Ex-Guantanamo prisoner led attack

[Big Don]

Ex-Guantanamo prisoner led attack

Washington Times/AP
Excerpt:
By Ben Fox
May 7, 2008
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A Kuwaiti who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo for more than 3 ½ years carried out a recent suicide attack in Iraq, the U.S. military said today.

Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi took part in one of three suicide bomb attacks last month in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, said U.S. Navy Cmdr. Scott Rye, a military spokesman.

It appears to be the first time someone who was held at the prison at the U.S. base in Cuba has carried out a suicide attack, said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon.

Al-Ajmi, 29, was transferred in 2005 to Kuwait, where the government was supposed to ensure he would not pose a threat. In May 2006, a Kuwaiti court acquitted him and four other former Guantanamo prisoners of terrorism charges.
---------------
Gee, they aren't all innocent little lambs? I am shocked...[/sarcasm]

 

[mrhnau]

In May 2006, a Kuwaiti court acquitted him and four other former Guantanamo prisoners of terrorism charges.

They sure got that one right.:cuss:

 

[Tez3]

What if he were innocent before he went to Guantanamo and was recruited there? Or if being put in there as an innocent man made him into a terrorist?

 

[Empty Hands]

What if he were innocent before he went to Guantanamo and was recruited there? Or if being put in there as an innocent man made him into a terrorist?

Oh no Tez, everyone captured and put into Guantanamo were evil terrorists captured in the act by pure hearted good guys. The only reason any were released is that the evil commie LIEbruls in the ACLU forced our good and wise leaders to let them go. Only a LIEbrul would insist on rules of evidence and procedure for evil terrorists.

Just ask Big Don!

 

[punisher73]

Ex-Guantanamo prisoner led attack

Washington Times/AP
Excerpt:
By Ben Fox
May 7, 2008

It appears to be the first time someone who was held at the prison at the U.S. base in Cuba has carried out a suicide attack, said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon.

Al-Ajmi, 29, was transferred in 2005 to Kuwait, where the government was supposed to ensure he would not pose a threat. In May 2006, a Kuwaiti court acquitted him and four other former Guantanamo prisoners of terrorism charges.
---------------
Gee, they aren't all innocent little lambs? I am shocked...[/sarcasm]

Notice the wording of the story? It doesn't say this is the first terrorist attack done by one of the prisoners in Guantanamo, it's the first SUICIDE ATTACK. Why not word it differently and highlight the point that others prisoners that have been released WERE TERRORISTS and have carried out attacks.

 

[CoryKS]

Well, at least he won't do that again. Personally, I like the fact that we have enemies that kill themselves. Just wish there were more premature detonations.

 

[Grenadier]

Even if you're falsely imprisoned, that doesn't give you the right to go out and murder people, no matter how much you may disagree with the sentence.

Would you be equally as sympathetic if one of the hostages from the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran, made a trip over to Iran, and blew himself up in an attempt to murder multiple people? I can guarantee you that those hostages went through much worse, than what the prisoners at Gitmo had gone through.

In the end, Al-Ajmi made a conscious decision to carry out the suicide bombing, and he (and his cohorts) bears the responsibility for what happened.

While it remains to be determined whether or not the initial imprisonment at Gitmo were justified, that's a separate matter in and of itself.

 

[Tez3]

Disregarding politics and any emotional views on the subject of holding people on suspicion of doing something rather than known facts is that when you put people who may well be innocent in with people who are known extremists you stand a very high chance of having them turned into terrorists. they will be with these extremists 24/7 and they will be more or less brain washed or blackmailed into joining them. It would be very hard for any innocent inmate to resist going along with his fellow inmates, almost impossible.
For purely practical reasons if not human rights these prisoners should all be tried and then depending on whether innocent or guilty be imprisoned or set free.
For the families of prisoners too the pressure on them by the terrorists is great, they too can be pressurised or blackmailed into joining "the cause", saying no is rarely an option.

