also.

They were Muslim foreigners in Afghanistan. They must be terrorists right?

End a Bush injustice

Thursday, October 09, 2008

A federal judge has given the Bush administration a long-overdue legal rebuke for an injustice that is unworthy of us as a country: the indefinite imprisonment of people our own military freely admits have not threatened America.

If anything, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina understated the case when he said the time had come to "shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention" of 17 members of the Chinese Uighur Muslim minority.

Some of the men have been held at Guantánamo since they were turned over to American forces in Pakistan in the months after 9/11 by bounty hunters who claimed they were terrorists -- in return for a $5,000-a-head reward. No in ducement there for lying.

But there's more. One of the Uighurs (pronounced "we- goors") at Gitmo was picked up by American troops after they released him from a Taliban jail. The Taliban had accused him of plotting to kill Osama bin Laden. This makes him our enemy how?

In fact, the government has never found a valid reason for keeping these men in custody. But despite now admitting the Uighurs aren't enemy combatants, the U.S. doesn't want to turn them loose.

There is no argument that the men cannot be sent back to China. The Chinese government and the Uighur minority have never gotten along. There is a strong independence movement among the Uighurs that the Chinese want to stamp out. The men would face certain imprisonment or other reprisals as soon as they landed in Chinese territory.

Not many years ago, that fact would have guaranteed the Uighurs an enthusiastic reception in Washington. Imagine Ronald Reagan's delight at being able to welcome doughty opponents of the Communists.

George Bush, of course, is no Ronald Reagan. He doesn't want the Uighurs here, even though members of the American Uighur community have prepared homes and other aid for them.

But Bush is in a bind. No other country wants to take the Uighurs, either, fearing it would earn China's wrath. So the United States is about the only place the 17 men can go.

The Bush administration cannot argue the merits of the Uighers' detention because there are none. So administration lawyers are left to push the idea that American courts lack the power to tell a president whom he can jail and when. Government lawyers are busy trying to overturn Urbina's ruling.

The courts should immediately reject the administration's efforts. The case should not even be close.

The Constitution created three equal branches of government to ensure that a president would not be able to become a monarch, with judges and legislators around only to offer nonbinding suggestions.

Allowing Bush unfettered power to throw people in prison and keep them there would undermine everything our nation has stood for since the founders rightly rejected the dictatorship of King George.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/editorials/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1223525964309170.xml&coll=1

Anyone care to defend keeping these people locked up indefinitely? There are other cases like this.

Many Held at Guantanamo Not Likely Terrorists

Dozens of detainees pose no real threat, but U.S. policies make it nearly impossible to get names off lists. There’s also fear of freeing "21st hijacker."

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
December 22, 2002

WASHINGTON -- The United States is holding dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have no meaningful connection to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and were sent to the maximum-security facility over the objections of intelligence officers in Afghanistan who had recommended them for release, according to military sources with direct knowledge of the matter.

At least 59 detainees -- nearly 10% of the prison population at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- were deemed to be of no intelligence value after repeated interrogations in Afghanistan. All were placed on "recommended for repatriation" lists well before they were transferred to Guantanamo Bay, a facility intended to hold the most hardened terrorists and Taliban suspects

Dozens of the detainees are Afghan and Pakistani nationals described in classified intelligence reports as farmers, taxi drivers, cobblers and laborers. Some were low-level fighters conscripted by the Taliban in the weeks before the collapse of the ruling Afghan regime.

None of the 59 met U.S. screening criteria for determining which prisoners should be sent to Guantanamo Bay, military sources said. But all were transferred anyway, sources said, for reasons that continue to baffle and frustrate intelligence officers nearly a year after the first group of detainees arrived at the facility.

"There are a lot of guilty [people] in there," said one officer, "but there's a lot of farmers in there too."

The sources' accounts point to a previously undisclosed struggle within the military over the handling of the detainees. Even senior commanders were said to be troubled by the problems.

