Putin fires Russia Defense Minister

[jonathan]

This article paints a picture of a military with
out of control corruption and incompetence.

............................


"Shoigu should "stop the further destruction of the
Russian military school and defense research institutes"
and dismiss the many unqualified workers Serdyukov
hired to top Defense Ministry jobs, Dvorkin said."

"Shoigu will not make things worse," Dvorkin said,
"because they simply can't be worse."


MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin fired his
defense minister Tuesday amid a criminal investigation of
suspected fraud and embezzlement involving military assets.

Putin announced his decision to dismiss Anatoly Serdyukov
two weeks after the federal Investigative Committee said it
was looking into the possible "fraudulent sale of real estate,
land plots and stocks" belonging to the military. The investigation
apparently already found the equivalent of more than $100 million
in losses to the government, the committee said.

The case involves Oboronservice, a company affiliated
with the Defense Ministry, and Yevgeniya Vasilyeva, a close
associate of Serdyukov who once headed the ministry's property
department. Investigators say military assets, including real estate,
were sold at significantly reduced prices to "business structures
affiliated with Oboronservice" and that "many real estate objects
were bought with money stolen from the same" company.

Putin said Serdyukov would be replaced by Sergei Shoigu,
who was appointed Moscow regional governor six months
ago after serving nearly 20 years as the country's emergency
situations minister.

"You know about the recent circumstances unfortunately
surrounding the Defense Ministry," Putin said in televised remarks.
"In order to create the necessary conditions for an objective
investigation . I have decided to dismiss . Serdyukov and
appoint another person to this job."

Serdyukov was appointed by Putin in 2007 to oversee military
reforms. Those included dismissing several hundred generals
and 200,000 officers and securing billions of dollars from the s
tate budget to restructure the armed forces.

Putin, who appeared on television with Shoigu, commended
the reforms overseen by Serdyukov and expressed hope that the
new minister "can continue everything positive accomplished
in recent years and . carry out the grand plans for modifying
the army's weaponry."

Analysts varied in their views of whether Serdyukov effectively
reformed the military. Some said Serdyukov, a former furniture
salesman and tax collector, faced an uphill battle from the day
he was appointed defense minister because he allegedly landed
his job thanks to his father-in-law, Viktor Zubkov, who was
then prime minister in Putin's government and now is chairman
of Gazprom, the giant state-controlled natural gas monopoly.

"He has successfully overseen a massive restructuring of the
armed forces management, making a brigade as the main combat
unit and creating a united strategic command controlling the land,
air and sea forces," said Igor Korotchenko, head of the Defense
Ministry's Public Council and editor in chief of the National
Defense monthly journal.

"He radically increased by 2 1/2 to 3 times the servicemen's
wages and he secured 20 trillion rubles [about $630 billion] in
state funds to qualitatively upgrade the army's weaponry and
equipment," Korotchenko said in an interview.

Retired Col. Viktor Baranets, a former advisor to the chief
of general staff and now a defense analyst with the popular
daily Komsomolskaya Pravda, said Serdyukov's reforms may
have been well-intentioned but they included
numerous mistakes.

"Serdyukov bought unpiloted planes from Israel but they turned out
to be quite useless in our harsh climate, especially in winter,"
Baranets said in an interview. "He ordered new uniforms for the army
that looked good but lacked a proper lining and sent whole companies
of soldiers to hospitals with pneumonia."

Baranets also said Serdyukov scrapped too many military training
establishments and that his relationship with Vasilyeva and the
revelation of her enormous wealth and lavish apartment didn't
play well with the thousands of officers who have to wait for years
to get apartments for their families.

Investigators who searched Vasilyeva's home, a $10-million
apartment in a downtown Moscow building that allegedly used
to be Defense Ministry property, last week reportedly found thousands
of dollars worth of precious antiques, paintings and jewelry. Russian
news reports allege that she was romantically involved with Serdyukov.

Retired Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, a former senior Defense
Ministry official and now a senior researcher at the Institute of World
Economy and International Relations, denounced the reforms Serdyukov
carried out "with an ax."

Shoigu should "stop the further destruction of the Russian military
school and defense research institutes" and dismiss the many
unqualified workers Serdyukov hired to top Defense Ministry jobs,
Dvorkin said.

"Shoigu will not make things worse," Dvorkin said,
"because they simply can't be worse."

sergei...@latimes.com

[Bill]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:43:39 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>This article paints a picture of a military with
>out of control corruption and incompetence.
>

You mean they're running a concentration camp their government can't
get them to close...

Oh no, that's the USA...

[Andrew Swallow]

Be careful what you call a concentration camp. People do not die in
Grantanamo Bay.

Andrew Swallow

[Weatherlawyer]

They have a lot in common except the Haliburton crew invaded Iraq.
Russians obviously have a lot more sense.

But having more sense than a chimpanzee isn't saying much.

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
news:ZZWdnV_lC5sgFwbN...@bt.com...

So you don't know what a concentration camp is? Here's a
definition for you

"The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which
people are detained or confined, usually under harsh
conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and
imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional
democracy."

There are other definitions, but the Shrub's lasting
monument usually qualifies easily.

[Andrew Swallow]

Out of date definition. Concentration Camp is now reserved for Hitler's
death camps.

Andrew Swallow

[Bill]

Despite their poor record, the primary purpose of a concentration
camp is not to kill people.

It is to remove from society people who have been convicted of no
crime but belong to set of people who have offended the 'powers that
be'.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

aside that the gulags actually was the blueprint for the later lagers...

returning to thread's matters, obviously during 90s was done a
separation between power in se and power for money (that is, to the
apparatniks used to absolute soviet power was closed both eyes to the
power for money (that is, corruption) to keep them content), but after
the majority of them are retired, some cleansing aimed at avoiding a
next generation IS needed in an military whose handle the second-most
powerful nuclear arsenal.

also, corrupt people in position to damage one of the main russian
export (and by extension, russian procurement) simply can't be tolerated
in Russia

No wonder that the current Little Father (Putin) has decided to remove,
or a least reduce to tolerable level, the corruption in the defense
environment.

in Russian mindset is patriotism removing dangers to the Rodina, and for
(top) Russian leadership, holy duty, and preferably w/o real or
perceived enemies noticing; so I'm sure that behind this is some
corruption-caused failure in defence or defence procurement, leading, or
potentially leading to weakness in security of Rodina (Mother Russia), a
thing Russians *never* taken lightly.

in other words, what in US is taken as corruption, pork barreling,
corporate greed, oversight, or whatever else, in Russia is taken as high
treason toward father (mother) land.

(I wonder if this was taken in account when assessing soviet military
decisions; someone think that is worth forwarding this post to Jack ?)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Bill]

Oh no it bloody isn't.

The British camps in the Boer War were certainly concentration camps
and are still referred to as such.

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

news:V6udnURhK7mXIAbN...@bt.com...

I got that definition from one of the memorial sites.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

None of the dictionaries or style manuals (generally silent
on the subject) I have around here agree with you.

Try not to be such an idiot. When you're challenged, look
the bloody thing up.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:1kjn989p527dc39a6...@4ax.com...

>And just where is that definition from? By that
>definition, every POW
camp during WWII was a 'concentration camp'.

(From
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263)

Well obviously. What is your point?

>
>There are other definitions, but the Shrub's lasting
>monument usually qualifies easily.
>

>Well, no, it doesn't. Not by any sane definition.

Yes it does. That you don't know what a concentration camp
is does not change the facts.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:undo98djet1338f2d...@4ax.com...

>My point is that they were NOT concentration camps by any
>sane
definition. The definition your source gives is simply
incorrect.

So you are again confusing accuracy with insanity.

