If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   US: "We condemn Russia for sending two members of the band Pussy Riot to some questionably legal and remote prison, where their human rights will doubtlessly be violated." Russia: "Uh, Gitmo much?"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 184
    More: Obvious, Gitmo, Russia, United States, human rights, U.S. Agency For International Development, State Duma, Guantanamo Bay prison, WTO  
•       •       •

1162 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Oct 2012 at 5:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-22 03:51:11 PM
Much as I don't agree with US policy that allows places like Gitmo to exist, I think it's fair to point out that throwing a couple singers into a dark hole for saying something the current administration doesn't like is not the same as locking up enemy combatants.
 
2012-10-22 03:52:40 PM
i1151.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-22 03:54:44 PM
That's a fair shot, and I think our detention camp at Gitmo should be shut down yesterday, but if you think a girl band is as threatening as a bunch of armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone, I don't think you're in much of a position to mock anyone.
 
2012-10-22 03:58:25 PM
We'd all have been much better off if we'd just taken Patton's leash off
 
2012-10-22 04:09:28 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We'd all have been much better off if we'd just taken Patton's leash off


A-yup.
 
2012-10-22 04:15:09 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We'd all have been much better off if we'd just taken Patton's leash off


No we wouldn't. Russian tanks were better than ours, Russian commanders were willing to accept millions of casualties to stop an enemy or to take territory, and Russian aircraft were pretty good and just as plentiful as ours. And in an air war, once again they were willing to take very high casualties. We could nuke them ( although not in May of 1945, we didn't have the bomb until late July ) but China, Japan, Alaska, Canada and the US Northwest would have been in the fallout zone. Not to mention that most of our Allies were broke, and had suffered heavy casualties and industrial damage. These include but are not limited to England, France, Canada, and Austrailia.
 
2012-10-22 04:20:14 PM

Voiceofreason01: Much as I don't agree with US policy that allows places like Gitmo to exist, I think it's fair to point out that throwing a couple singers into a dark hole for saying something the current administration doesn't like is not the same as locking up enemy combatants.


Pretty much.
 
2012-10-22 04:21:34 PM
Yes we are being hypocrites, but yes the Russians are being cocks.
 
2012-10-22 04:25:51 PM

Steve Zodiac: MaudlinMutantMollusk: We'd all have been much better off if we'd just taken Patton's leash off

No we wouldn't. Russian tanks were better than ours, Russian commanders were willing to accept millions of casualties to stop an enemy or to take territory, and Russian aircraft were pretty good and just as plentiful as ours. And in an air war, once again they were willing to take very high casualties. We could nuke them ( although not in May of 1945, we didn't have the bomb until late July ) but China, Japan, Alaska, Canada and the US Northwest would have been in the fallout zone. Not to mention that most of our Allies were broke, and had suffered heavy casualties and industrial damage. These include but are not limited to England, France, Canada, and Austrailia.


Russian tanks were better in only superficial ways that attract all the attention. Russian aircraft had nothing that remotely could challenge the P-51, and they had almost no heavy bombers. Heck, the B-29 might have had a higher ceiling than anything the Russians actually had. If Alaska wasn't in the fallout zone for Hiroshima, why would it be for Moscow?

Finally, we were feeding the Russian army, and they were just about tapped out personnel-wise while we were barely getting started. Pre-war populations were actually not too dissimilar, and once you subtract the 20 million mostly-military-aged losses to the Soviet Union, the horde was more likely to be the US than Russia.

I'm not saying it would have been a cake-walk, or easy, or even something worth doing. But we were in a shiatload better position than the Soviet Union. Fer Chrissakes even Khrushchev said that they couldn't feed the army without spam - and guess what we stop sending them in case of continuing the war? I don't know about Russian troops, but it's my understanding soldiers need to eat.
 
2012-10-22 04:26:01 PM

Voiceofreason01: is not the same as locking up enemy combatants.


That might be a bit of a strong word.
 
2012-10-22 04:29:01 PM

Voiceofreason01: Much as I don't agree with US policy that allows places like Gitmo to exist, I think it's fair to point out that throwing a couple singers into a dark hole for saying something the current administration doesn't like is not the same as locking up assumed enemy combatants.


They could all be singers as far as I know.
 
2012-10-22 04:30:14 PM

GAT_00: Yes we are being hypocrites, but yes the Russians are being cocks.


For once I agree with you.
 
2012-10-22 04:32:43 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We'd all have been much better off if we'd just taken Patton's leash off


There's absolutely no way to know this. None.
 
2012-10-22 04:33:34 PM

Relatively Obscure: MaudlinMutantMollusk: We'd all have been much better off if we'd just taken Patton's leash off

There's absolutely no way to know this. None.