Maj. Gen. Michael E. Dunlavey, the operational commander at Guantanamo Bay until October, traveled to Afghanistan in the spring to complain that too many "Mickey Mouse" detainees were being sent to the already crowded facility, sources said.

One senior Army officer described Dunlavey's visit as a "fact-finding" mission. But another who met with Dunlavey said the general's purpose was more direct: "He came over to chew us out," the officer said. Dunlavey, an Army reservist, declined to comment.

The sources blamed a host of problems, including flawed screening guidelines, policies that made it almost impossible to take prisoners off Guantanamo flight manifests and a pervasive fear of letting a valuable prisoner go free by mistake.

"No one wanted to be the guy who released the 21st hijacker," one officer said.

While that concern remains a legitimate one, the fact that dozens of the detainees are still in custody a year or more after their capture has become a source of deep concern to military officers engaged in the war on terrorism around the globe.

Many fear that detaining innocents, and providing no legal mechanism for appeal, can only breed distrust and animosity toward the U.S. -- not only in the home countries and governments of the prisoners but also among the inmates.

"We're basically condemning these guys to long-term imprisonment," said a military official who was a senior interrogator at Guantanamo Bay.

"If they weren't terrorists before, they certainly could be now."...
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-gitmo22dec22,0,2294365.story

Who would have thought detaining innocent people indefinitely might be counter productive?
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Amazingly, thousands of people remain imprisoned without trial or even the most remote resemblance of due process. Ironically, conservatives who always claim to be the ones who detest undue government interventionism and excesses have nothing to say about these victims. That is unless they have some excuse as to why the victims should remain under detention. As always, it shows what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

I think all of the prisoners should be let out same day at bush goes home, and they
can all be dropped off right outside of his ranch just after he arrives there.
 

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
DL,
I'm glad you are still following this situation. It should never have been allowed to start to begin with. This is still a total disregard for this persons welfare. Now I see where the US Courts have ordered to release of six (6) Asian Muslims that have been held at Gitmo for the past four or five years. The reasoning for the decision was a lack of substantive evidence to support the US Governments claims about terrorist activities. I sure hope the cases of many more held at various locations can get before the courts also.
Hi, Norm;
thanks for contributing your thoughts as well.
I checked the web for anything new in this case and found this excellent article written by Jonathan Kay in July 08:
This is a bad day for Canada. As I write this at 1pm Tuesday, piteous video images from Omar Khadr's interrogation at Guantanamo Bay are not only the #1 news item on the National Post web site, but also the lead item on BBC News and USA Today. Millions of Web surfers are now wondering why Canada's government has acquiesced — and as the video shows, even participated — in the unconscionable treatment of a blubbering boy-soldier.
As someone who otherwise considers himself one of the War on Terror's noisiest Canadian cheerleaders, I submit that the bleeding hearts are right on this one: Omar Khadr needs to come home.
Here's why:
Omar Khadr was a child soldier. During the carnage that gripped Sierra Leone in the 1990s, the most terrifying crimes were often committed by gangs of children who'd been abducted by the Revolutionary United Front. Isolated from their family, and stripped of any sort of moral compass, these child brigades were renowned for such monstrous acts as hacking off the legs and arms of defenseless villagers. When the RUF's war with the government ended, many of these children were assimilated back into civilized society. No one — in the West, at least — blamed them for what they had done. As in Sri Lanka, Congo, and other parts of the world where children are abducted and forced into combat, it is universally recognized that child soldiers are not morally culpable for their actions in the same way as adults. That's why the Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal didn't prosecute child soldiers — it prosecuted the monsters who exploited them. Can someone please tell me why this principle has not been applied to Omar Khadr, who was all of 15 when he allegedly threw the grenade that killed Sgt Christopher Speer of Delta Force in 2002?