>
>>
>>There are other definitions, but the Shrub's lasting
>>monument usually qualifies easily.
>>
>
>>Well, no, it doesn't. Not by any sane definition.
>
>Yes it does. That you don't know what a concentration camp
>is does not change the facts.
>

>No, it does not. Camps for detaining enemy combatants are
>not, by
definition, 'concentration camps'. Neither are Displaced
Persons
Camps or Refugee Camps.

Well, yes they are. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it
is still the truth

>Get a real dictionary and stop relying on overly simplistic
definitions that have been dumbed down for the average third
grader.

I have several real dictionaries, and access to more
on-line. It is very clear that you have not referred to
dictionaries and are pulling nonsense out of your arse
again. If you care to post a real dictionary's definition
supporting your case, fine do so. Otherwise bugger off.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 08/11/2012 15:24, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> And just where is that definition from? By that definition, every POW
> camp during WWII was a 'concentration camp'.
>
>>

>> There are other definitions, but the Shrub's lasting
>> monument usually qualifies easily.
>>
>

> Well, no, it doesn't. Not by any sane definition.
>

The definition of Concentration Camp given above appears to be a
description from the Boer War. The Nazi cover-up used that definition
to confuse investigators. I get worried when people still try operating
the cover-up 67 years later.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

They were the original ones. Bad logistics resulted in the camps
killing a lot of people but that was not the design aim.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

See the section headed 'Shift in Meaning' in Wikipeadia.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Concentration_camp>

Andrew Swallow

[Bill]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:50:37 +0000, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 08/11/2012 16:26, Bill wrote:


>>> Out of date definition. Concentration Camp is now reserved for Hitler's
>>> death camps.
>>
>> Oh no it bloody isn't.
>>
>> The British camps in the Boer War were certainly concentration camps
>> and are still referred to as such.
>>
>
>They were the original ones. Bad logistics resulted in the camps
>killing a lot of people but that was not the design aim.

And 'Concentration Camp Lite' on Cuba seems to have worked that
problem out.

However torture and brutality is routine.

[jonathan]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9jom985pmcbrspf5a...@4ax.com...

I suppose you might see Gitmo as a concentration camp, that is
if you can't tell the difference between the following two 'camps'.

1) where millions of people are either worked, starved
or gassed to death.

2) where 166 are held at a cost of $800,000 per prisoner per year.
half of which are already approved for release.

But don't let the facts get in your way
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/USLS-Fact-Sheet-Gitmo-Numbers.pdf



s

[Andrew Swallow]

Guantanamo Bay is an interrogation camp.
We have ways of making you to talk - that just get you wet.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:nego98lc7hueq489b...@4ax.com...

>And so we see that Peter Skelton's view is that Canada ran
>40 or more
CONCENTRATION CAMPS during the 1940's....

We had some in the 30's too Fred. Just because you won't
admit that the dictionary definitions are correct doesn't
make them wrong.

>I rather disagree with him. His view seems to be that ANY
>large
collection of people, regardless of purpose, is a
'concentration
camp'. He's wrong, as usual. And trying to flail like the
attention
whore he is, as usual.

So,being dead wrong on the facts, you have gone to insult,
misrepresenting my position in passing. You're disgusting
Fred.

>Get a different hobby, Peter.

Well I admit I'm fighting rather below my intellectual
weight class here.

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

news:HvqdnWWkmZAAzAHN...@bt.com...

That is rather bull-shit

Would you rather a Webster definition:

"a guarded campground for the confinement of political
prisoners, minorities etc. esp any of the camps established
by the Nazis for the internment and persecution of
prisoners."

Funk and Wagnals:

"An enclosed camp for the confinement of political
prisoners, aliens, etc."

Ask a Word

"a camp where large numbers of persons—such as political
prisoners, prisoners of war, refugees—are detained for the
purpose of concentrating them in one place.
a camp or premises in which persons considered to be
undesirable by those who control it are hidden away,
mistreated, and even killed.
A situation wherein crowding and extremely harsh conditions
take place."

Oxford

"a place in which large numbers of people, especially
political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are
deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with
inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or
to await mass execution. The term is most strongly
associated with the several hundred camps established by the
Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe 1933–45, among the most
infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz."

I can go on a long time. Gitmo is a concentration camp by
all the definitions.

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

news:kqidndNRZcL_yQHN...@bt.com...

Your reference says you're incorrect. Here it is

During the 20th century, the arbitrary internment of
civilians by the state reached a climax with Nazi
concentration camps (1933–1945). As a result, the term
"concentration camp" carries many of the connotations of
"death camp" or "extermination camp", and is sometimes used
synonymously. But Nazi concentration camps were not
necessarily death camps. For example, they used some camps
primarily to house slave labor: the inmates were exploited
rather than killed, although many were worked to death or
killed for refusing to work.

Note the word 'sometimes'.

[David E. Powell]

> That last sentence is demonstrably false. The folks at Gitmo are NOT
>
> "political prisoners", "members of a persecuted minority", "aliens",
>
> or any such thing. They are enemy combatants.
>
>
>
> If Gitmo qualifies as a 'concentration camp' in Peter's tiny mind,
>
> then the 40+ camps that Canada ran during the 1940's to hold 35,000+
>
> Axis prisoners must also have been concentration camps. I disagree
>
> with Peter in this.
>
>
>
> However, it turns out that even by my definition Canada ran some
>
> concentration camps during that time, since they actually herded their
>
> Japanese population into camps even before the US did. Some 25,000
>
> people of Japanese extraction were placed into concentration camps in
>
> Canada, the overwhelming majority of whom were born in Canada.

Add to this, the Bush haters may be mad about Guantanamo but they must remember he is no longer the President of the US. President Obama has kept the place open, as well as using drone attacks that aren't likely to take prisoners in any condition. The Bush haters have been remarkably quiet about President Obama doing these things, or have actually approved.

> "Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
>
> -- Confucius

[Kerryn Offord]

Obama tried to close it,

But there has been resistance to closing it from Americans. (They don't
want the prisoners in their back yard.. )

So Americans opposed to closing it can continue to take credit for the
continuing black mark against America

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Kerryn Offord wrote:
>
>> Guantanamo

> Obama tried to close it,

He's the CIC...just close it...no excuses.
;-)

[Andrew Swallow]

Not by the Oxford definition. The inmates at Gitmo are not doing forced
labour or awaiting execution. As possibly the most luxurious prison
camp in the world they are not short of facilities. There is only a
small number of people there.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 09/11/2012 02:07, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>

>> On 08/11/2012 16:26, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> The British camps in the Boer War were certainly concentration camps
>>> and are still referred to as such.
>>>
>>
>> They were the original ones. Bad logistics resulted in the camps
>> killing a lot of people but that was not the design aim.
>>
>

> Actually they weren't. The term originates several decades before
> that, with camps run by the Spanish in Cuba.
>
Same idea but the Spanish ones had a different name.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

A slow death rather than a quick death, so the Nazi camps were death
camps. Gitmo is not a death camp.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:jpso9890js156ree8...@4ax.com...

>And in usual Peter Skelton style, he now snips all the
>context so that
he can now claim he didn't say what he did.

You keep history indefinitely Fred, or claim to. Now show
where I claim not to have said something I did.

>Bottom line:

>FACT: Peter said that camps used to hold enemy combatants
>are
'concentration camps'.

>FACT: Canada had at least 40 such camps holding Axis
>(enemy)
combatants during the 1940s.

>Therefore, Peter Skelton's view must be that Canada ran 40

>or more
CONCENTRATION CAMPS during the 1940's.

I said that explicitly, it's still below. I can face facts
Fred.

>Now he wants to lie and insult his way out of it to try to
>get more
attention.