Did turn out to be a halfway decent troll, though :)
 
2012-10-22 04:34:40 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Relatively Obscure: MaudlinMutantMollusk: We'd all have been much better off if we'd just taken Patton's leash off

There's absolutely no way to know this. None.

Did turn out to be a halfway decent troll, though :)


A-yup.
 
2012-10-22 04:35:31 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Relatively Obscure: MaudlinMutantMollusk: We'd all have been much better off if we'd just taken Patton's leash off

There's absolutely no way to know this. None.

Did turn out to be a halfway decent troll, though :)


FFFFFUUUUUUUU-


/I almost never know :(
 
2012-10-22 04:56:15 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Relatively Obscure: MaudlinMutantMollusk: We'd all have been much better off if we'd just taken Patton's leash off

There's absolutely no way to know this. None.

Did turn out to be a halfway decent troll, though :)


It would have to be. Patton would have gotten his ass kicked.
 
2012-10-22 04:59:16 PM

GAT_00: Yes we are being hypocrites, but yes the Russians are being cocks.


это 
 
2012-10-22 05:07:16 PM

mahuika: Voiceofreason01: is not the same as locking up enemy combatants.

That might be a bit of a strong word.



Thanks for posting that - sort of.

I've lost my appetite. I am nauseous. Sick.

Hey Fark PATRIOTS, read that before you vote, before you stump for YOUR candidate, and remember that, Republican or Democrat, this shiat went on under YOUR party's watch, and under YOUR president, and it is STILL going on.

What does that say about US as a people?

Also remember that thanks to the treacherous NDAA, this kind of inhumane injustice is no longer limited to foreigners - now YOU TOO can be imprisoned indefinitely - forever - without being charged, let alone convicted, and without any evidence being presented against you.

www.pcdon.com

God bless America - because we're better than THOSE guys, right?
 
2012-10-22 05:08:43 PM

Voiceofreason01: Much as I don't agree with US policy that allows places like Gitmo to exist, I think it's fair to point out that throwing a couple singers into a dark hole for saying something the current administration doesn't like is not the same as locking up enemy combatants.


That.
 
2012-10-22 05:09:00 PM

GAT_00: Yes we are being hypocrites, but yes the Russians are being cocks.


And if there's anything Team America taught us, it's that cocks fark Pussies.

/riot
 
2012-10-22 05:10:50 PM
A) Really? That's your argument? "No U"? "Both sides are bad so vote Putin"? We're being trolled.

B) If you consider a few women attention-whoring in a church the equivalent of terrorists dedicated to the death and destruction of Americans and American property, you need to sack up.
 
2012-10-22 05:11:00 PM

Nabb1: That's a fair shot, and I think our detention camp at Gitmo should be shut down yesterday, but if you think a girl band is as threatening as a bunch of armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone, I don't think you're in much of a position to mock anyone.


Yeah, but 'armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone', is just what they told us. We have no evidence of any of that.
 
2012-10-22 05:12:02 PM

Voiceofreason01: Much as I don't agree with US policy that allows places like Gitmo to exist, I think it's fair to point out that throwing a couple singers into a dark hole for saying something the current administration doesn't like is not the same as locking up enemy combatants.


It's okay when we do it (tm).
 
2012-10-22 05:12:55 PM

Alphax: Nabb1: That's a fair shot, and I think our detention camp at Gitmo should be shut down yesterday, but if you think a girl band is as threatening as a bunch of armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone, I don't think you're in much of a position to mock anyone.

Yeah, but 'armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone', is just what they told us. We have no evidence of any of that.


Those allegations are still more serious than "these chicks had guitars and were singing songs in a church."
 
2012-10-22 05:13:54 PM
Look, when Ted Nugent ends up in Gitmo, Russia might have a point. Until then, I kindly suggest they STFU and pluck the beam from their own eye before complaining about the sty in ours.
 
2012-10-22 05:13:56 PM

Nabb1: Alphax: Nabb1: That's a fair shot, and I think our detention camp at Gitmo should be shut down yesterday, but if you think a girl band is as threatening as a bunch of armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone, I don't think you're in much of a position to mock anyone.

Yeah, but 'armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone', is just what they told us. We have no evidence of any of that.

Those allegations are still more serious than "these chicks had guitars and were singing songs in a church."


Just allegations. We don't know.
 
2012-10-22 05:13:59 PM
Russia is right. Obama broke his promise.
 
2012-10-22 05:14:27 PM

Alphax: Nabb1: That's a fair shot, and I think our detention camp at Gitmo should be shut down yesterday, but if you think a girl band is as threatening as a bunch of armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone, I don't think you're in much of a position to mock anyone.

Yeah, but 'armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone', is just what they told us. We have no evidence of any of that.


The evidence we do have is that they lied their asses off about the entire "rmed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone" when necessary..
 
2012-10-22 05:14:58 PM
I agree and Obama tried to close Gitmo but the US congress blocked it.
 