 

[Archangel M]

Bs

 

[Grenadier]

they will be with these extremists 24/7 and they will be more or less brain washed or blackmailed into joining them. It would be very hard for any innocent inmate to resist going along with his fellow inmates, almost impossible.

And the inmates have a choice to not listen. They can summon the guards to have an offender's harassment stopped.

This guy joined willingly, and made a conscious decision to attempt murder. He had all of the power in the world to not do so, and could have simply decided not to go out and murder people.

For the families of prisoners too the pressure on them by the terrorists is great, they too can be pressurised or blackmailed into joining "the cause", saying no is rarely an option.

Gang members are in your asserted situation as well.

Should gang members be afforded the same sympathies? If a gangbanger goes out and murders a dozen people, should they not be held accountable for their actions, because their fellow gang members might pressure their families? Should they be given sympathies when they're caught dealing drugs to school children? Does being associated with unwholesome individuals give someone a free pass?

Each person who commits a crime is accountable for his own actions. The final choice to do, or not to do, a heinous act is within the person himself. It's not a matter of finding excuses for someone's actions. Instead, it's about holding people accountable for the actions that they take, for good, or for evil.

 

[Tez3]

It's very easy to be judgemental and take the moral high ground. It's much harder to put yourself in someones shoes and understand why things happen. I said understand, I didn't say condone or apologise for.
sometimes choice isn't given. If someone says your family will be murdered unless you do as we say, it's very hard 'not to listen'.
What would you do? The extremists are called that because they are willing to do anything to have what they want, if they say they will kill your family unless you become a suicide bomber are you really going to take that risk, are you going to tell the guards. Morally and properly you shouldn't listen to them and you should tell the guards everything but are you going to?
As for not listening to the drip drip drip of the other prisoners talk, it's very difficult as it's sympathic, it's invidious and it's convincing. You won't be harangued or shouted at, it's far cleverer than that, how do you think they recruit in the first place? It's far from harassment. How do any terrorist or for that matter political party recruit? They play to your weaknesses, your beliefs and convince you that they are right.
Sadly things are never that black and white in the world of terrorism or anythiong else for that matter.

 

[punisher73]

It's very easy to be judgemental and take the moral high ground. It's much harder to put yourself in someones shoes and understand why things happen. I said understand, I didn't say condone or apologise for.
sometimes choice isn't given. If someone says your family will be murdered unless you do as we say, it's very hard 'not to listen'.
What would you do? The extremists are called that because they are willing to do anything to have what they want, if they say they will kill your family unless you become a suicide bomber are you really going to take that risk, are you going to tell the guards. Morally and properly you shouldn't listen to them and you should tell the guards everything but are you going to?
As for not listening to the drip drip drip of the other prisoners talk, it's very difficult as it's sympathic, it's invidious and it's convincing. You won't be harangued or shouted at, it's far cleverer than that, how do you think they recruit in the first place? It's far from harassment. How do any terrorist or for that matter political party recruit? They play to your weaknesses, your beliefs and convince you that they are right.
Sadly things are never that black and white in the world of terrorism or anythiong else for that matter.

Hmm, on the one hand you are syaing that they are threatening your family unless you join. Then it's the clever ploy you don't see coming.

You ALWAYS have a choice, you may not like the choices, but it's always up to you. HMMMM, that was tried once before...let me see, where was it? OH That's right! That was the defense used in the Nuremburg trials, that they were just following orders and didn't have a choice.

Also, it is estimated that 5-10% of those released returned to their former ties and have since been a part of attacks.

 

[Sukerkin]

Forgive me if I'm mis-recalling, Punisher (leaky memory day today ) but aren't you an LEO? I have a similar inkling of police/military with Archangel too.

I only mention it because, to me, it is quite chilling when ordinary people start talking so 'hardline', without considering just what it would be like to be in the discussed persons place. It gets a whole lot worse when professional/career law enforcers and soldiers talk the same way. That brings back images of little silver lightning flashes on peoples collars - :shudders:.