What lies? Most of my posting in this thread has been
authoritive definitions. They can't be lies if I quoted them
correctly. You've done nothing but pull nonsense out of your
butt and insult.

You need some facts that support your viewpoint. Insulting
and screaming liar while whining about nor-existent lies and
insults does not cut it.


>Peter, you've just gotten sad over the years.

[Bill]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 20:50:33 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9jom985pmcbrspf5a...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:43:39 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>This article paints a picture of a military with
>>>out of control corruption and incompetence.
>>>
>> You mean they're running a concentration camp their government can't
>> get them to close...
>>
>> Oh no, that's the USA...
>
>
>I suppose you might see Gitmo as a concentration camp, that is
>if you can't tell the difference between the following two 'camps'.
>
>1) where millions of people are either worked, starved
> or gassed to death.
>
>2) where 166 are held at a cost of $800,000 per prisoner per year.
> half of which are already approved for release.

Yet another one who doesn't know what a concentration camp is.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:u1to981q2rljr2r5n...@4ax.com...

>That last sentence is demonstrably false. The folks at
>Gitmo are NOT
"political prisoners", "members of a persecuted minority",
"aliens",
or any such thing. They are enemy combatants.

Are you aware of the meaning of the word 'especially'?
You're not telling the truth Fred.

>If Gitmo qualifies as a 'concentration camp' in Peter's
>tiny mind,
then the 40+ camps that Canada ran during the 1940's to hold
35,000+
Axis prisoners must also have been concentration camps. I
disagree
with Peter in this.

Of course they were concentration camps. The fact that there
are more precise terms for them does not change that.

>However, it turns out that even by my definition Canada ran
>some
concentration camps during that time, since they actually
herded their
Japanese population into camps even before the US did. Some
25,000
people of Japanese extraction were placed into concentration
camps in
Canada, the overwhelming majority of whom were born in
Canada.

It wasn't just the Japanese Fred. All countries have
inglorious bits of history, yours included. GITMO included.

[Bill]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 01:54:44 +0000, Andrew Swallow

Keep telling yourself that.

It may just help you sleep at night.

[Paul J. Adam]

On 09/11/2012 03:30, David E. Powell wrote:

> Add to this, the Bush haters may be mad about Guantanamo but they must remember he is no longer the President of the US. President Obama has kept the place open, as well as using drone attacks that aren't likely to take prisoners in any condition. The Bush haters have been remarkably quiet about President Obama doing these things, or have actually approved.

You haven't read the Guardian, have you?


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[peter skelton]

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
news:8bcca764-0230-4b32...@googlegroups.com...

You do recognize that Fred is not telling the truth? By
supporting him you tend to tar yourself with his brush, even
though what you said is accurate.

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

news:CuGdncppyo9FGAHN...@bt.com...

Are you aware of the meaning of the word 'sometimes'?

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

news:CuGdncRpyo-TGgHN...@bt.com...

That is not something I have suggested.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:js3q98lccvsk5dpd4...@4ax.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>Poor, pathetic Peter. I'm bored again.

Dead wrong, lying, insulting, and now whining that he's
bored. I've a great-granddaughter who whines when she's
bored, at four it's acceptable.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:lu3q981nb1jn5jvep...@4ax.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>
>It wasn't just the Japanese Fred. All countries have
>inglorious bits of history, yours included. GITMO included.
>

>But 'inglorious' is not a synonym for 'concentration camp',
>which
Gitmo (it's not an acronym and upper-casing it is incorrect)
is not.

I've not claimed that 'inglorious' is a synonym for
'concentration camp', have I?
Spelling flames are pass�.

[Uncle Steve]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 01:54:44AM +0000, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 09/11/2012 01:07, Bill wrote:
> >On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:50:37 +0000, Andrew Swallow
> ><am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 08/11/2012 16:26, Bill wrote:
> >
> >

> >>>>Out of date definition. Concentration Camp is now reserved for Hitler's
> >>>>death camps.
> >>>

> >>>Oh no it bloody isn't.
> >>>
> >>>The British camps in the Boer War were certainly concentration camps
> >>>and are still referred to as such.
> >>>
> >>
> >>They were the original ones. Bad logistics resulted in the camps
> >>killing a lot of people but that was not the design aim.
> >
> >And 'Concentration Camp Lite' on Cuba seems to have worked that
> >problem out.
> >
> >However torture and brutality is routine.
> >
>
> Guantanamo Bay is an interrogation camp.
> We have ways of making you to talk - that just get you wet.

I suspect the value of the "interrogations" is overstated. Much as
the idea that Muslim terrorists are the major threat to "freedom and
democracy". Every generation in the West is given a new group of
external foe to hate and fear. Meanwhile, the destruction to
economies and lives from financial market hijinks, outsourcing jobs
overseas, the dumbing down of the education system, all the mass-media
disinformation and trivialization is nothing more than business as
usual.

Guantanimo bay and so-called "rendition sites" are the thin edge of
the wedge. The next step will be something a little more offensive,
perhaps a terrorist detention center on US soil, and from there the
process of incrementalism will do it's usual magic. This is the
elephant in the room that apologists refuse to see: the way
constitutional protections and law are subverted step-by-step to bring
about changes that weaken the real-world safety and security of the
polity.

Consider the travesty of airport screening existing today. A hundred
years ago, travel was subject to no such restrictions or inconvenience
(excepting the speed or mode of travel). This is incrementalism at
work in the real world. And people like you will never address the
root causes that bring about these changes, perhaps because cashing in
on the resulting largesse is so profitable.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--

Sad news, my lo-al fr-ends. My doctor has diagnosed can-er of the
funny-bone. Chemother-py has failed, and so it was removed last night
in a difficult op-ration. I am now on an organ-donor waiting list,
which now is my last hope to regain a sense of h-mor. I urge you,
especially if you are com-dian, to sign your organ-donor card. If you
are hit by a bus tomorrow, the h-mor you save may be your own.

[Uncle Steve]

> That last sentence is demonstrably false. The folks at Gitmo are NOT
> "political prisoners", "members of a persecuted minority", "aliens",
> or any such thing. They are enemy combatants.
>
> If Gitmo qualifies as a 'concentration camp' in Peter's tiny mind,
> then the 40+ camps that Canada ran during the 1940's to hold 35,000+
> Axis prisoners must also have been concentration camps. I disagree
> with Peter in this.
>
> However, it turns out that even by my definition Canada ran some
> concentration camps during that time, since they actually herded their
> Japanese population into camps even before the US did. Some 25,000
> people of Japanese extraction were placed into concentration camps in
> Canada, the overwhelming majority of whom were born in Canada.

Wasn't that "for their own safety", or some such nonsense?

[peter skelton]

"Uncle Steve" wrote in message
news:3461355f23...@gmail.com...

It was pretty naked racism, combined with white fishermens'
desire to steal their licenses and boats.

[Bill]

The Guardian, pah!

He should try 'The New Statesman'.

Better written, and can be far nastier.

[Uncle Steve]

Notice how long it took for the Canadian government to make
reparations. A typical pattern of governments everywhere whenever
similar situations arise.



Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
Q: How many police officers does it take to change a light-bulb?
A: One police officer to arrest the light-bulb for aggravated
darkness. Two police officers to arrest the lamp and electrical box
for conspiracy to commit darkness. A team of detectives to
investigate the house wiring for collaborators and other subversives,
including a 24/7 surveillance operation. One officer to refer the
entire neighborhood to a federal policing agency. One officer to
acquire a warrant to search houses that use a suspiciously low amount
of electricity. A dozen SWAT officers to execute the search
warrant...

[Andrew Swallow]

Re-read what I wrote.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

Yes. I am also aware that calling a dog's tail a leg still results in a
4 legged animal.

