U.S. 'knew damn well' Arar would be tortured: senator

[Just the Facts]

Can someone explain to me WHY Syria would torture anyone on behalf of the US or Canada. Are they such great friends and allies of ours that they would do our bidding?

Honestly, it seems more likely to me that Syria would be TRAINING terrorists, not torturing them.

 

[tracy]

Can someone explain to me WHY Syria would torture anyone on behalf of the US or Canada. Are they such great friends and allies of ours that they would do our bidding?

Honestly, it seems more likely to me that Syria would be TRAINING terrorists, not torturing them.

Syria's government isn't exactly a loved by muslim extremists. They don't run the government based on Sharia law so the extremists would happily overthrow them as well.

 

[talloola]

"turn the other cheek" about what?

My point was, that, "not" to react or counter attack, when needed, would be "turning the other cheek"
example was Afghanistan, after 911, there had to be some "reaction", from the "coalition", it was
not "just" an american thing, many people in those towers were from "other" countries.
Maybe u.s. allies should stop the u.s. from being the most "militarily advanced" country in the world,
and insist that , well, lets see, North Korea, Iran, "Chevez", Castro, China, Indonesia, and some
others, who would have no problem turning our country into a slave nation, run by dictatorship.
When a country as the U.S. takes on so much responsibility, they will make mistakes, but they
also are the most generous in the world , and of late, with george bush at the helm, things have
slid backwards, but I wish them well, and when they have a new president, they will make their way
back to the "more" admired nation they used to be.
I would hope they have learned their lesson, and are much more "selective" when electing a president,
but those are the chances you take in a democracy, and if we were as powerful as them, some of
our p.m.s in the past would have "screwed" things up badly as well.

 

[BitWhys]

My point was, that, "not" to react or counter attack, when needed, would be "turning the other cheek"
example was Afghanistan, after 911, there had to be some "reaction", from the "coalition", it was
not "just" an american thing, many people in those towers were from "other" countries.
Maybe u.s. allies should stop the u.s. from being the most "militarily advanced" country in the world,
and insist that , well, lets see, North Korea, Iran, "Chevez", Castro, China, Indonesia, and some
others, who would have no problem turning our country into a slave nation, run by dictatorship...

oh

that

I agree there will always be a need to stand against tyranny but that concept alone doesn't justify every little military action that's been taking place over recent years.

9/11 was five years ago.

not saying this about you in particular, but I suggest that those who haven't already get over it.

 

[talloola]

oh

that

I agree there will always be a need to stand against tyranny but that concept alone doesn't justify every little military action that's been taking place over recent years.

9/11 was five years ago.

not saying this about you in particular, but I suggest that those who haven't already get over it

Its' too bad Bush pushed his way into Iraq, as we could all have been "over it" by now, if he'd stayed
in Afghanistan, and left Iraq alone, he created an open "sore" and that sore is getting bigger and
bigger, so we "can't" work at "getting over it" just yet.

 

[BitWhys]

good point

I hadn't thought of that.