What makes the case for Khadr especially strong is that he was essentially recruited into combat from birth — by his own flesh-and-blood no less. The true monster in the Khadr narrative is not Omar, but his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, an al-Qaeda lieutenant who moved his whole family from Canada to central Asia so they could share in the glory of jihad.
As a nine-year-old, Omar drank in his father's Islamist propaganda — spending months by his father's bed as the jihadi patriarch lay hunger-striking against Pakistani authorities, who'd arrested him on terrorism charges in 1995. Following 9/11, Ahmed (who, thankfully, was dispatched to his celestial virgins in 2003) enlisted his son as a sort of sidekick and maidservant to a jihadi cell hiding out in the Afghan outback. It was in this capacity that Omar tagged along with the pack of terrorists who would eventually be killed in the June 27, 2002 firefight that claimed the life of Sgt Speer.

I have spent today reading a lot of tough talk on the blogs about how Khadr should be "waterboarded until he stops crying" and such. I wonder if those same hawks could tell me how they would have turned out if they'd been told — literally, since the day they were born — about the necessity of jihad and the beauty of martyrdom; if, since early days, they'd been propagandized into believing that the West was waging a genocidal war against Muslims; and that military resistance was the only path of survival. Are we to expect some sort of inborn moral sense to activate — to tell us that everything being told to us by our own parents is wrong — even before one is old enough to shave?

I know about 20,000 former child soldiers in Sierra Leone who could tell you the answer to that question. And unlike Khadr, not one of them stands accused of "Violation of the Law of War."

Omar Khadr probably didn't kill anyone. The U.S. government's line on the events of June 27, 2002 — reported uncritically, for the most part, by the Canadian media — is that a cowardly Khadr popped up from the rubble in the aftermath of a firefight in the Afghan hinterland, killing a U.S. medic who was looking to treat wounded survivors. In fact, the grenade that killed Speer (who was fighting as a solider, whatever his training as a medic) was thrown when the four-hour long battle was still hot — and it is far from clear who threw it: Contrary to initial accounts, there was a second jihadi still alive when the fatal grenade was thrown — and since Khadr was badly wounded at the time, the second militant (who later died) seems the more likely candidate.

(We might also dispense with the idea that Speer was on a mission of mercy: Post-battle testimony from his battlefield companions suggests they were — quite understandably — more interested in shooting the wounded than healing them.)

My own view is that Speer may well have been killed by a grenade thrown by one of his comrades. (Reports from the battle suggest that grenades were flying thick and fast from both sides.) As the Pat Tillman scandal shows, the U.S. military sometimes goes to extraordinary lengths to cover up friendly-fire deaths. And in the Khadr case, his U.S. Department of Defense attorney claims, there is at least one instance in which a U.S. lieutenant-colonel retroactively amended and backdated a battlefield report to buttress the case against Khadr.

Even if Khadr did kill Sgt. Speer, he did so as a soldier, not a terrorist. There's little doubt that Ahmed Khadr was training his sons to be terrorists — the sort of people who blow up buses and restaurants, or who wear civilian clothing as they lie in wait to detonate explosives under vehicle convoys. But what Omar Khadr did on June 27, 2002 wasn't terrorism. It was participation in a military engagement — a fact that can't be changed merely by slapping a label like "unlawful combatant" on him.

Moreover, it was a military engagement fought on American terms: After U.S. soldiers sealed off the village encampment housing Khadr's cell, they prosecuted the siege with about 100 troops, some of them Special Forces, as well as Apache helicopters, F-18 Hornets and A-10 Warthogs. You can say that Khadr was fighting in an evil cause when he was captured, but you can't say that he was preying on the defenseless.