Gitmo is an interrogation camp. Now the correct description of some of
the other camps the USA is paying for is a different matter.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

You have when you call it a concentration camp.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

news:T_2dnYsUIocwOADN...@bt.com...

It is also a concentration camp. There can be no doubt at
all about that on the definitions. No amount of obfuscation
or misinterpretation can change that.

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

news:T_2dnYoUIodBOADN...@bt.com...

That sir, is a lie. You know it is a lie. I have provided
definition from reliable sources in tiresome detail to prove
that fact. You have emoted greatly and grasped at flimsy
straws.

[tutall]

On Nov 9, 5:19 pm, "peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> "Andrew Swallow"  wrote in message
>

> That sir, is a lie. You know it is a lie. I have provided
> definition from reliable sources in tiresome detail to prove
> that fact. You have emoted greatly and grasped at flimsy

> straws.- Hide quoted text -
>

What nobody seems to be addressing, Peter, is the emotional weight now
attached to "concentration camp".

It's a term now freighted with emotion and a person who used this term
when addressing something similar knows it.

They are attempting to smear the object of their choice with all the
weight that's behind "KZ", "Concentration Camp" and bring to mind the
horrors of the Holocaust.

And you know it.

Defending it's use purely on *a* dictionary definition is weak. And
you know that too.

Lucky for you, your opposition here seems to be lacking any sort of
nuance and prefer to bludgeon things into shapes they find pleasing.

And with how many were dealt with there, adding to it the whole CIA
renditioning and torturing? Am okay with using this term in
conjunction with that lot on the island of Cuba. It's not comparable,
but as close to as we've come in the Western Civilization since WWII.

[Bill]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:08:46 -0800 (PST), tutall <tut...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 9, 5:19�pm, "peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> "Andrew Swallow" �wrote in message
>>
>
>> That sir, is a lie. You know it is a lie. I have provided
>> definition from reliable sources in tiresome detail to prove
>> that fact. You have emoted greatly and grasped at flimsy
>> straws.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>What nobody seems to be addressing, Peter, is the emotional weight now
>attached to "concentration camp".
>
>It's a term now freighted with emotion and a person who used this term
>when addressing something similar knows it.
>
>They are attempting to smear the object of their choice with all the
>weight that's behind "KZ", "Concentration Camp" and bring to mind the
>horrors of the Holocaust.

Of course I was, and that's because, in its own way, the camp at
Guantanamo Bay is as obscene as the Nazi camps.

For one of the great liberal democracies to keep a torture camp that
is immune from their own legal system is an obscenity, and what's
more we all know it.

[jonathan]

"Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4437159ae...@gmail.com...

> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 01:54:44AM +0000, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 09/11/2012 01:07, Bill wrote:
>> >On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:50:37 +0000, Andrew Swallow
>> ><am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 08/11/2012 16:26, Bill wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>>Out of date definition. Concentration Camp is now reserved for
>> >>>>Hitler's
>> >>>>death camps.
>> >>>
>> >>>Oh no it bloody isn't.
>> >>>
>> >>>The British camps in the Boer War were certainly concentration camps
>> >>>and are still referred to as such.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>They were the original ones. Bad logistics resulted in the camps
>> >>killing a lot of people but that was not the design aim.
>> >
>> >And 'Concentration Camp Lite' on Cuba seems to have worked that
>> >problem out.
>> >
>> >However torture and brutality is routine.
>> >
>>
>> Guantanamo Bay is an interrogation camp.
>> We have ways of making you to talk - that just get you wet.

The anti-American bias is so thick in here. A concentration
camp is where people that haven't committed any conventional
crimes are held, usually in large numbers and under harsh
conditions. None of those conditions apply at Gitmo.

Half of the 166 inmates at Gitmo are already approved
for release, but guess what? Not a ...single nation on Earth
will take them, can anyone guess why that is? Hint; it's not
because they smell bad.

>
> I suspect the value of the "interrogations" is overstated. Much as
> the idea that Muslim terrorists are the major threat to "freedom and
> democracy".

Since the Iraq invasion, Muslims have been fighting for and rioting
FOR democracy and freedom. The Arab Spring exploded almost
to the day the US announced it's withdrawing from Iraq, which
signaled the tentative success of the fledgling democracy in Iraq.
Signaling the success over the terrorists of the world.
The people lost their fear of their repressive govts and
religious extremists at that point.

The Middle East is now in transition to democracy
and freedom is spreading like wildfire....literally speaking.

We (freedom and democracy) are winning!

> Every generation in the West is given a new group of
> external foe to hate and fear. Meanwhile, the destruction to
> economies and lives from financial market hijinks, outsourcing jobs
> overseas, the dumbing down of the education system, all the mass-media
> disinformation and trivialization is nothing more than business as
> usual.

The Arab Spring is most certainly not business as usual, but
a regional explosion of public anger at the repression and
poverty their various dictatorships gave them. A spontaneous
eruption of pro-democracy movements. The old 'domino effect'
sprung to life, but this time for good.

>
> Guantanimo bay and so-called "rendition sites" are the thin edge of
> the wedge. The next step will be something a little more offensive,
> perhaps a terrorist detention center on US soil,

Oh bullshit, quite the opposite is most likely, in a free and
democratic society, excesses in one direction are often
followed by excesses in the opposite. Until the middle
ground is found. As in Obama replacing Bush, as in new
laws and Supreme Court rulings flowing from Gitmo that
close those loop-holes Bush jumped through post 9/11.

Excesses in a democracy tend to bring stronger rules against
future abuses to our rights and freedoms.

and from there the
> process of incrementalism will do it's usual magic. This is the
> elephant in the room that apologists refuse to see: the way
> constitutional protections and law are subverted step-by-step to bring
> about changes that weaken the real-world safety and security of the
> polity.

I feel much much safer now then before 9/11, and America is
much stronger relative the world since then too with the
huge military and security build-up of the last decade.
If an extra half hour at security in an airport is the cost
for that, oh well. Most are fine with that.

>
> Consider the travesty of airport screening existing today.

Over a million people...per day...enter the US. And yet
not one major terrorist attack since 9/11. And what rights
have been sacrificed? The right to carry a bomb onboard?
What travesties are you referring to exactly?

>A hundred
> years ago, travel was subject to no such restrictions or inconvenience

A hundred years ago??? In 1912 the vast majority of people
traveled only as far as a horse drawn buggy would take them.
Comparing the passengers boarding a ship, say the Titanic (1912)
to today, well, I feel today I have far more rights and far greater
ability to ...conveniently travel.

It's never been easier, cheaper or...safer... to travel today than
any other time in human history. Especially to and from America
which is proud to have the most open borders in the ...world.

Our population is growing faster than China due to our liberal
immigration policy. Intolerant tyrant, oh come on!

> (excepting the speed or mode of travel). This is incrementalism at
> work in the real world. And people like you will never address the
> root causes that bring about these changes, perhaps because cashing in
> on the resulting largesse is so profitable.
>

And some see a conspiracy behind every shadow. The future
of America is so bright ..."we gotta wear shades".

People seem to completely fail to understand why America
is so much more influential and powerful. The nation that
best mimics Nature will always win in the end.

Which translates to the nation with the greatest combined
levels of freedom /and/ diversity. And that nation will only
move farther ahead with each new world wide crisis, since
the world gets the flu when America gets a cold, each new
global ...problem only makes us ...stronger relative the rest.

It's the Catch-22 of Nature, if you want to catch us, you
have to become just like us. So America will always win in
the end, one way of the other.

Our constitution is inviolable and enshrines the processes
of Nature in our laws and beliefs. That's not changing
anytime soon.