I also just wanted to remind everyone that whilst answers are bound to get 'sharp' in a topic like this, the conversation rolls much better if people discuss and listen to each others points of view rather than dismiss out of hand. That's particularly true when one of the contributors is pretty well experienced when it comes to matters of terrorism.

 

[Tez3]

I'm saying either techniques can be used to get people to join or perhaps a combination of both. Things are never as simple as having a straight choice of right or wrong not even in Hitler's Germany and I say that as the child of a concentration camp survivor.
We may know what is right and wrong but when other factors are called into play decisions are very difficult to make sometimes.
As I said I'm not condoning or excusing terrorists but to combat it you have to understand how terrorists recruit, how they use propaganda and how they persuade people to support them.
During the years of the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland a great deal of fundraising for the IRA which bought arms and explosives for them was done in America with many Americans declaring the right of the IRA to kill British people on the mainland. They must have known that it was wrong, they had a choice and they chose to support the murderers.
The IRA used people to drive car bombs to army bases and blow them up, this was done by telling them their families would be killed if they didn't co operate, of course they had a choice they could have refused then they and their families would have been shot. The IRA (and its Protestant equivilants) would also use terror against it's own people to ensure co-operation as does Hamas and many other terrorist groups, rarely is saying no an option.
Many terror groups will use persuasion on idealistic young people or those who've suffered promising them vengeance for their perceived suffering. it means that these types don't see what they are doing as wrong rather than doing it out of fear for their families.
Putting so many people into a camp and holding them without trial is asking for trouble as you are breeding terrorists instead of bringing them to justice.
Ask yourselves how many petty criminals have gone to prison and actually learnt more about how to commit crimes and ally themselves with more dangerous people than they would have done if they hadn't been sent down? Would they have been better not being put in with more experienced and violent people?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I think a look at the broader perspective may help here.

The U.S. is fighting two incompatible types of war at the same time. They are trying to win the hearts and minds, but have a decent amount of collatreral damage. We capture prisoners of war and treat them as though they are simple thieves or burglars.

We need to either conquer Iraq like many countries have throughout history, or fight a proper guerilla war. Unfortunately, based on my studies, there is no real in between.

 

[SageGhost83]

I'm saying either techniques can be used to get people to join or perhaps a combination of both. Things are never as simple as having a straight choice of right or wrong not even in Hitler's Germany and I say that as the child of a concentration camp survivor.
We may know what is right and wrong but when other factors are called into play decisions are very difficult to make sometimes.
As I said I'm not condoning or excusing terrorists but to combat it you have to understand how terrorists recruit, how they use propaganda and how they persuade people to support them.
During the years of the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland a great deal of fundraising for the IRA which bought arms and explosives for them was done in America with many Americans declaring the right of the IRA to kill British people on the mainland. They must have known that it was wrong, they had a choice and they chose to support the murderers.
The IRA used people to drive car bombs to army bases and blow them up, this was done by telling them their families would be killed if they didn't co operate, of course they had a choice they could have refused then they and their families would have been shot. The IRA (and its Protestant equivilants) would also use terror against it's own people to ensure co-operation as does Hamas and many other terrorist groups, rarely is saying no an option.
Many terror groups will use persuasion on idealistic young people or those who've suffered promising them vengeance for their perceived suffering. it means that these types don't see what they are doing as wrong rather than doing it out of fear for their families.
Putting so many people into a camp and holding them without trial is asking for trouble as you are breeding terrorists instead of bringing them to justice.
Ask yourselves how many petty criminals have gone to prison and actually learnt more about how to commit crimes and ally themselves with more dangerous people than they would have done if they hadn't been sent down? Would they have been better not being put in with more experienced and violent people?