Even if you don't buy anything I've written above, Khadr's treatment still ranks as abominable. Let us assume that Omar Khadr actually threw the grenade that killed Sgt Christopher Speer; that he did so as a cold-blooded killer, not as a soldier; and that his status as a child combatant is irrelevant — in short, that Omar Khadr is a murderer. Well then, how do we treat murderers in Western countries? Answer: We put them in jail. We don't beat them; or move them from cell to cell every three hours; or terrify them with threats of pedophilic rape; or deny them appropriate medical care — all punishments that Khadr has endured — a litany of abuse so traumatic that, according to one piteous detail among many, he took to falling asleep at Guantanamo desperately hugging a Mickey Mouse book brought to him as a gift. In the space of six years incarceration, Khadr has endured more brutality than any ordinary jailbird would endure in 60.
That's punishment enough. Please bring Omar Khadr home.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...mar-khadr.aspx
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the best, most forcefully expressed opinion I have read concerning Omar.
What a soggy rag our own Prime Minister is!!
 

normbc9

Electoral Member
Nov 23, 2006
483
14
18
California
DL,
Thank you for this. There are many verified stories out and most are either denied outright or overlooked by those in power. I don't care what their ethnic origin or beliefs are. They are all still subject (hopefully) to the same laws and human rights the rest of live under. This is tragic and should be reviewed by the World Court to see if we have (and we certainly do) any Slobodan's in our country. There is nopthiong I'd love more than to see Bush and Cheney both indicted by the World Court fot the atrocities they have personally authorized. I think the term, "Crimes Against Humanity" would be appropriate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dancing-loon

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
DL,
Thank you for this. There are many verified stories out and most are either denied outright or overlooked by those in power. I don't care what their ethnic origin or beliefs are. They are all still subject (hopefully) to the same laws and human rights the rest of live under. This is tragic and should be reviewed by the World Court to see if we have (and we certainly do) any Slobodan's in our country. There is no thing I'd love more than to see Bush and Cheney both indicted by the World Court for the atrocities they have personally authorized. I think the term, "Crimes Against Humanity" would be appropriate.
I hope that can still be accomplished! Did you know they tried to sue Rumsfeld for his responsibility in torturing civilian Afghan and Iraqis?
On March 1, 2005, Human Rights First, together with the American Civil Liberties Union, retired military leaders, and the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP., filed a lawsuit against U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of Iraqi and Afghan civilians who were tortured and abused while in U.S. custody.
Of course, he was cleared of all wrong doing - case dismissed!!
On March 27, 2006, Judge Thomas Hogan dismissed a case brought by nine Iraqi and Afghan former detainees for the torture they suffered in U.S. military custody against former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Here is what ret. Rear Admiral John Hutson had to say:
“In dealing with detainees, the attitude at the top was that they are all just terrorists, beneath contempt and outside the law so they could be treated inhumanely. Our effort to gain information vitiated 200 years of history. International obligations didn’t matter, nor did morality or humanity. That attitude dropped like a rock down the chain of command, and we had Abu Ghraib and its progeny.”
They are not seen as humans by the Americans.... that has been my observation. And unfortunately, there are people here at CC who think Omar is a subhuman. No empathy at all!

I like this statement from Brigadier Gen. James Cullen:
“Mr. Rumsfeld has made clear that he does not intend to accept responsibility for the patterns of misconduct emerging in the wake of his policy decisions. We feel the honor of our military is at stake. We owe it to those who still wear the uniform and continue to serve their country honorably to bring this suit. Mr. Rumsfeld's policies have stained our military's record for adherence to the rule of law and observance of human rights. We want to remove that stain.”
Read Retired Brig. Gen. James Cullen’s statement
What a coward!! The US does not recognize the Geneva Convention Rules, but now, for himself, he tries to find a section that would shelter him from responsibility. A German, and such a dishonorable sucker!