Jonathan


s

[jonathan]

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:k7iuks$d76$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> Are you aware of the meaning of the word 'sometimes'?
>
>

What about the meaning of the word 'concentration'. 166 people
is hardly a mass concentration of people, especially considering
half of them are approved for release. We just seem to have
problems finding any nation on ...Earth willing to take them.

Funny about that~


s

[Bill]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:17:03 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The anti-American bias is so thick in here. A concentration
>camp is where people that haven't committed any conventional
>crimes are held, usually in large numbers and under harsh
>conditions. None of those conditions apply at Gitmo.
>
>Half of the 166 inmates at Gitmo are already approved
>for release, but guess what? Not a ...single nation on Earth
>will take them, can anyone guess why that is? Hint; it's not
>because they smell bad.

And denying someone their nationality and their rights as a citizen is
illegal.

Will the US be taxing those countries about this law breaking activity
as regards people who have never been convicted of any crime, even by
a US 'military tribunal'?

>> I suspect the value of the "interrogations" is overstated. Much as
>> the idea that Muslim terrorists are the major threat to "freedom and
>> democracy".
>
>
>Since the Iraq invasion, Muslims have been fighting for and rioting
>FOR democracy and freedom.

All of them?

>The Middle East is now in transition to democracy
>and freedom is spreading like wildfire....literally speaking.

And where has this much vaunted democracy taken power so far?

So far it is in Egypt.

The others are either falling into the hands of the fanatics or just
back into the hands of a new 'elite group' or the people wanting
change have been crushed.

>We (freedom and democracy) are winning!

I wish...

>The Arab Spring is most certainly not business as usual, but
>a regional explosion of public anger at the repression and
>poverty their various dictatorships gave them. A spontaneous
>eruption of pro-democracy movements. The old 'domino effect'
>sprung to life, but this time for good.

It actually has a great deal to do with youth unemployment coupled
with education systems that produce young men with no expectation of a
better life.

>I feel much much safer now then before 9/11,

Oh dear, you felt unsafe before that?

You sad little man.

>> Consider the travesty of airport screening existing today.
>
>
>Over a million people...per day...enter the US. And yet
>not one major terrorist attack since 9/11.

How many before?

>>A hundred
>> years ago, travel was subject to no such restrictions or inconvenience
>
>
>A hundred years ago??? In 1912 the vast majority of people
>traveled only as far as a horse drawn buggy would take them.

Well, except for those who got on a train...

>Comparing the passengers boarding a ship, say the Titanic (1912)
>to today, well, I feel today I have far more rights and far greater
>ability to ...conveniently travel.

Not really. You have the ability to travel faster but three quarters
of a century ago Peter Fleming traveled far further and with less
paperwork than you could ever possibly travel today.

>It's never been easier, cheaper or...safer... to travel today than
>any other time in human history. Especially to and from America
>which is proud to have the most open borders in the ...world.

Try traveling to Central Asia...

Indeed, try traveling just about anywhere outside the 'Western World'
without a visa and see how far you get.

>Our constitution is inviolable and enshrines the processes
>of Nature in our laws and beliefs. That's not changing
>anytime soon.

Right...

Your book of rules, written by a collection of slave owning farmers
many years ago, and is patently obviously flawed in several ways, is
the rulebook for the rest of us...

[Bill]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:29:44 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So how many poor bastards locked in cages without trial and tortured
at regular intervals is enough?

[Keith W]

jonathan wrote:
>
> It's never been easier, cheaper or...safer... to travel today than
> any other time in human history. Especially to and from America
> which is proud to have the most open borders in the ...world.
>

That used to be true, unfortunately it is not the case any more.

I am a law abiding British Citizen with no criminal record
or dodgy political associations. The US is one of a handful of
countries in the world that insists on taking my fingerprints to let
me cross their border.

Not even the former USSR went that far.

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

On 10/11/2012 19:53, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
{snip}

>> Not really. You have the ability to travel faster but three quarters
>> of a century ago Peter Fleming traveled far further and with less
>> paperwork than you could ever possibly travel today.
>>
>

> How's that? Has the planet magically shrunk or something? Please
> explain just how it is he could have "traveled far further" than we
> "could ever possibly travel today".
>

Before WW1 few countries had boarder guards. You had to get to
somewhere efficient like Switzerland before they checked your passport.

Andrew Swallow

[Bill]

Peter Fleming more or less walked across China and Central Asia with a
block of gold for money in the 'thirties when 'warlordism' was at its
height.

He even went through Japanese occupied Manchuria and Afghanistan
without too many problems.

Nobody asked him for a passport until he ended up at the Indian
border...

Try doing that today, indeed, try getting permission (and a visa) to
take a walking holiday in Western China and Afghanistan...

[peter skelton]

"jonathan" wrote in message
news:boCdnbJA0IuxEgPN...@giganews.com...

What was the peak number - something north of 750 IIRC. You
are grasping very thin straws

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:sutt9856lqk6233jj...@4ax.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>"jonathan" wrote in message
>news:boCdnbJA0IuxEgPN...@giganews.com...
>>

>>What about the meaning of the word 'concentration'. 166
>>people is hardly a mass concentration of people,
>>especially
>>considering half of them are approved for release. We just
>>seem to have problems finding any nation on ...Earth
>>willing
>>to take them.

>?

>>Funny about that~
>>
>
>What was the peak number - something north of 750 IIRC.
>

>You recall incorrectly. You're apparently thinking of the
>total
number of people to ever pass through it. That's rather
like claiming
that the peak number of occupants in an apartment in old
building is
somewhere north of 100.

Then give the number.

>Max occupancy the place is rated for is 612. It never hit
>that.

Reference for that lie please

>
>You are grasping very thin straws
>

>And you are making shit up. Which is sad, really, since
>it's hardly
necessary to do that to make Jonathan look silly on most
issues. The
facts work just fine.


Except, of course, that you have not come up with facts

[Andrew Swallow]

On 11/11/2012 00:34, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Uh, so what? How does that affect how far you can travel?
>
>
With some countries the official with the rank to let you in only turns
up for work occasionally.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:2qou989j025us2ckp...@4ax.com...

>Once again, sadly pathetic.

>Peter, please get some help for whatever the hell your
>problem is.


So you admit that you pulled the number out of your arse.

Fred, before the bottle got into you, you could provide a
light work-out and even came up with some information
occasionally. When you sober up look at the quality of your
bs from yesterday and what you were writing during the week.

[jonathan]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6s3t98dicjttpldh4...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:17:03 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The anti-American bias is so thick in here. A concentration
>>camp is where people that haven't committed any conventional
>>crimes are held, usually in large numbers and under harsh
>>conditions. None of those conditions apply at Gitmo.
>>
>>Half of the 166 inmates at Gitmo are already approved
>>for release, but guess what? Not a ...single nation on Earth
>>will take them, can anyone guess why that is? Hint; it's not
>>because they smell bad.
>
> And denying someone their nationality and their rights as a citizen is
> illegal.
>
> Will the US be taxing those countries about this law breaking activity
> as regards people who have never been convicted of any crime, even by
> a US 'military tribunal'?

This whole thing about Gitmo just points out the difficulties
between being a criminal or a prisoner of war.
How do you prosecute a battlefield 'arrest' if the
evidence and crime scene doesn't exist? And when
do the prisoners of war get to go home?
Is their jihad against us over yet?

Terrorists deliberately cross all those boundaries
to amplify their effects and power. The terrorists
are the ones that abused the 'grey areas' between
civilian and military.

Gitmo is the terrorist version of the Nuremberg trials.
It's what happens to the opposing leaders after
we've....won!