And don't forget about the people who are born into a horrible position. One side gives them a way out, while the other side just makes empty promises and leaves them to suffer in that horrible position. Terrorism and/or crime may not ordinarily be their choice, but if the ones recruiting them use the promise of getting out of their bad situation as a recruitment tool while the other side just simply ignores or lets that suffering continue, then it is not hard to see why terrorists and/or criminals have such an easy time gaining ranks. If a kid born into a dysfunctional family, or without a family altogether, is just simply going to be bounced around from foster home to foster home, then it is easy to see why he/she would be easily recruited into a street gang (or god forbid a terrorist cell) that gives them, if nothing else, a sort of consistent family and a feeling of belonging. I am not condoning their actions or making excuses for them, just trying to offer an extra insight.

 

[CoryKS]

Forgive me if I'm mis-recalling, Punisher (leaky memory day today ) but aren't you an LEO? I have a similar inkling of police/military with Archangel too.

I only mention it because, to me, it is quite chilling when ordinary people start talking so 'hardline', without considering just what it would be like to be in the discussed persons place. It gets a whole lot worse when professional/career law enforcers and soldiers talk the same way. That brings back images of little silver lightning flashes on peoples collars - :shudders:.

What a weaselly, sniveling way of calling someone a Nazi. Did you think that talking around it would soften the effect, or did you think the stupid merkins wouldn't pick up on it? This thread is Godwinned.

 

[Kacey]

[playnice]Karen Cohn[/playnice]

 

[Sukerkin]

You mistook my meaning, Cory. I would hope you'd know me better by now than to think so ill of me . If I was going to do such a thing I'd just say it and voluntarily withdraw my membership (and check to see if such out of character action meant I'd had my psyche hijacked by aliens).

I was not trying to slyly sneak in a 'Nazi' dig in terms of direct personal insult but rather alluding to the fact that the rise of the tenets of that horrid regime was, in part, made possible and then supported by the willingness to set aside a feeling of common humanity.

Callous disregard for another 'category' of peoples rights and freedoms, when displayed by those in a position to project authority is something that should be a cause for concern for the very reason that it is a dangerous path walked before.

I've reread my post above that aroused your ire and I can't see how you could easily draw the savage conclusion you did. Perhaps it's because I know what I meant and so just don't make the sideways link you did.

Like I said at the start - if I'm going to call you something, then I will do so straight out; no point trying to hide a deliberate insult to my way of thinking. If it's the case that others take the meaning of my words the way you did, then I apologise for the distress.

 

[SageGhost83]

You mistook my meaning, Cory. I would hope you'd know me better by now than to think so ill of me . If I was going to do such a thing I'd just say it and voluntarily withdraw my membership (and check to see if such out of character action meant I'd had my psyche hijacked by aliens).

I was not trying to slyly sneak in a 'Nazi' dig in terms of direct personal insult but rather alluding to the fact that the rise of the tenets of that horrid regime was, in part, made possible and then supported by the willingness to set aside a feeling of common humanity.

Callous disregard for another 'category' of peoples rights and freedoms, when displayed by those in a position to project authority is something that should be a cause for concern for the very reason that it is a dangerous path walked before.

I've reread my post above that aroused your ire and I can't see how you could easily draw the savage conclusion you did. Perhaps it's because I know what I meant and so just don't make the sideways link you did.

Like I said at the start - if I'm going to call you something, then I will do so straight out; no point trying to hide a deliberate insult to my way of thinking. If it's the case that others take the meaning of my words the way you did, then I apologise for the distress.

Agreed. Your point could just as easily be applied to any regime that has committed gross human rights violations, not just the Nazis. I certainly didn't take it as a Nazi dig. The signs are the signs, and those signs have always been a dangerous harbinger, so I am glad that you pointed that out and how such attitudes are a slippery slope of categorizing (sp?) people in such a manner. You could've been alluding to Manifest Destiny in America for all we know, there are definitely plenty of examples throughout history of where such tenets can take us.