2012-10-22 05:15:59 PM
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-22 05:16:24 PM

Ricardo Klement: Steve Zodiac: MaudlinMutantMollusk: We'd all have been much better off if we'd just taken Patton's leash off

No we wouldn't. Russian tanks were better than ours, Russian commanders were willing to accept millions of casualties to stop an enemy or to take territory, and Russian aircraft were pretty good and just as plentiful as ours. And in an air war, once again they were willing to take very high casualties. We could nuke them ( although not in May of 1945, we didn't have the bomb until late July ) but China, Japan, Alaska, Canada and the US Northwest would have been in the fallout zone. Not to mention that most of our Allies were broke, and had suffered heavy casualties and industrial damage. These include but are not limited to England, France, Canada, and Austrailia.

Russian tanks were better in only superficial ways that attract all the attention. Russian aircraft had nothing that remotely could challenge the P-51, and they had almost no heavy bombers. Heck, the B-29 might have had a higher ceiling than anything the Russians actually had. If Alaska wasn't in the fallout zone for Hiroshima, why would it be for Moscow?

Finally, we were feeding the Russian army, and they were just about tapped out personnel-wise while we were barely getting started. Pre-war populations were actually not too dissimilar, and once you subtract the 20 million mostly-military-aged losses to the Soviet Union, the horde was more likely to be the US than Russia.

I'm not saying it would have been a cake-walk, or easy, or even something worth doing. But we were in a shiatload better position than the Soviet Union. Fer Chrissakes even Khrushchev said that they couldn't feed the army without spam - and guess what we stop sending them in case of continuing the war? I don't know about Russian troops, but it's my understanding soldiers need to eat.


True that but they have the territory so we would be fighting a defended position and we would have the logistics of shipping even more crap "over there". I see your logic but we would've had to finish the war by fall. There are two truths in past military history never invade Afghanistan and don't take on the Ruskies in a military campaign during winter. At least if you don't want your empire to fall.
 
2012-10-22 05:17:21 PM

Amos Quito: Also remember that thanks to the treacherous NDAA, this kind of inhumane injustice is no longer limited to foreigners - now YOU TOO can be imprisoned indefinitely - forever - without being charged, let alone convicted, and without any evidence being presented against you.


You should educate yourself. The NDAA did not increase the powers at all for it to apply to US citizens, it could be used on US citizens before the NDAA was signed. It even states in the NDAA that it gives no additional powers.

You sound like an idiot when you regurgitate incorrect talking points.
 
2012-10-22 05:18:11 PM

badaboom: Russia is right. Obama broke his promise.


This is the problem with presidential promises: the balance of powers means they can't really deliver without help. Had he not even tried, I would hold it against him more. Instead, it's just a little more Obama pre-presidential naïveté.
 
2012-10-22 05:18:29 PM
Remember when the US could claim moral superiority over the Russians? That was nice.

Gitmo and all that other orwellian shiat that Bush started and Obama (and congress) hasn't stopped is a black eye that every tyrant in the world can point to whenever we criticize human rights abuses in other countries.
 
2012-10-22 05:18:40 PM
i1.kym-cdn.com
"At long last, my submission - green lighted!"
 
2012-10-22 05:19:22 PM
At least they weren't taken outside and shot.
/well not yet anyway.
 
2012-10-22 05:19:42 PM

badaboom: Russia is right. Obama broke his promise.


HOW DO I SHOT FILLIBUSTER?
 
2012-10-22 05:21:09 PM

Corvus: You should educate yourself. The NDAA did not increase the powers at all for it to apply to US citizens, it could be used on US citizens before the NDAA was signed. It even states in the NDAA that it gives no additional powers.


Minor point - there was an expansion of application to people who simply 'support', rather than materially support, those organizations. It was mostly accidental, and wouldn't stand up for a second in court because the NDAA is simply codification of AUMF powers and that wasn't part of the AUMF, but still.
 
2012-10-22 05:22:47 PM

Voiceofreason01: Much as I don't agree with US policy that allows places like Gitmo to exist, I think it's fair to point out that throwing a couple singers into a dark hole for saying something the current administration doesn't like is not the same as locking up enemy combatants.


Yeah, even Bush/Cheney didn't stooping to jailing, for instance, the Dixie Chicks.
 
2012-10-22 05:23:31 PM

Zombie Butler: True that but they have the territory so we would be fighting a defended position and we would have the logistics of shipping even more crap "over there". I see your logic but we would've had to finish the war by fall. There are two truths in past military history never invade Afghanistan and don't take on the Ruskies in a military campaign during winter. At least if you don't want your empire to fall.


No, don't take on Russians IN RUSSIA during the winter. A hypothetcal war wasn't to conquer Russia but to free Poland, the Baltics, Romania, and west.