Did you cry for Rudolf Hess too? When they kept him
all alone in Spandau until he died?

>
>>> I suspect the value of the "interrogations" is overstated. Much as
>>> the idea that Muslim terrorists are the major threat to "freedom and
>>> democracy".
>>
>>
>>Since the Iraq invasion, Muslims have been fighting for and rioting
>>FOR democracy and freedom.
>

> All of them?

Don't be stupid. There will never be a time
when all agree on anything.

>
>>The Middle East is now in transition to democracy
>>and freedom is spreading like wildfire....literally speaking.
>
> And where has this much vaunted democracy taken power so far?
>

> So far it is in Egypt.

And Egypt dominates that region much like the
US dominates the Americas, Egypt going to democracy
is a big deal for a lot of people including us.

Democracy is spreading quickly throughout the region.
The uprising is barely two years old, it's rather unfair
to expect stable democracies to form so quickly.
Even if extremist groups manage to exploit the
situation here and there, of if democracy takes
different forms, it's clear what the people want.

More freedom and democracy!

Arab Spring

"The Arab Spring, a term given to the Arab Revolution[1]
is a revolutionary wave of demonstrations, protests, and
wars occurring in the Arab world that began on
18 December 2010.

To date, rulers have been forced from power in Tunisia,[2]
Egypt,[3] Libya,[4] andYemen;[5] civil uprisings have erupted
in Bahrain[6] and Syria;[7] major protests have broken out
in Algeria,[8] Iraq,[9] Jordan,[10] Kuwait,[11] Morocco,[12] and
Sudan;[13]and minor protests have occurred in Lebanon,[14]
Mauritania,[15] Oman,[16] Saudi Arabia,[17] Djibouti,[18] and
Western Sahara.[19] The major oil rich nations (Saudi Arabia,
UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman) have been able to keep
their ruling families in power."

"Some observers have drawn comparisons between the
Arab Spring movements and the pro-democratic, anti-Communist
Revolutions of 1989 (also known as the Autumn of Nations) that
swept through Eastern Europe and the Communist world, in terms
of their scale and significance.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

>
> The others are either falling into the hands of the fanatics or just
> back into the hands of a new 'elite group' or the people wanting
> change have been crushed.
>
>>We (freedom and democracy) are winning!
>
> I wish...
>
>>The Arab Spring is most certainly not business as usual, but
>>a regional explosion of public anger at the repression and
>>poverty their various dictatorships gave them. A spontaneous
>>eruption of pro-democracy movements. The old 'domino effect'
>>sprung to life, but this time for good.
>
> It actually has a great deal to do with youth unemployment coupled
> with education systems that produce young men with no expectation of a
> better life.
>
>
>
>>I feel much much safer now then before 9/11,
>
>
> Oh dear, you felt unsafe before that?

On an airplane, yeah, absolutely we're safer
now when it comes to terrorism. Are you nuts?

>
>
>>Our constitution is inviolable and enshrines the processes
>>of Nature in our laws and beliefs. That's not changing
>>anytime soon.
>
> Right...
>
> Your book of rules, written by a collection of slave owning farmers
> many years ago, and is patently obviously flawed in several ways, is
> the rulebook for the rest of us...

So I guess by your twisted logic, since our system of
government sucks so bad, then the reason America is
stronger politically, economically and militarily than
pretty much any other nation is why? Because Americans
are some kind of super race of people?

Is it the people or the system which accounts for the
differences between the western democracies and
the third world? Which is it?

Even a child knows it's the system.



s

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:nndv9818iql20b7qa...@4ax.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

>news:2qou989j025us2ckp...@4ax.com...
>
>>Once again, sadly pathetic.
>
>>Peter, please get some help for whatever the hell your
>>problem is.
>
>
>So you admit that you pulled the number out of your arse.
>

>Lie. Why don't you go look it up, Peter? You're the one
>pulling
numbers out of your ass.

Your number, you support it. (Good luck with that.)

>
>Fred, before the bottle got into you, you could provide a
>light work-out and even came up with some information
>occasionally. When you sober up look at the quality of your
>bs from yesterday and what you were writing during the
>week.
>

Peter, you really are insane in your urge for attention, to
the point
where you will tell the most scurrilous of lies.

I don't know what mental or emotional defect you're
suffering from,
but please seek some counseling.

[Keith W]

Judging by the fact that number of troops in Afghanistan
has increased since 2001 and that soldiers are still
being killed by the Taliban a declaration of victory
is rather premature

> Did you cry for Rudolf Hess too? When they kept him
> all alone in Spandau until he died?
>

Rudolf Hess was tried in public with a legal advocate
to present his case. That trial was held less than a year
after the end of hostilities. 10 years on that is not true
of most of the Gitmo internees. Many of those internees
were captured outside the combat areas and shipped
to Gitmo on rather flimsy evidence that would not stand up
in a civil court for a second.

>
>>
>>>> I suspect the value of the "interrogations" is overstated. Much as
>>>> the idea that Muslim terrorists are the major threat to "freedom
>>>> and democracy".
>>>
>>>
>>> Since the Iraq invasion, Muslims have been fighting for and rioting
>>> FOR democracy and freedom.
>>
>
>> All of them?
>
>
> Don't be stupid. There will never be a time
> when all agree on anything.
>
>
>>
>>> The Middle East is now in transition to democracy
>>> and freedom is spreading like wildfire....literally speaking.
>>
>> And where has this much vaunted democracy taken power so far?
>>
>
>> So far it is in Egypt.
>
> And Egypt dominates that region much like the
> US dominates the Americas, Egypt going to democracy
> is a big deal for a lot of people including us.
>

Egypt is regionally important in North Africa, it has little
or no influence in Central Asia or Iraq

> Democracy is spreading quickly throughout the region.
> The uprising is barely two years old, it's rather unfair
> to expect stable democracies to form so quickly.
> Even if extremist groups manage to exploit the
> situation here and there, of if democracy takes
> different forms, it's clear what the people want.
>

That is far from clear, in much of the Muslim world
democracy isn't even in the top 10 demands and almost
always falls far behind the imposition of Islamic law.

Egypt Lebanon and Iraq are actually rather atypical
in having sizable non Islamic communities.

Keith

[Bill]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:20:02 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6s3t98dicjttpldh4...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:17:03 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The anti-American bias is so thick in here. A concentration
>>>camp is where people that haven't committed any conventional
>>>crimes are held, usually in large numbers and under harsh
>>>conditions. None of those conditions apply at Gitmo.
>>>
>>>Half of the 166 inmates at Gitmo are already approved
>>>for release, but guess what? Not a ...single nation on Earth
>>>will take them, can anyone guess why that is? Hint; it's not
>>>because they smell bad.
>>
>> And denying someone their nationality and their rights as a citizen is
>> illegal.
>>
>> Will the US be taxing those countries about this law breaking activity
>> as regards people who have never been convicted of any crime, even by
>> a US 'military tribunal'?
>
>
>This whole thing about Gitmo just points out the difficulties
>between being a criminal or a prisoner of war.

Not to me it doesn't.

>How do you prosecute a battlefield 'arrest' if the
>evidence and crime scene doesn't exist?

You use the rules usually used in your country.

That's what you're fighting for.

And when
>do the prisoners of war get to go home?
>Is their jihad against us over yet?

If they're PoW's they have rights.

You know, access to the Red Cross, no torture, no irregular courts
for any crimes they're accused of, stuff like that...

>
>Terrorists deliberately cross all those boundaries
>to amplify their effects and power.

Terrorists are, and remain, criminals and should be treated as such.

The terrorists
>are the ones that abused the 'grey areas' between
>civilian and military.

No they're not. They're criminals, and that's all.