Here is the main link with much more: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/lawsuit/index.asp

Subhumans are those who perform the torturing as well as those who endorse and order it!
 

normbc9

Electoral Member
Nov 23, 2006
483
14
18
California
DL,
Good to hear from you. We both know about the many standards being applied by the US. There is one for the general populace, one for the low level politicians, one for the top level pols and then the one they may to choose to apply (heavy on the word may) to their military members. Rumsfeld is another crook who was the discoverer of the Dick Cheney personality back during Rumsfeld's first term as the SecDef. That whole bunch runs together and some how by force or bribes makes their way through the system and never being held accountable for their actions. I know of several retired flag level officers who are now sick of what they are witnessing. BUT, it is a good old boys club and they cover for each other. look at what they did to Sanchez and Zinni. Both broke the code of silence as did Wes Clark. Once the word is out those opposing the system are now outcasts. That can have a heck of psychological affect on the one being ostracized. But I believe their day will come eventually and I sure wouldn't want to be in their shoes when it does. None of this is right and continuance of the wrongful practices just infuriates those in the world who learn of it. No wonder the US is now held in such low esteem internationally. Pay backs can be hell!
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I should point out, the US is still well respected on the world stage. When anyone compares the US to any country they know equally well, The US is not held in much of a different regard.

Ie, Canada is held in higher regard than the US, except among those equally familiar with Canada.

France is held in higher regard than the the US, except it is much lower among those equally familiar with France.


Every nations has their closet of skeletons, and the US isn't the big bad by any means. Its just the celebrity that everyone has tabloid photos of its mistakes.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
OK, so we have these Uighers in Gitmo that a judge rules be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. because if they're sent home to China they would surely be killed.

So, detention in Guantanamo vs. surely be killed. But Bush and Cheney need to be brought before the world court. Shouldn't this story be eliciting outrage against China moreso than the U.S.?

Hmmm.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
They were Muslim foreigners in Afghanistan. They must be terrorists right?



Anyone care to defend keeping these people locked up indefinitely? There are other cases like this.



Who would have thought detaining innocent people indefinitely might be counter productive?

You make it sound like people who land in Gitmo are never seen or heard from again.

People are released from Gitmo all the time. Not a few of them later discovered in action in Afghanistan. How many wars do you know of where POW's were released back to their regiments?

War is messy. People suffer. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to help the innocent, be we shouldn't just lay ourselves down either. We don't need to surrender because an innocent may get caught in the crossfire.

After all is said and done, this war was brought to us. We didn't ask for it.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Who Cares about Omar Khadr ?

By Debbie Menon

October 16, 2008 "
Information Clearinghouse" -- Omar Khadr is probably the greatest shame on Canada, because two governments, the Liberals under Paul Martin and the Conservatives under Harper have both made the overt decision to leave him in prison. The case against him is insane.

He was a child, aged 15. He was in Afghanistan because his parents took him there. His father and mother are militant Muslims. He was in a building that US commandos suddenly attacked. When people in the building shot back, they bombed the building and blew it to bits. Then they approached the building, and a US soldier got killed by a hand grenade thrown from the ruins of the building. When they entered the ruins Omar was still alive, but, others were too. In a revised report, they made him the only one left alive. He has been charged with murder. He was shot at close range by bullets (plural).

The case is insane for several reasons:

1) He is a child soldier, which means he is a victim of war not a war criminal.

2) Evidence was changed to make him the only person by inference who might have thrown a hand grenade.There is no witness that he did.

3) Soldiers killed while attacking a house in a foreign country cannot be victims of murder. They are casualties of war.

4) People in a house being attacked by foreigners are engaged in self-defense.

The US has made a category that a person is not a soldier and is not a civilian: unlawful enemy combatant. So laws of war and POW treatment do not apply and criminal laws also do not apply.

He has been tortured in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo.

There is not much evidence against him and there is lack of jurisdiction in US Law related to "child soldiers". The only reason he is still in Guantanamo Bay is because the government is afraid they have turned him into a radical. He is young and can be rehabilitated. Everyone, even the Canadian officials who came to console him, have done nothing and he continues to be persecuted.

I received a plea from a woman Zainab Ali asking: "Who cares for this boy?"

http://cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=25526

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQHFFbD_-Pg

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/omar-khadr.html

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/346020

http://www.thestar.com/article/512286

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11128331/follow_omar_khadr_from_an_al_qaeda_childhood_to_a_gitmo_cell

It is not that no one cares…Zainab cares... I care... Moazzem Begg cares... there are probably others, even his captors, who may care.