Throw in the fragility of their rolling stock and the horrible state of the rail net in Poland in 1945, and really, the Soviets were in a really bad position. The appalling thing is that things didn't actually improve much for them logistically. When the Soviet Union fell, defense analysts eagerly started looking into the Soviet archives for answers to Cold War questions. Among other things, they discovered that the rail net had not significantly improved - bomb the rail net in Warsaw, and the Soviets would have been unable to sustain any ops in East Germany or Hungary (or any point West).
 
2012-10-22 05:24:54 PM

Epoch_Zero: [i1.kym-cdn.com image 500x334]
"At long last, my submission - green lighted!"


lol

"Ok, now you click the Funny and Smart buttons on my comment. C'mon....click them...click them....I'm waiting...."
 
2012-10-22 05:26:14 PM

Nabb1: Alphax: Nabb1: That's a fair shot, and I think our detention camp at Gitmo should be shut down yesterday, but if you think a girl band is as threatening as a bunch of armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone, I don't think you're in much of a position to mock anyone.

Yeah, but 'armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone', is just what they told us. We have no evidence of any of that.

Those allegations are still more serious than "these chicks had guitars and were singing songs in a church."


Yeah the false allegations against the 13 year old boy who spent 14 months in Gitmo after he was handed over to the US military for $100 in 2001 were pretty serious if I recall
 
2012-10-22 05:27:04 PM

Voiceofreason01: Much as I don't agree with US policy that allows places like Gitmo to exist, I think it's fair to point out that throwing a couple singers into a dark hole for saying something the current administration doesn't like is not the same as locking up enemy combatants.


The US would have a better leg to stand on if they went to the effort of proving all the folks at Gitmo actually were enemy combatants and not random guys that afghan rebels captured and sold to the US for a bounty.

Or if the US didn't invent an entirely new definition of criminal so they wouldn't have to apply US or international law to them.

Or if the US didn't water board / torture them.

Or if the first person they convicted wasn't a child when the US picked him up.

Yes - the Russians are being a lot more totalitarian to their own population, but the US has a lot of work to do before they're in a position to cast much judgement and be taken seriously.
 
2012-10-22 05:28:04 PM
How about all the women that Romney has in binders? Who will speak for them?
 
2012-10-22 05:29:04 PM
Since Obama failed to close Gitmo, we should vote for the party that created Gitmo in the first place. Or vote our conscious for an unelectable who's-that-guy candidate who can be idealistically pure.

/then we'll get mad when Republicans win and build more Gitmos, blaming everyone but ourselves
 
2012-10-22 05:31:13 PM

Alphax: Nabb1: Alphax: Nabb1: That's a fair shot, and I think our detention camp at Gitmo should be shut down yesterday, but if you think a girl band is as threatening as a bunch of armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone, I don't think you're in much of a position to mock anyone.

Yeah, but 'armed religious fanatics engaged in hostilities in a combat zone', is just what they told us. We have no evidence of any of that.

Those allegations are still more serious than "these chicks had guitars and were singing songs in a church."

Just allegations. We don't know.


I'm not arguing the merits of the charges. Murder is a more serious charge than jaywalking. If someone is facing the death penalty for murder, while I disagree with the death penalty, I can see where arguments can be made for it. If someone is facing the death penalty for jaywalking, even most people who favor the death penalty would probably find that to be a bit much.
 
2012-10-22 05:31:40 PM
The Russians are learning about the Streisand Effect with this one.

Gitmo is full of questionable people with names that don't mean anything to most of the world.

There's something about the name that guarantees press coverage of a something named Pussy Riot. Their better option would have been sentencing them to probation and community service with a provision that they not contact each other for the period of the probation. Then you can suppress them all you want later on as probation violators.
 
2012-10-22 05:33:36 PM

Corvus: Amos Quito: Also remember that thanks to the treacherous NDAA, this kind of inhumane injustice is no longer limited to foreigners - now YOU TOO can be imprisoned indefinitely - forever - without being charged, let alone convicted, and without any evidence being presented against you.

You should educate yourself. The NDAA did not increase the powers at all for it to apply to US citizens, it could be used on US citizens before the NDAA was signed. It even states in the NDAA that it gives no additional powers.

You sound like an idiot when you regurgitate incorrect talking points.



Hey, I don't like being wrong. Would you please correct me? With cites?

So when exactly was habeus corpus originally suspended for US citizens on US soil?

And if it was already suspended, why bother to pass the redundant attachment to NDAA last January?

And if it did nothing, why did Obama make that (worthless) "signing statement", and "promise" that HE would NEVER use these powers while in office?

I await your instructive and cited corrections, good sir.
 
2012-10-22 05:34:41 PM

Amos Quito: So when exactly was habeus corpus originally suspended for US citizens on US soil?


During Abraham Lincoln's presidency.
 
Displayed 50 of 184 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report