Perhaps your views would have been sharpened if your country has been
fighting the US sponsored IRA for a couple of decades.

>Gitmo is the terrorist version of the Nuremberg trials.

Oh no it most certainl;y isn't.

>It's what happens to the opposing leaders after
>we've....won!

Except that we haven't won, as the bodies still being flown home
show.

>
>Did you cry for Rudolf Hess too? When they kept him
>all alone in Spandau until he died?

He was a criminal, and convicted as one.

>> All of them?
>
>
>Don't be stupid. There will never be a time
>when all agree on anything.

Then stop saying 'Muslims' when you mean a proportion of a nation's
population many of whom are not followers of Islam.

>>>The Middle East is now in transition to democracy
>>>and freedom is spreading like wildfire....literally speaking.
>>
>> And where has this much vaunted democracy taken power so far?
>>
>
>> So far it is in Egypt.
>
>And Egypt dominates that region much like the
>US dominates the Americas,

Stupid boy...

Egypt going to democracy
>is a big deal for a lot of people including us.

Not when the Muslim Brotherhood is running things.

>Democracy is spreading quickly throughout the region.

Not so's anyone has noticed so far.

Look at Bahrain and Yemen where hundred and thousands have died but
the Saudi mercenary fanatics are doing what they're paid for.

Nobody in Syria has done much except kill.

>The uprising is barely two years old, it's rather unfair
>to expect stable democracies to form so quickly.

I'm disappointed that so little has come so far, e except for deaths.

>Even if extremist groups manage to exploit the
>situation here and there, of if democracy takes
>different forms, it's clear what the people want.

You're so sweet...

People like you should be preserved.

However the extant evidence is that you have no experience of the
region at all.

>More freedom and democracy!

I do hope so, but I fear not.

The repressive dead hand of the degenerate Gulf despots still have a
firm grip on the money.

>To date, rulers have been forced from power in Tunisia,[2]
>Egypt,[3] Libya,[4] andYemen;[5]

Take a close look at that Yemeni one, and Libya is in chaos

civil uprisings have erupted
>in Bahrain[6] and Syria;[7]

The Bahrain one has fizzled and the degenerate despot if busy locking
up doctors for having the temerity to treat the victims of Saudi
fanatic mercenaries

major protests have broken out
>in Algeria,[8] Iraq,[9] Jordan,[10] Kuwait,[11] Morocco,[12] and
>Sudan;[13]and minor protests have occurred in Lebanon,[14]
>Mauritania,[15] Oman,[16] Saudi Arabia,[17] Djibouti,[18] and
>Western Sahara.[19]

Let me know when anything significant happens.

The major oil rich nations (Saudi Arabia,
>UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman) have been able to keep
>their ruling families in power."

Well yes, they US allies...

>"Some observers have drawn comparisons between the
>Arab Spring movements and the pro-democratic, anti-Communist
>Revolutions of 1989 (also known as the Autumn of Nations) that
>swept through Eastern Europe and the Communist world, in terms
>of their scale and significance.'
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

But not their speed...

>>>I feel much much safer now then before 9/11,
>>
>>
>> Oh dear, you felt unsafe before that?
>
>On an airplane, yeah, absolutely we're safer
>now when it comes to terrorism. Are you nuts?

We always were.

Anyone who ever got on an aircraft and was afraid of terrorists needs
a short and reasonably simple course in statistics.

>So I guess by your twisted logic, since our system of
>government sucks so bad, then the reason America is
>stronger politically, economically and militarily than
>pretty much any other nation is why? Because Americans
>are some kind of super race of people?

No.

It's because you have the most passive workforce in the world coupled
with massive natural resources.

>Is it the people or the system which accounts for the
>differences between the western democracies and
>the third world? Which is it?

Goodness knows.

Almost certainly cultural differences.

And unlike you I've spent time in the 3rd World...

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 08/11/2012 07:43, Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:43:39 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This article paints a picture of a military with
>>> out of control corruption and incompetence.
>>>
>> You mean they're running a concentration camp their government can't
>> get them to close...
>>
>> Oh no, that's the USA...
>>
>
> Be careful what you call a concentration camp. People do not die in
> Grantanamo Bay.
>
> Andrew Swallow

Yet...and only because they were young, when they entered here...

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:09:12 +0000, Andrew Swallow
>> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/11/2012 13:47, peter skelton wrote:
>>>> "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
>>>> news:ZZWdnV_lC5sgFwbN...@bt.com...

>>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2012 07:43, Bill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:43:39 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This article paints a picture of a military with
>>>>>> out of control corruption and incompetence.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You mean they're running a concentration camp their government
>>>>> can't get them to close...
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh no, that's the USA...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Be careful what you call a concentration camp. People do not die
>>>>> in Grantanamo Bay.
>>>>

>>>> So you don't know what a concentration camp is? Here's a
>>>> definition for you
>>>>
>>>> "The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are
>>>> detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without
>>>> regard
>>>> to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a
>>>> constitutional democracy."
>>>>
>>>> There are other definitions, but the Shrub's lasting monument
>>>> usually qualifies easily.

>>>>
>>>>
>>> Out of date definition. Concentration Camp is now reserved for
>>> Hitler's death camps.
>>
>> Oh no it bloody isn't.
>>
>> The British camps in the Boer War were certainly concentration camps
>> and are still referred to as such.
>>
>

> Correct, but Guantanamo is not and fits no reasonable definition of
> 'concentration camp'.
>
> [Note that the Nisei resettlement during WWII *does* qualify as
> 'concentration camps'.]

Ah...good, so the US does infact recognize its concentrations camps then !

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>

>> On 09/11/2012 02:07, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2012 16:26, Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The British camps in the Boer War were certainly concentration
>>>>> camps and are still referred to as such.
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> They were the original ones. Bad logistics resulted in the camps
>>>> killing a lot of people but that was not the design aim.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually they weren't. The term originates several decades before
>>> that, with camps run by the Spanish in Cuba.
>>>
>>
>> Same idea but the Spanish ones had a different name.
>>
>
> Uh, no. In fact, the name originated with them (but in Spanish, of
> course) - 'reconcentrados (reconcentration camps)'.
>
> There were, of course, some earlier ones of similar purpose (Russian
> and American) that weren't called that

Oh my, same basic name, same basic concept, however a slightly different
outcome....oh well

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Andrew Swallow wrote:

> On 09/11/2012 02:13, peter skelton wrote:
>> "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

>> news:kqidndNRZcL_yQHN...@bt.com...

>>
>> On 08/11/2012 21:59, peter skelton wrote:
>>> "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

>>> news:V6udnURhK7mXIAbN...@bt.com...

>>>
>>> On 08/11/2012 13:47, peter skelton wrote:
>>>> "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
>>>> news:ZZWdnV_lC5sgFwbN...@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2012 07:43, Bill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:43:39 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This article paints a picture of a military with
>>>>>> out of control corruption and incompetence.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You mean they're running a concentration camp their government
>>>>> can't get them to close...
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh no, that's the USA...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Be careful what you call a concentration camp. People do not die
>>>>> in Grantanamo Bay.
>>>>
>>>> So you don't know what a concentration camp is? Here's a definition
>>>> for you
>>>>
>>>> "The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are
>>>> detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without
>>>> regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are
>>>> acceptable in a constitutional democracy."
>>>>
>>>> There are other definitions, but the Shrub's lasting monument
>>>> usually qualifies easily.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Out of date definition. Concentration Camp is now reserved for
>>>> Hitler's death camps.
>>>

>>> I got that definition from one of the memorial sites.
>>>
>>> http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263
>>>
>>> None of the dictionaries or style manuals (generally silent on the
>>> subject) I have around here agree with you.
>>>
>>> Try not to be such an idiot. When you're challenged, look the bloody
>>> thing up.
>>>
>>>
>>> See the section headed 'Shift in Meaning' in Wikipeadia.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Concentration_camp>
>>
>>
>> Your reference says you're incorrect. Here it is
>>
>> During the 20th century, the arbitrary internment of civilians by the
>> state reached a climax with Nazi concentration camps (1933-1945). As
>> a result, the term "concentration camp" carries many of the
>> connotations of "death camp" or "extermination camp", and is
>> sometimes used synonymously. But Nazi concentration camps were not
>> necessarily death camps. For example, they used some camps primarily
>> to house slave labor: the inmates were exploited rather than killed,
>> although many were worked to death or killed for refusing to work.
>>
>> Note the word 'sometimes'.
>>
>>
> A slow death rather than a quick death, so the Nazi camps were death
> camps. Gitmo is not a death camp.