The problem is, none of us who care are in any position or hold any power to do anything for him. We are not even voters in America and do not even have the stilled voice of constituency, or a representative to write to, which would be futile anyway.

The editors we know are not going to be interested because this is not the kind of news which sells time and space in their media.

And, no one else is paid to care!

To even publish this kind of stuff more than once will get an editor the name of a "bleeding heart sympathizer with terrists" and risk loss of readership, which his corporate bosses who need the sales numbers in order to sell space and time would not appreciate!

Yes, if they released him they would either have a new and dedicated enemy warrior on their hands, or a "Poster Boy" to inspire and recruit many more.
It is more than likely that they simply consider that they have a problem, and the longer they have kept him the more difficult it has become to release him. Think of the "Missing in Action POWs" whom John McCain and his Government left behind in Vietnam. The longer they denied their existence, the harder it became to bring them back in from the cold and, eventually, they had to write them off because it would have been too embarrassing to save them. This is what is happening in Gitmo.

The kid has no chance. Unless some Colonel, General, or someone with sufficient authority, if even for a moment, should step in, risk his neck, and sign a paper which gets the boy free long enough for him to make it back home to cover. This is extremely unlikely!

There must be some reason why this lad did not die from his wounds. A shotgun blast to the back with sufficient force to exit the chest is a pretty fatal event. Perhaps the Power which kept him alive this long will reveal

His purpose in time. Yeah, I know that is even more rhetorical crap, but then, that is my stock in trade!

Wars produce even worse things and casualties. He is one of them.

What is the current dead, maimed, and homeless count this morning

On the ICH (
Information Clearing House) website Front Page?

1,273,378 Who cares about them? How many American youths have they sent to be killed? 4,180 Who cares about them? It has been 7 years and counting.

Do not expect the Americans to care. Very little, I can assure you!

Prayer may help...I’m not sure.

Debbie Menon is an independent writer. She can be reached at: - debbie.menon@yahoo.com
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Global Research...Information Clearing House... Double Yawn.
You're predictable Smack. As many times as you've shat on the material I present you have to my knowledge never been able to refute any of it I don't think you've even tried. Maybe there's some government sources that you rely on maybe there's papers you read maybe you do have some valid points to make something to add to the debate perhaps. The double yawn thing is a bit prepubescent don't you think? Someday you'll grow out of that phase Smack.:smile:
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Because it is make believe. It is like you telling a fairy tale and then telling me to refute it. I have refuted and given facts to you on many occassions you just chose to believe in the "Land of Nod".
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Because it is make believe. It is like you telling a fairy tale and then telling me to refute it. I have refuted and given facts to you on many occassions you just chose to believe in the "Land of Nod".

I don't think it is make believe Smack. I think you have an identity crisis or you've lived in an isolation chamber or in the big dream man. But if it's your position that the problem couldn't possibly be on your end then we are at an impasse again and I will have to content myself with your offerings as they are. Didn't you tell me just last fall that there was no economic problem threatening American workers and bussinesses? I'm sure you did, so I'm confused as to what you consider reality and what you consider reliable information.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I don't think it is make believe Smack.

That doesn't surprise me.

I think you have an identity crisis or you've lived in an isolation chamber or in the big dream man. But if it's your position that the problem couldn't possibly be on your end then we are at an impasse again and I will have to content myself with your offerings as they are.

I think you do live in a self made isolation chamber. You are hard as a rock and have never been open to anything other than your views.

Didn't you tell me just last fall that there was no economic problem threatening American workers and bussinesses? I'm sure you did, so I'm confused as to what you consider reality and what you consider reliable information.

I never said such a thing. In fact if I recall that I said we may very well be on our way to a recession. You however added that GW would, because of the recession, declare martial law and suspend the Presidential Elections.

Now do you see how out there you are? I mean really...can't you see that?