Possibly not designed as such. Andrew, but can you actually and honestly
promise that ?

cheers....Jeff

> Andrew Swallow

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> "peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
>> news:ZZWdnV_lC5sgFwbN...@bt.com...
>>
>> On 08/11/2012 07:43, Bill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:43:39 -0500, "jonathan"
>>> <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This article paints a picture of a military with
>>>> out of control corruption and incompetence.
>>>>
>>> You mean they're running a concentration camp their
>>> government can't
>>> get them to close...
>>>
>>> Oh no, that's the USA...
>>>
>>
>>> Be careful what you call a concentration camp. People do
>>> not die in
>> Grantanamo Bay.
>>
>> So you don't know what a concentration camp is? Here's a
>> definition for you
>>
>> "The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which
>> people are detained or confined, usually under harsh
>> conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and
>> imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional
>> democracy."

"Legal norms of arrest and imprisoment", doesn'ty include torture, asswipe !

> And just where is that definition from? By that definition, every POW
> camp during WWII was a 'concentration camp'.

Primarily your morhers crew you mean, yeah, you're right.

>> There are other definitions, but the Shrub's lasting
>> monument usually qualifies easily.
>>
>

> Well, no, it doesn't. Not by any sane definition.

Well, yes, it does. Waterboarding, is a sane definition of torture.

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>

>> On 08/11/2012 07:43, Bill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:43:39 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This article paints a picture of a military with
>>>> out of control corruption and incompetence.
>>>>
>>> You mean they're running a concentration camp their government can't
>>> get them to close...
>>>
>>> Oh no, that's the USA...
>>>
>>
>> Be careful what you call a concentration camp. People do not die in
>> Grantanamo Bay.

I would definately challenge that assertion ! People, most defintely have
died in Guantanamo Bay and absolutely it was due to torture.

> Also be careful when you say the government can't get the military to
> close it. It's the government that won't order it closed (for some
> good reasons), not the military. The military keeps it open because
> the government tells them to.

Oh, you mean the Republican Party refusing to allocate the funds necessary
to close it down, do you ?

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>

>> "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

>> news:1kjn989p527dc39a6...@4ax.com...

>>
>> "peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
>>> news:ZZWdnV_lC5sgFwbN...@bt.com...
>>>

>>> On 08/11/2012 07:43, Bill wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:43:39 -0500, "jonathan"
>>>> <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This article paints a picture of a military with
>>>>> out of control corruption and incompetence.
>>>>>
>>>> You mean they're running a concentration camp their
>>>> government can't
>>>> get them to close...
>>>>
>>>> Oh no, that's the USA...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Be careful what you call a concentration camp. People do
>>>> not die in
>>> Grantanamo Bay.
>>>

>>> So you don't know what a concentration camp is? Here's a
>>> definition for you
>>>
>>> "The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which
>>> people are detained or confined, usually under harsh
>>> conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and
>>> imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional
>>> democracy."
>>>
>>

>>> And just where is that definition from? By that
>>> definition, every POW
>> camp during WWII was a 'concentration camp'.
>>

>> (From
>> http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263)
>>
>> Well obviously. What is your point?
>>
>
> My point is that they were NOT concentration camps by any sane
> definition.

No. Your point is fucked. The Fact is "The term concentration camp refers

to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh
conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that
are acceptable in a constitutional democracy."

YOUR"any sane definition", does not register with any SANE definition of
_your_ NAZI concentration camps !

>The definition your source gives is simply incorrect.

The definition is correct to everyone, except a NAZI supporter.

>>> There are other definitions, but the Shrub's lasting
>>> monument usually qualifies easily.

<much silly waffling and wriggling elided>

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

>> news:HvqdnWWkmZAAzAHN...@bt.com...

>>>> There are other definitions, but the Shrub's lasting
>>>> monument usually qualifies easily.
>>>>
>>>

>>> Well, no, it doesn't. Not by any sane definition.
>>>
>>

>>> The definition of Concentration Camp given above appears to
>>> be a
>> description from the Boer War. The Nazi cover-up used that
>> definition
>> to confuse investigators. I get worried when people still
>> try operating
>> the cover-up 67 years later.
>>
>> That is rather bull-shit
>>
>> Would you rather a Webster definition:
>>
>> "a guarded campground for the confinement of political
>> prisoners, minorities etc. esp any of the camps established
>> by the Nazis for the internment and persecution of
>> prisoners."
>>
>> Funk and Wagnals:
>>
>> "An enclosed camp for the confinement of political
>> prisoners, aliens, etc."
>>
>> Ask a Word
>>
>> "a camp where large numbers of persons-such as political
>> prisoners, prisoners of war, refugees-are detained for the
>> purpose of concentrating them in one place.
>> a camp or premises in which persons considered to be
>> undesirable by those who control it are hidden away,
>> mistreated, and even killed.
>> A situation wherein crowding and extremely harsh conditions
>> take place."
>>
>> Oxford
>>
>> "a place in which large numbers of people, especially
>> political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are
>> deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with
>> inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or
>> to await mass execution. The term is most strongly
>> associated with the several hundred camps established by the
>> Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe 1933-45, among the most
>> infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz."
>>
>> I can go on a long time. Gitmo is a concentration camp by
>> all the definitions.
>>
>
> That last sentence is demonstrably false. The folks at Gitmo are NOT
> "political prisoners", "members of a persecuted minority", "aliens",
> or any such thing. They are enemy combatants.

AND they rare _being_ tortured ! Warterboarding _IS_ torture !

> If Gitmo qualifies as a 'concentration camp' in Peter's tiny mind,
> then the 40+ camps that Canada ran during the 1940's to hold 35,000+
> Axis prisoners must also have been concentration camps. I disagree
> with Peter in this.

At this point then, you should be easily capable of supplying proof of
_WATERBOARDING_ then, shouldn't you ?

cheers....Jeff

[Andrew Swallow]

If Gitmo was built to be a death camp they would all be dead.

Andrew Swallow

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:29:44 -0500, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What about the meaning of the word 'concentration'. 166 people
>>> is hardly a mass concentration of people, especially considering
>>> half of them are approved for release. We just seem to have
>>> problems finding any nation on ...Earth willing to take them.
>>>
>>

>> So how many poor bastards locked in cages without trial and tortured
>> at regular intervals is enough?
>>
>
> I see you're not talking about Gitmo anymore (if you ever were).

Well do tell everyone about all the prisoners, who as of yet haven't had a
trial, but have been *warterboardered* and at regular intervals at that and
when it stopped. A date would help !

cheers....Jeff

[Bill]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:40:04 +0000, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:


>If Gitmo was built to be a death camp they would all be dead.

And so far nobody has claimed it was.

I understand Fred is trying desperately to cloud the issue here, but
I'm not sure as not many people reply to him and I've still got him
kill filed.